Pattern Rarities Question

RKKay

Okay pattern guys. If a pattern is in Judd as an R5 (e.g. J-1554), but is split up into 3 very minor varieties by Pollock (e.g. P-1733, 1737, 1741), each of which is called an R6 or R7, is it wrong to call any of those varieties anything but an R5? Or, should they be called R6 or R7, but be valued as if they were the R5s they seem to be?

coinguy1

Rick, I would recommend describing them as R5 for the type but R6 or R7 for the specific minor variety.

Gilbert

I'm NOT a pattern guy, but I would have responded as Mark did, with one clarification, if identified by the sub-variety number, I would use the appropriate rarity designator.

Mark

Rick:

On the other hand, I believe Heritage almost always goes with the higher R number. Plus, some years back it seemed as if they would misattribute Pollock's varieties and almost always they would wind up with the scarcer variety with the higher R number. I haven't checked recently to see if they still make these errors.

That said, I think Mark Feld's method is the best--it's honest and conveys information...sorta like Mark Feld himself....

Mark

RKKay

I agree. I always wonder, because, to me, it should be the less scarce. I like the idea of saying it is a lower R, with the qualifier. Thanks.

Lakesammman

Rick:

If I'm buying, it's R5. If selling, R7.

RKKay

Good approach, Tim.

MrEureka

If you call it J1554, call it R5. If you call it by the Pollock #, then R6 or R7.

Mark

Andy brings up a good point. In some instances Pollock corrected Judd's R numbers for the exact same pattern. So, in that case I'd go with Pollock's R rating because I figure his is the latest information.

Do others agree with me to go with Pollock's R rating (for the exact same pattern) rather than Judd's R rating, or are there those who would go with Judd's R rating?

Mark

RKKay

I'd agree to some extent, but would also confirm with uspatterns.com.

Society of US Pattern Collectors

Lakesammman

For IHC/FE cents, I tend to trust Snow's as his is the latest. His 1856-58 attribution guide lists all sources in a handy, single reference page. I then check the pop. reports for "reality". Unfortunately, all are only estimates of production and survival.

Julian

Andy is correct, but if you have it properly attributed, then it should be listed as that variety with the corresponding rarity.