Options
Arbitrary assignment of "a" to Judd numbers
EagleEye
Posts: 7,677 ✭✭✭✭✭
The late John Eshbach's collection has a 1879 Flowing Hair Stella copper, gilt with a new die pairing. The head is slightly repositioned, so it has been given a Judd designation of J-1836a to designate this.
This is all well an good, but the 1858 cent patterns have a very dramatic difference in the Indian head and Laurel wreath reverse types. Shouldn't they be given extension Judd numbers too!
Here is a link to all known cent patterns for 1858
On the "Agricultural Wreath" reverse (the regular design used in 1858) there are High Leaf and Low Leaf types.
On the Indian head obverse there are Broad Bust and Pointed Bust types.
On the Laurel Wreath Reverse there are 5-leaf and 6-leaf types.
These should be labeled, for example, instead of J-208, they should be attributed J-208a, J-208b, J-208c, J-208d.
J-208a Broad Bust Point (see how it points between the date and the U in United) / 5-leaf reverse (see how it is centered slightly high).
J-208b Broad Bust point / 6-leaf reverse (see how it is centered on the coin).
J-208c Pointed Bust (see how it points to the U in United) / 5-leaf reverse.
J-208d Pointed Bust / 6-leaf reverse.
I think these should be properly designated as different by Whitman's Judd reference, PCGS and NGC. What do you think?
This is all well an good, but the 1858 cent patterns have a very dramatic difference in the Indian head and Laurel wreath reverse types. Shouldn't they be given extension Judd numbers too!
Here is a link to all known cent patterns for 1858
On the "Agricultural Wreath" reverse (the regular design used in 1858) there are High Leaf and Low Leaf types.
On the Indian head obverse there are Broad Bust and Pointed Bust types.
On the Laurel Wreath Reverse there are 5-leaf and 6-leaf types.
These should be labeled, for example, instead of J-208, they should be attributed J-208a, J-208b, J-208c, J-208d.
J-208a Broad Bust Point (see how it points between the date and the U in United) / 5-leaf reverse (see how it is centered slightly high).
J-208b Broad Bust point / 6-leaf reverse (see how it is centered on the coin).
J-208c Pointed Bust (see how it points to the U in United) / 5-leaf reverse.
J-208d Pointed Bust / 6-leaf reverse.
I think these should be properly designated as different by Whitman's Judd reference, PCGS and NGC. What do you think?
Rick Snow, Eagle Eye Rare Coins, Inc.Check out my new web site:
0
Comments
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
The easiest way that I can see them being designated is the way Rick has suggested!
Rick - you know the players - what's been their response??
I probably would not have ever noticed the broad bust vs the pointed bust or the wreath being higher or lower and the 6 vs 5 leaf variety a maybe,
but what screams out at me at first glance is the ribbon ends difference between the 6 and 5 leaf variety. In total agreement with your supposition
as to notating such differences with numerical/alphabetical additions. Surely, you can bring about such an occurrence, being one of the most respected
and reputable Flying Eagle and Indian Head Cent categorizer known, if not the most. Not just my opinion, Rick. Just stating fact.
Thanks for the interesting post.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
So, at a minimum, they should similarly distinguish between the five leaf and six leaf reverses on the 1858 pattern cents, in order to be consistent with their handling of the 1854 and 1855 cent patterns.
I would talk with Col Mike, at the next show you are both at... maybe over ribs at Tony Roma's....yum
http://www.coinshop.com
You should email Dave Bowers and Saul Teichman. That will get your proposal
on everyone's radar for the 11th edition of Judd.
The Judd catalog purposely lists less varieties.
The Judd book compares favorably with the Red Book, but for patterns.
Large Cent specialists collect by Sheldon and Newcomb #'s. Indian Cent collectors will collect by Snow #'s.
The suggestion to add these varieties to Judd probably will not fly, IMHO, but they are certainly collectible.
Specialists always collect different varieties.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
The Judd book has not taken the place of the Pollack book.
The Judd catalog purposely lists less varieties.
The Judd book compares favorably with the Red Book, but for patterns.
Large Cent specialists collect by Sheldon and Newcomb #'s. Indian Cent collectors will collect by Snow #'s.
The suggestion to add these varieties to Judd probably will not fly, IMHO, but they are certainly collectible.
Specialists always collect different varieties.
