Call for corrections to Redbook.

CaptHenway

I am about to begin my annual line-by-line hunt for Redbook corrections. Technical or typographical only; I don't do pricing.

If you have noticed anything wrong please PM me, or run it here on open.

TD

coindeuce

I still think its funny that the 2011 edition had a picture of a 2012 coin on the front cover.

Steve

Tom,
Take a look at the typo for the mintage of the 1916 Matte Proof Lincoln cent on page 114. It shows a mintage of 1,050. The mintage for that coin was reported as 600 in the 2009, 2010 & 2011 Red Books. Maybe Dennis Tucker or one of his people can correct it. Thanks,
Steve

CaptHenway

<< <i>Tom,
Take a look at the typo for the mintage of the 1916 Matte Proof Lincoln cent on page 114. It shows a mintage of 1,050. The mintage for that coin was reported as 600 in the 2009, 2010 & 2011 Red Books. Maybe Dennis Tucker or one of his people can correct it. Thanks,
Steve >>



Do you have anything that validates the 600 figure? Without having looked into it yet, perhaps the change was the correction?

Dentuck

Steve, Tom,

I’ve reviewed Roger W. Burdette’s 17-page Examination and Report on Proof One-Cent Coins Minted 1909-1916, a document prepared for Whitman Publishing. His main sources (primary, secondary, and tertiary) include Medal and Proof Coin Book (1 and 2; Clark); Daily Coinage January 1, 1911 to June 30, 1915; Central Files, Office of the Director of the Mint; Statistical Tables for the Annual Report, 1915-1924; Coin World Comprehensive Catalog & Encyclopedia of United States Coins; Annual Report of the Director of the Mint, 1903; annual reports of the director of the Mint, 1908-1917; The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents; The Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of United States Coins; “United States Proof Coins” (The Coin Collector’s Journal); The Authoritative Reference on Lincoln Cents; One Cent and Five Cent Proof Coin Mintages (1909 thru 1912) (Cohen); and PCGS and NGC population reports.

After commenting on his primary and secondary sources, Burdette makes a comparison of nine different secondary-source Matte Proof quantities; discusses the accuracy of U.S. Mint documentation; examines and compares the data reported in three primary sources; discusses which reported quantities to use; orders the reported or published Proof mintages in relation to the reliability of their sources, date by date; makes a set of preliminary recommendations; comments on his preliminary recommendations versus “traditional” quantities; comments on grading-service population reports; shows the relationship of the population reports to various sources; and makes a final recommendation on mintage quantities.

RWB’s detailed research and analysis have been carefully considered by Whitman’s expert numismatists, including Kenneth Bressett and Q. David Bowers. I’m confident that the mintage reported for the 1916 Proof Lincoln cent is as precise and accurate as possible.

Best wishes,

-- Dennis

Steve

Dennis & Tom,
In all due respect Dennis, by you just reposting this response does NOT answer the question. The FACTS are that from the year of the first posting of a mintage number for the 1916 Matte Proof Lincoln cent thru 2007 the Red Book showed a mintage quantity for that coin of 1,050. In the 2008 Red Book the quantity was shown as 1,150 which has been the historically reported number for the 1915 Matte Proof Lincoln cent and I believe that reporting in the 2008 Red Book was a typo. As I stated in this thread above, the 2009, 2010 and 2011 Red Books show a quantity for the 1916 Matte Proof Lincoln cent of 600. The 600 quantity number IS the number which supports Roger Burdette's analysis as noted by Dennis above. If The Red Book is NOW saying they are reverting to the traditionally used number of 1,050 going forward and this is NOT a typo, they should just say so. That is ALL I am asking. The Red Book has been using different numbers for 1909 thru 1916 mintages of MPL's for the past 14 editions and I just want to know what is the CORRECT numbers. Thanks.
Steve

Dentuck

Steve,

I'm saying so. I appreciate your interest.

Best wishes,

-- Dennis

MrHalfDime

TD:

If you are going to propose some changes to the Red Book, may I suggest that you prevail upon them, once again, to remove, once and for all, any reference to the alleged "1861/0" Liberty Seated half dime. Show them your brief but convincing letter to the editor of the Gobrecht Journal, that was published in Issue #40 (November 1987) of that publication, and also on page 135 of Collective Volume #3. For what it is worth, I have studied the supposed "1861/0" half dimes, in detail, and I complete agree with you, that they are merely the result of a defective 1 punch, and not an overdate. This 'pseudo-overdate', as you correctly identify it, continues to be misrepresented as a legitimate overdate, and always commands a non-deserved premium. It is time we eliminated this from the legitimacy that the Red Book has created.

asdfy

1999 Yellowstone Silver Dollar commemorative mintages

The Red Book says 23,614 for uncirculated version and 128,646 for proof version.

I think the numbers should be 82,563 uncirculated and 187,595 proofs. The Red Book numbers might not be counting the coins sold via the two coin set.

2008 Sacagawea Dollar mintages

The Red Book says 9.8 million for 2008-P and 14.84 million for 2008-D. These are the figures that were included on the US Mint's coin production page, however, a large portion of these were actually 2009 Native American Dollars that were struck in December.

I think the numbers should be 1.82 million 2008-P and 1.82 million 2008-D.

CaptHenway

<< <i>TD:

If you are going to propose some changes to the Red Book, may I suggest that you prevail upon them, once again, to remove, once and for all, any reference to the alleged "1861/0" Liberty Seated half dime. Show them your brief but convincing letter to the editor of the Gobrecht Journal, that was published in Issue #40 (November 1987) of that publication, and also on page 135 of Collective Volume #3. For what it is worth, I have studied the supposed "1861/0" half dimes, in detail, and I complete agree with you, that they are merely the result of a defective 1 punch, and not an overdate. This 'pseudo-overdate', as you correctly identify it, continues to be misrepresented as a legitimate overdate, and always commands a non-deserved premium. It is time we eliminated this from the legitimacy that the Red Book has created. >>



I have fought that fight, and lost.

