New Judd numbers - should there be an ANA committee??

Lakesammman

Was surprised to read in the Cheerios thread that new Judd numbers can be created by the owners of the Judd book, Whitman publishing.

I could buy the rights (in theory) and rearrange ALL the numbers.

Wouldn't it make sense for there to be a committee of perhaps the ANA, experts w/o an economic incentive who know this stuff, to make these decisions??

Dennis88

I go for the second option. Offcourse, catalog numbers are changed frequently (see J-1776), but most of the time it's just bad for the people. Why change something where you are used too?

The case with patterns is that there are regurarly new discoveries made. But I think Judd just had to leave every 25 numbers 5 or 10 numbers blank. The problems would be solved then......

Just my 2 cents,

Dennis

flaminio

I wouldn't mind seeing a standardization of variety numbering across all coinage issues.

MrEureka

Of course it's best that experts make the numbering decisions. Whitman knows this and delegates this responsibility to the authors, all of whom are experts on patterns. The authors consult with other experts when the they are uncertain as to how to proceed. There's abosolutely no need to bring in the ANA or give authority to a different group of experts.

As for redoing the entire numbering system, it has been considered and rejected, except for the post-1896 issues which were renumbered in the 8th edition. Keep in mind that renumbering would leave many thousands of coins sitting in improperly labeled slabs. That's why only the post-1896 issues were renumbered in the last edition. That portion of the book was the biggest mess and there were few coins in collector's hands that would need to be reslabbed.

The biggest problem, BTW, is the result of grading companies not wanting to wait for the Judd authors to assign new Judd numbers. In the past, the TPG's have simply made up a new Judd number that made sense to them. Unfortunately, that can lead to situations where NGC, PCGS and (later) Judd use different Judd numbers to describe a given coin. IMHO, TPG's should simply slab unlisted coins without assigning a Judd numbers. The coin can be reholdered later, after the Judd authors make their decision.

Trime

In the past to be knowledge new numbering systems have been the purvue of the authors. I understand the problem when an author's system becomes standardized and the recognized author dies or is inactive and the rights to the system passes to another owner. The problem only arises if the new owners are felt to be: less qualified or abusing their authority for unethical reasons. In this situation a new authored book can be created and it becomes a new standard ( with cross reference to the former listing) or the prior edition remains the accepted standard. Of course the new owners could be an organization ( i.e. ANA) if they chose to compete for or were assigned the rights to the book and numbering system.

Julian

Numbering on any series takes time to get used to.

J-1776 will always be that, to me, regardless of any new #.

Pollack has valid numbering, because Judd does not include all the sub varieties that Pollack has listed.

My experience has showed me that it will take a numismatic generation for any new numbering system to take hold.

Bolender (B-) for early $ eases into Bowers, Borkhardt (BB-)
Low for hard times tokens eases into HTT.
Valentine for half dimes eases into LMGilbert #'s on half cents have pretty much been replaced by Cohen and even Breen #'s
Overton has replace Beistle
Lee #'s on fractional gold have been totally replaced by a better catalog by Breen-Gillio.
It is going to take a long time for Sheldon and Newcomb #'s to be replaced, and I think that gets to the heart of the issue, which is how many people collect by those #'s. It will just take a new generation.

As for the TPG's, I am sure that they can catch up, with whatever presents itself. It may be a matter of paying them $5 or 10 to replace an old # and re-encapsulate it.

Lakesammman

Thanks for the replies. Andy, sounds like it's in good hands.....for now!