Let me preface this post by noting that I am strongly torn on this issue, and my comments are meant to provoke thought, rather than to state a position. I think Julian raises a great point. Judd does list fewer varieties than does Pollock, and I know Saul prefers to maintain the distinction between the two systems of categorization. Dave Cassel provided an interesting analysis, as it pertains to pattern coins. Dave notes, in pertinent part:
"Pollock has grouped other coins that Judd kept separated. Two examples of Pollock’s groupings in the Postage Currency coins are: P.397 “Pure aluminum or aluminum-silver alloy, plain edge” and P.398 “Pure aluminum or aluminum-silver alloy, reeded edge.” Here, emphasis is placed on the word, “or.”
In fairness to Mr. Pollock who I admire for tackling such an unbelievable task as cataloging over 2,000 coins, he has every right to limit his categories for any reason he chooses. I don’t have the talent or the time to tackle 2,000 coins. It has taken me five years to tackle just thirty coins.
Conversely, I have every right to want to see all varieties possible. I don’t want mistaken attributions on my certificates at any price. It would be preferable to have some distinguishing traits such as weight, or PE or RE (plain or reeded edge), or metal, still better yet, all of the above.
The only way to properly separate the varieties as I see it, is to rely on the scanning electron microscope with energy dispersive non destructive x-ray analysis on pattern coins..."
A more complete discussion by Dave can be found on the here, at the Society of US Pattern Collectors website.
However, it seems that the monster that the pattern variety guardians such a Saul are attempting to protect us from is an unwieldy system. As Dave Cassel notes, Pollock has accomplished an amazing feat in cataloguing the patterns he documented. However, Judd remains the go-to source. Adding countless varieties could open a huge can of worms. For example, in large flyers alone, I have had tested maybe 100 coins via SEM-EDX, and the potential for new varieties is enormous.
In 1860, the Coin Collectors' Manual distinguished six varieties of 1855s, 20%, 13.5% and 10% nickel and 100%, 95% and 93% copper.
As early as 1863, Bangs, Merwin & Co. documented the existence of an 1855 on a planchet of double thickness.
Adams & Woodin's 1855 varieties were "large wreath" and "small wreath," but the main varieties were distinguished as brass, copper, "dull steel" and C-N.
In 1959, Judd first catalogued 1855s with 4-leaf reverses as copper (J-167), bronze (J-168), Oroide (J-169), 80:20 CN (J-170) and 60:40 C-N (J-171).
The Society of US Pattern Collectors website now recognizes the varieties recognized in the first edition of Judd, as well as 90:10 C-N (J-170A), German Silver (J-171A) and 100% Nickel (J-167A).
After having researched large flyers for years, the following questions arise:
1) What should get a new Judd number?
2) What should get a letter (e.g. J-168A)"? and
3) What should get nothing new?
Thick planchets: This has not been sufficient for a new Judd number for others (J-405), and, to date, hasn't been for the J-167 thick.
Percentage of Copper: The question becomes "Where do you make a distinction?" I have seen 1855 large flyers test between 97% and 90% and every number in between. Several have even had up to 2.1% silver. We know the Mint was testing billon coins around that time.
J-171A and J-171A or a separate Judd number?: The J-171As I have tested have been between 69% copper and 64% copper. In the 1980s, Professor Halbert Carmichael and his research partner found the percentage of copper to be about 75%. My results for the J-170As I have tested have also varied widely, between 93:7 and 86:14 C-N.
The question really does need to be asked for pattern coins (as distinguished from regular issue), which distinctions are truly significant and which aren't? Thick planchet/thin? 97% copper/90% copper? Presence of 2.1% silver in the planchet?
Specializing in 1854 and 1855 large FE patterns
<
For the moment, I'll just add that any change to the numbering system has to take into consideration the confusion it might cause to those referring to or relying on the Judd book, pre-existing slab inserts, and population reports.
Also, keep in mind that Indian and Flying Eagle patterns are far from the only pattern series in which die varieties exist.
And that many of the SEM-EDX tests on which we have relied have since been discredited, as the technology used by PCGS has improved.
Also, consider that some variations in composition are unintentional, and others are intentional. (Impurities vary, from batch to batch, and from coin to coin.)
And last, with respect to the Stella variety, just because the Judd book has done one thing in the past does not mean that it has to do the same thing for everything else.
Sorry I didn't bring those thoughts together in a more coherent way, but like I said, I'm rushing. Will be back later...
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.