CaptHenway

<< <i>1999 Yellowstone Silver Dollar commemorative mintages

The Red Book says 23,614 for uncirculated version and 128,646 for proof version.

I think the numbers should be 82,563 uncirculated and 187,595 proofs. The Red Book numbers might not be counting the coins sold via the two coin set.

2008 Sacagawea Dollar mintages

The Red Book says 9.8 million for 2008-P and 14.84 million for 2008-D. These are the figures that were included on the US Mint's coin production page, however, a large portion of these were actually 2009 Native American Dollars that were struck in December.

I think the numbers should be 1.82 million 2008-P and 1.82 million 2008-D. >>



You are correct. I remember commenting on that here when it happened.

pakasmom

I'm sorry, Dennis. But I'm still confused. Does this correction to your sentence reflect Whitman's view?

<< <i>RWB’s detailed research and analysis have been carefully considered and rejected by Whitman’s expert numismatists, including Kenneth Bressett and Q. David Bowers. I’m confident that the mintage >>

number of 1050 reported for the 1916 Proof Lincoln cent is as precise and accurate as possible.

Dentuck

If you remove the words and rejected,
and replace them with and agreed with,
then it's correct.

pakasmom

<< <i> The 600 quantity number IS the number which supports Roger Burdette's analysis as noted by Dennis above. >>



So this statement from Steve's post is incorrect? ( Again, sorry. I've got a head cold. Maybe I'm just not following this conversation.)

STONE

All of the so-called "Overdates" in the Three Cent Silver (Trime) series are not overdates, and thus should be edited and removed as such!

"The Authoritative Reference on Three Cent Silver Coins"

Steve

If The Red Book is NOW saying they are reverting to the traditionally used number of 1,050 going forward and this is NOT a typo, they should just say so. That is ALL I am asking




<< <i>Steve,

I'm saying so. I appreciate your interest.

Best wishes,

-- Dennis >>



Thank you Dennis for clearing this up for me. I'm sure the changes that Whitman & The Red Book have made in the past to the MPL's traditionally reported mintages and this change which reverts back to the traditionally reported mintage help educate and inform the collectors how futile it is to attempt to report numbers for which actual documentation is disputable. As most knowledgeable collectors of Matte Proof Lincoln cents know, no one who is alive today REALLY knows the exact quantities of mintage of these coins. Various records have been found and certain ASSUMPTIONS have been made. My point has always been that for 50 years, thru the 1997 edition of the Red Book, ONE set of mintage numbers for these coins were reported. In the last 14 editions there have been various changes and we are still no more knowledgeable. Only 15,314 of these nine coins were minted per the traditional counts. The hobby would be far better off if we dealt with factual errors in reporting instead of trying to change history. Steve

Steve

Tom's OP has certainly gotten a lot of replies. Some, including mine, seem to be ganging up on Dennis Tucker since he is the publisher of Whitman's Red Book. It is hard but also laudable for someone like Dennis to come on here and take the "heat" and also provide us with helpful information. I appreciate him doing so and I'm sure some, including me, utilize the PM or email to communicate with him privately also. Steve

CaptHenway

<< <i>All of the so-called "Overdates" in the Three Cent Silver (Trime) series are not overdates, and thus should be edited and removed as such!

"The Authoritative Reference on Three Cent Silver Coins" >>



In my opinion, the 1862/1 trime is a legitimate overdarte.
The 1863/2 is not.
TD

cladking

My 2005 edition has numerous errors in it.

The most glaring is the claim on the mint set page (76) is the claim that all mint set
coins are "not minted with any special consideration for quality". Since 1965 these
are actually minted on special numismatic presses under higher tonnage, at lower
speeds to give the details more time to form, and with new dies. These new dies
are sometimes given special treatment. Burnished or otherwise polished planchets
have also been employed for mint set coinage since 1965 in some cases. These
coins are washed and dried which is also not done with circulatinmg issues.

Souvenir sets are coins specially pulled from normal press runs.

The '82 and '83 souvenir sets were available mail order from the mint.

The '75 mint set is listed as a '73.

On pg 154 it says Ahr's design was selected for the quarter. This is an error. Ahr's
design was the winner of the contest and the winning entry was to be placed on the
quarter. It was not "selected for the quarter".

I didn't look for minor issues or to check mintages but all the mintages are in the ball-
park.

illini420

How about some FINAL mintages for the First Spouse coins??

The 2012 Redbook only has final mintages for the 2007 & 2008 coins. The 2009 coins are shown in italics as estimated numbers and the 2010 coins show no mintage numbers at all. Final numbers of other 2009 dated coins are found elsewhere in the Redbook as are estimated numbers for 2010 dated coins. I still can't find a reliable source on First Spouse final mintages and look to the Redbook to provide such information.

---

Also, on page 343 the 2010 ATB 5oz coins are shown with prices in the "PF" column... these coins are not proofs, right?

Will also need to add additional listings for the 2010-W coins which are also not proofs.

---

Expanding the US-Philippines section to also show values for MS65 grades would just be awesome!!

---

Finally, please do not include anything in the Redbook on the 2011 9/11 medal as it is not a coin... if you do choose to include it, please include listings for other medals which are arguably more collectible amongst coin collectors such as the 1925 Norse Medals.



Thanks!

roadrunner

In my 2008 RB the mintage for the 1891-0 25c. was listed as 6,800 vs 68,000. I would hope that was corrected since then.

roadrunner