Correcting mistakes.

Maywood

Oftentimes it seems when writers/researchers are cataloguing items for a book they are exploring an area not already familiar to the general Hobby. This might be areas of Exonumia, die marriages or varieties that haven't been looked at closely before. It is understandable that mistakes are made. Things can be misinterpreted or not studied closely because they are just being researched in depth for the first time.

When mistakes are made do you believe it's important to correct them in subsequent publications or printings of references?? If not done in such a way, do you think it's important that when such items are offered in an auction, particularly by the major firms, that mistakes/errors are mentioned and corrected??

Maywood.

sellitstore

The status of a few colonial coins are the first examples that comes to mind.

It turns out that the Continental Dollar was not a pattern for a new U.S. dollar but rather a medal made in Europe in the 1780s. Also turns out that the 1793 wasn't the first U.S. cent. The 1787 Fugio was the first authorized official U.S. cent. The 1793 was the first made at a U.S. mint.

Now these are not obscure areas of numismatics. We have been studying colonials for years. But better research has expanded the body of knowledge such that we are still making discoveries and correcting past errors.

Catbert

I wish the Encyclopedia of U.S. Coins was updated to correct errors known there. I realize that would be a huge undertaking.

Of course I'd prefer that an auction house be scrupulously accurate with their descriptions!

Maywood

in subsequent publications or printings

I think I should clarify this to read "new books or subsequent editions" of books already in print.

AUandAG

Yes, correct the errors or mistakes. I proved that the first minting of CC dollars was on Feb 4th, 1870 but all the references I see and have seen say Feb 11, 1870. There is a reason for the error and it becomes obvious from a bit of research.
There was no hype to the first striking of the coins by Mint director or such. No newspaper coverage on the 4th.
The first news coverage was on the 11th when the Director and a couple of guards escorted a woman down the main street to make a deposit at her bank with the new dollars (1,100 of them). This was on Feb 11th and guards walking down Carson St did catch everyone's attention. Thus it was incorectly assumed that this was the date of the first striking.

I hope the errors get corrected.

bob

yosclimber

I have my seated half dime die variety guide online, with one PDF file per date-mintmark; it is partially complete.
I make corrections to the PDF files when errors are found.
There is no stock of unsold books with errors to create problems.
Some collectors will have downloaded PDFs that have since been updated,
so I have a Change Log that shows what has been changed and when.
https://sites.google.com/view/clintcummins/half-dime-attribution-guide

sellitstore

And, yes, it is important to make updates and corrections in future editions of catalogs and references. My copy of the Haxby catalog has hundreds of corrections available if a new edition is to be published. There are currently no plans for this. However, I used this information when doing the pricing for some of the states in the new Kelly obsolete bank note catalog.

Namvet69

I think a correction insert or addendum would be an easier solution for book owners. Peace Roy