For the discovery coin finders and archive researchers--how difficult is it to get your work ratifie

Longacre

I was taking a look through MrEureka's thread on numismatic mysteries/myths and an idea popped into my head. Some numismatic myths have been perpetuated for literally generations, and these myths have therefore been taken as fact.

Every once in a while, a numismatist or a numismatic researcher does something that rocks the numismatic world. On the discovery coin side, occasionally you hear of someone discovering a new die marriage for a particular series, or maybe finds a rare variety in which a single coin was previously known. These are big announcements and they rightfully make the numismatic press. Similarly, the real researchers today are actually looking at original documentation in the National Archives and busting various numismatic myths. These finds are typically published in books or articles, and frequently get the attention that they deserve.

For those with first hand knowledge, how difficult is it for the numismatic community to accept your new coin discoveries or factual research to correct old numismatic myths? It seems that the coin world is very old school, and does not like change that much. What process do you typically need to go through in order for your new work/discoveries to be ratified by the coin world? Old ideas die hard, so I was curious how much effort it takes to be sanctioned by the numismatic authorities, whoever they may be.

CoinRaritiesOnline

Your question reminds me of the saga of an intrepid collector to get the so-called "1853/2 $20" listed in the Redbook. Can you say, "stalker"?

numisma

Hmmm. Well, I recall about 7 or 8 years ago when I discovered a new variety of Mexican 20 Peso (gold coin). It is the 1921/0 and a very bold overdate at that. The coin is Gem MS. I met with Krause and they took the coin to study it. I received a letter and the coin back a couple of months later. The letter stated that they would add it to the next Standard Catalog of World Coins, which they did. To this day it is still listed but without a value, due to lack of market date.

Anyway, I decided a couple of years later to have it slabbed as "Discovery Coin". I tried 3 major grading services, but nobody would do it. At a Baltimore show, I went to the NGC table and tried to walk it through. They said that they had no proof that it was THE discovery coin. I then produced the letter from Krause with the registered mail envelope. They said that it wasn't enough and that they needed more proof. I said, "Krause is here at this show, let's get all 3 parties together and settle this thing". They said "nah, we are too busy". And that was it.

That story probably didn't answer your question completely, but that's my personal experience.

Julian

The numismatic community is very accepting of new discoveries and research.

There are many experts that can verify or deny almost any new die variety or error.

In Numisma's case, the discovery of the variety has been accepted, but the TPG's did not want to put any time into verifying that his coin was the actual discovery coin. With the Krause letter, he doesn't need the acceptance of the TPG. He has got the documentation to back it up. The services must have thought that they would be on the hook for something.

BiddlesBank

.
Good find Numisma but a bad break

In recording a record fish you have to weight it as soon as you hit shore and push it along fast in the right channels for it to be entered as record breaker.

Probably the same principle applies to new coin discoveries.

pharmer

I send them to James Wiles, as all my discovery coins have been US coins and he is the attributor for those for CONECA. He either deems them a new discovery, or ID's them as a previously listed variety, or deems them as too minor to list as a new variety. For about half of the discovery coins, he has sent them in to ICG for the CONECA/ICG attribution/slabbing program, and they are labeled as the new discovery with attribution and die marriage info. Done and done.

IGWT

In the past couple of years, I discovered a misplaced letter on a pattern, found a new 1876 5c doubled die obv (visible to the naked eye), and identified previously unrecognized design doubling on an 1870 5c (paired with a new obv). I also discovered that no one really cares.

RWB

I suspect that it takes quite a few years for "tall tales" to get replaced by fact-based information. Part is a natural resistance to change, another part is that the status quo is well established and quoted/re-quoted in multiple on-line and print publications.

Just for fun, over a year ago I began tracking the use (or misuse) of research from my 1916-21 and 1905-08 books. Many of the auction company uses are dead-on, although there have been humorous catalogs were one item has correct material and the same date/mint item in another part of the catalog is using the same-old-tale.

