When is it OK to name a die state as a variety? 1846 Medium Date "12 star" variety LC.

RLSnapper

These 1846 Medium Date LC have been following me around so it seems. I saw this one on Ebay and couldn't help but notice star 6 was essentially missing. I checked all my reference catalogues and there was no mention of a 12 star variety.
I find this unusual because the 1855 slanted 55 N-10 is widely collected with the same clogged die and exact same star missing. Grellman mentions this die state in passing but makes no mention of its scarcity. I have never seen another so...I bought it for under my $100 limit.
I hereby dub it the 1846 Medium Date 12 star variety.....now I just need to get Bob Grellman to add it to his book and I am set!
Let me know what you think of my new LC.

yosclimber

Is it:
1. A permanent change in the die,
or
2. A temporary filled die (grease, etc.)?

If (1.) it is a die state.
If it is a die state, there is still a question of whether it is significant, collectible and deserves a separate number/ID in the die stage sequence.

If (2.) it is an error.

And still a cool coin, however it is classified.

How about a "12.1 star" error, as the star is faintly visible?
Sort of like a 3 1/2 leg or a 2.1 feather buffalo nickel.

lilolme

Here is one in coinfacts images. Weak star but not as much so as the OP.
From yosclimaber above would this be a 12.5 star.

Manifest_Destiny

I've never been a fan of die states, that includes the 1922 no D cent and 3 legged buffalo.

epc

When I was actively collecting LCs, I thought collecting coins from different die marriages and die states was nuts. Now I'm nuts with half dimes. Enjoy that 1846!

Aotearoa

The three distinct die states of the 1804 LC - S-266A, B and C - are sometimes presented as varieties. A precedent of sorts…

tcollects

I use different die states as an excuse to justify buying multiples of the same coin

FlyingAl

It's ok to do when it's been publicly published. That's my opinion.