You are redoing the Redbook. Name a coin you would de-list.
291fifth
Posts: 24,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
My choice: 1937-D 3 legged Buffalo Nickel. This is a coin that has never, in my 44 years of collecting, struck me as anything more than a hype-job from the distant past.
All glory is fleeting.
0
Comments
Great, fresh idea for a thread.
-Daniel
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
I like 'em, however.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
While I can't think of any off-hand I'd like to see removed, I'd like to see some additions, particularly including the 1964 SMS pieces. Also, the Red Book varieties of half cents and early copper cents just seem like a bit of a joke. I suppose they constitute one way of collecting the pieces, but most who would bother to collect that way would be after Sheldon and Newcomb varieties.
Hoot
<< <i>Without question, the 1861/0 half dime. It is not an overdate, nor a repunched date, and it is nowhere near "Rare" as it is always described. It is simply an 1861 half dime where the date numerals were struck into the working die using a defective 1 numeral punch. It should never have been listed in the Red Book, or anywhere else, and I can't help but wonder how many unsuspecting half dime collectors have shelled out good money for a common half dime. >>
Amen, brother. Amen.
Tom D.
Or the Feuchtwanger token. (Ok...I just like saying Feuchtwanger).
<< <i>
<< <i>Without question, the 1861/0 half dime. It is not an overdate, nor a repunched date, and it is nowhere near "Rare" as it is always described. It is simply an 1861 half dime where the date numerals were struck into the working die using a defective 1 numeral punch. It should never have been listed in the Red Book, or anywhere else, and I can't help but wonder how many unsuspecting half dime collectors have shelled out good money for a common half dime. >>
Amen, brother. Amen.
Tom D. >>
Now that's a bit of information I'd love to have as a fledging half dime collector.
So, do you think they're reading this?
<< <i>Without question, the 1861/0 half dime. It is not an overdate, nor a repunched date, and it is nowhere near "Rare" as it is always described. It is simply an 1861 half dime where the date numerals were struck into the working die using a defective 1 numeral punch. It should never have been listed in the Red Book, or anywhere else, and I can't help but wonder how many unsuspecting half dime collectors have shelled out good money for a common half dime. >>
I agree strongly! It is a very common coin.
I'd also delist the 1869/9 indian cent. It is merely a repunched numeral.
Tom
<< <i>Stella. If it's in, all of the patterns should be listed with their respective denominations.
Great, fresh idea for a thread.
Don't show the greatly overrated 1856 flying eagle cent with the regular issue cents. Its a pattern!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>The Voce Populi coppers. An Irish token without any colonial connection. >>
The Hibernia coins shouldn't be listed since they are Irish coins. If you list them, you should list every foreign coin that circulated in America during the colonial period.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
1866 Repunched Date Shield Nickel. There are hundreds of Shield Nickel die varieties, why list this and ignore the two different date punches used in 1869?
1879/8 Proof Shield Nickel. I once owned one of these and was never convinced it was an overdate. As Shield Nickel die varieties go it is a minor one.
For starters, most of the Washington pieces. Most of them are English tokens.
The God Preserve London elephant tokens. Obvious reasons. And the other elephant tokens as well. I suspect they are fantasies rather than actual tokens for circulation.
The Voce Populi tokens.
The Pitt and Rhode Island ship medals. They ere medals not coins.
The Albany Church penny, this is a communion token.
The KY token, English token.
Franklin Press, same reason.
1792 half disme, pattern issue. On second thougt it can stay as long as they keep it in that section showing the early patterns that lead to our first true coins.
1837 half cent token.
1795 reeded edge large cent, experimental issue.
1795 Jefferson head cent, not a mint issue.
1856 FE cent, pattern issue.
And many more.
Sort of like why we continue to say Gold Bless You when someone sneezes.
Lose the Sommer Islands pieces - they were struck for Bermuda, not the U.S.
Mott Store Cards
Franklin Press Tokens
1811 restrike Half Cents
1804 restrike Cents
1823 restrike Cents
1859 transitional Half Dimes and Dimes (sorry Art)
1851 $50 Lettered Edge Slug 887-Thous/No "50" Reverse
This gives me an idea for an even better thread...
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
1922 No D 1c - just because there were no Phila cents that year? So what?
1838 Partial drapery dime - how many other clashed dies are considered a variety?
<< <i> The 1914/3 Buffalo - I'm still not convinced that the overdate its really there. >>
Even if it is really there, it's not significant enough to include it. The 3 legger is another one that's iffy.
How about the 22 Plain Lincoln cent?
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Still working on him re the so-called 1861/0 half dime.
Tom D.
<< <i>
<< <i>Without question, the 1861/0 half dime. It is not an overdate, nor a repunched date, and it is nowhere near "Rare" as it is always described. It is simply an 1861 half dime where the date numerals were struck into the working die using a defective 1 numeral punch. It should never have been listed in the Red Book, or anywhere else, and I can't help but wonder how many unsuspecting half dime collectors have shelled out good money for a common half dime. >>
I agree strongly! It is a very common coin.
I'd also delist the 1869/9 indian cent. It is merely a repunched numeral.
Tom >>