Coin variety discoveries, are, I think, more quickly accepted - collectors can look at photos of the coin and compare with other specimens. Historical material is more difficult to grasp and often takes correlating dozens of documents to make sense out of it. When there is both a coin and contemporary documents, then acceptance can be quick, as with the irregular edge pattern eagles of 1907. We have both coins and contemporary documentation describing the pieces. (Same for the plain edge 1907 eagle pattern.) Other times acceptance is slower as with the 1916 pattern SLQ with parts of the olive branch scratched off. TPGs insist on calling it a “proof” although contemporary documents specifically state it was made on a production press.

How long will is take to expunge the tale of Morgan smashing the Peace dollar galvano with a board to lower the relief? Maybe never – or at least until Breen’s encyclopedia is replaced.

Zoins

<< <i>The numismatic community is very accepting of new discoveries and research.

There are many experts that can verify or deny almost any new die variety or error.

In Numisma's case, the discovery of the variety has been accepted, but the TPG's did not want to put any time into verifying that his coin was the actual discovery coin. With the Krause letter, he doesn't need the acceptance of the TPG. He has got the documentation to back it up. The services must have thought that they would be on the hook for something. >>

I bet if it was a US coin, the TPGs would be more interested.

messydesk

While it hardly counts as rocking the numismatic world, I have discovered quite a few Morgan dollar die marriages, some more significant than others. Mostly this is due to attentiveness and luck, and not rigorous research. I've also had a few errors in the VAM listings corrected, which takes a little more work, since it requires demonstrating that something's wrong rather than just saying "this looks new." For new VAMs, the buck stops at Leroy Van Allen's desk. Other research also goes to and through him, but also filters through others who eventually end up supporting, challenging, or ignoring it, and as is the case with any sort of research, you have to earn your credibility.

Longacre

Hey, thanks for the replies. I never realized we had some many "discoverers" among us. Pretty impressive!

howards

<< <i>In the past couple of years, I discovered a misplaced letter on a pattern, found a new 1876 5c doubled die obv (visible to the naked eye), and identified previously unrecognized design doubling on an 1870 5c (paired with a new obv). I also discovered that no one really cares. >>



I care!!!

Murphy

I've tried to get some of my 2006 DDO cents labeled as Discovery Coins and the top three TPG's were able to come up with some reason for not doing so. After reading PHARMER's post I want to try PCI, especially now that Chuck Daughtrey and J.T. Stanton are grading and SIGNING the labels of coins they grade!

foundinrolls

I think we have two questions here.

I've been lucky enough to have discovered two new Doubled Die varieties on 1983 cents, another on a 1989 cent, another 1986 cent, a 1985 cent and also a nice one on a 1972 S business strike cent. I send my stuff to John Wexler for attribution. I also have sent coins to Ken Potter for attribution. Sometimes coins were sent to Bill Crawford for photos (How is Bill By the Way?) as a form of documentation.

When a new variety is discovered, it is not that difficult to get it recognized. They are also accepted fairly readily as they are photographed and catalogued by Wexler, Potter, or Charles Daughtrey. John Bordner , I believe is doing halves as well as James Wiles. Wiles also does two-cent pieces, Rick Snow does (I think he still does) Indian cents. I think that Howard Spindel has started attributing Sheild Nickels . Fivaz, Stanton and Mike Ellis, of course do some work in this regard as well. So finding the right people is not that hard.

They are publicized by Ken, John or myself when the opportunity arises and usually with photos. I know that the three of us will, when writing a column that has to do with a potential new discovery, check the known files to see if a coin has been reported before. If a coin is indeed a "new discovery", we mention that in a column.

The question of "discovery coins" is a little interesting. I have at least ten different "discovery coins" here. Whether or not I could get a TPG to label one as such is probably one chance in a million. The fact is that on one of the discovery coins, I have 52 copies of that DDO. In reality, I might not be able to tell you which exact one was the discovery coin and I'm the guy that found them. I can understand the reluctance of a TPG to label acoin as such.

With respect to accepting new research, I gauge my response to the new information on how the research was done, what the research shows and what information was used to formulate a new conclusion. Still I always ask questions until I can be fairly sure that the new information should cause me to change an old belief. I know that personally, I am open to new conclusions if they are based upon evidence that is factual and the evidence is shared so that I can draw my own conclusions from that evidence.

Have Fun,
Bill

IGWT

-- "I care!!!" --

I sometimes exaggerate to make a point.

EagleEye

Some of the people that write for the auction companies and general interest articles for the publications use outdated info. For instance about 10 years ago I made the announcement in an article for The Numismatist (featured on the cover, no less) that there is no way the mintage of the 1877 Indian cent is correct. It's way too high. 2 die pairs could only strike about 300,000 coins max.

Anyway, hardly any article in Numismatic News, Coinage, Coins, Coin World ever referenced the article. Neither did auction companies, which would have loved to use the info to juice their sales. It was also in the Whitman Book, but do people actually read these books? Anyway, it's been out there a long time and still people are unaware or suprised to learn the facts.

For instance here are two auction descriptions from Heritage's ANA in Charlotte, Lots 82, 83:


1877 1C MS65 Red and Brown NGC. Richard Snow (2006) writes that the low-mintage 1877 cent (825,000 business strikes) is related to the severe depression that plagued the country since 1873, along with a nationwide railroad strike. These events impacted the redemption of minor coinage. He states: "Nearly 10 million cents were turned in to the Mint this year, of which 9,821,500 were reissued. In addition to the reissues, the number of cents minted was the smallest since 1823." This Red and Brown Gem is sharply struck (including clarity on all four diamonds), with copper-gold luster imbued with traces of tan. No significant abrasions or unsightly spots are evident. Census: 75 in 65 Red and Brown, 8 finer

1877 1C MS65 Red PCGS. The recall of large cents in 1857 brought vast quantities of copper to the Philadelphia Mint, copper that was used for the new small cents. While this store of the metal fueled comparatively large mintages through 1875, by the next year, the stocks were running out. The 1876 issue's tally was considerably lower, and the crisis only worsened in 1877, which saw just 852,500 pieces coined. The Mint's new sources of copper arrived too late to stop the creation of a key issue.
Many 1877 cents went into circulation, which makes high-grade survivors all the more elusive. This Gem's surfaces are vivid orange with hints of ruby and copper. Each side exhibits strong detail, and the four diamonds on the ribbon are complete, though slightly soft on the right side. While the obverse has a few small carbon flecks under the chin, the overall eye appeal is high. Population: 21 in 65 Red, 6 finer


The first one referenced the whitman book (2006) and the other referenced my first edition (1992) which had outdated info.

Coxe

Well, certainly it becomes increasingly difficult to locate new, interesting, and glaringly obvious new varieties as time marches forward on classic series coins. The frustration in a lot of discoveries is the lack of appreciation that even series specialists sometimes have for a new one.

RWB

The publication of new numismatic information tends to be scattered over multiple, often non-indexed publication and web sites. Since most discoveries are very narrowly focused, they don't receive wide publicity. The most used sources tend to be books, which can be located much more easily than articles. The Harry Bass index is good but limted.

The hobby could probably benefit from a single on-line information clearing house that would allow consolidation, referencing and publication of discoveries. If organized by subject, this could be very helpful to collectors and researchers.

A personal example – About 3 years ago Coin World published an article I wrote about the designer of the Maine Centennial half dollar. It was carefully researched and fully illustrated. Since publication, I have not seen one web site or book change based on this discovery and have only noted 2 auction catalog changes, and one article (in CW) change. Much of the problem is that CW is not indexed by major research services, so writers never become aware of the articles. As soon as the next issue is out, the previous is “obsolete.”