Giving Unlisted SCDs the Benefit of the Doubt
Zoins
Posts: 34,287 ✭✭✭✭✭
For some time I've noticed that when an unlisted SCD comes up, some posters are quick to opine a piece does not qualify as a SCD: (a) without knowing much about or doing research on the piece, and (b) possibly mentioning SCD guidelines not in H&K's list that also seem contradictory to the pieces already listed.
It seems that if one doesn't have too much information on a piece, it would be good to withhold judgement until more information is available.
Why is there such a rush to negative judgement?
It seems that if one doesn't have too much information on a piece, it would be good to withhold judgement until more information is available.
Why is there such a rush to negative judgement?
Tagged:
0
Comments
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
But this isn't just regarding one case. This appears to be a general attitude I've seen regarding unlisted SCDs here for several years.
1. if a medal is a Variety of an already listed medal, it seems reasonable to refer to it as an "Unlisted" SC$; as a general rule it will be given a letter-suffix of the medal it is a Varity of.
2. if a medal is just something that seems to fit the criteria first outlined/standardized by Hibler-Kappen, i think it's a little presumptive for a seller/collector to call it an "Unlisted" SC$. i doubt NGC will encapsulate an unlisted medal.
eventually, whoever owns the copyright for the Standard Catalogue will either choose to make additions or choose not to make additions based on the accepted criteria for inclusion as a SC$. for a seller or collector to decide a medal is an "Unlisted" SC$ is certainly their choice, but you only need to look to eBay to understand how abused that practice has become. a Standard Catalogue is exactly that and seems to establish what is/isn't a SC$, not the whims of a seller/collector.
BTW, can you point me to the "other SCD thread" mentioned above?? thanks in advance.
<< <i>my opinion of "Unlisted" SC$'s...................
1. if a medal is a Variety of an already listed medal, it seems reasonable to refer to it as an "Unlisted" SC$; as a general rule it will be given a letter-suffix of the medal it is a Varity of.
2. if a medal is just something that seems to fit the criteria first outlined/standardized by Hibler-Kappen, i think it's a little presumptive for a seller/collector to call it an "Unlisted" SC$. i doubt NGC will encapsulate an unlisted medal.
eventually, whoever owns the copyright for the Standard Catalogue will either choose to make additions or choose not to make additions based on the accepted criteria for inclusion as a SC$. for a seller or collector to decide a medal is an "Unlisted" SC$ is certainly their choice, but you only need to look to eBay to understand how abused that practice has become. a Standard Catalogue is exactly that and seems to establish what is/isn't a SC$, not the whims of a seller/collector. >>
I think this approach could be viable if the owner of the copyright of the Standard Catalogue was providing an updated and comprehensive resource. However, as it stands the resource seems very incomplete and out of date relative to the material available, both older and newer material. Tom Hoffman (Tmot99) mentioned he could probably add well over 100 medals to the new SCD book. This is not to say anything negative about the effort to update the catalogue but that the task is large, and the resources few. Because of this incompleteness and the seeming lack of effort to make it very complete, it seems silly to rely on the catalogue to be the determiner of what is and is not a SCD. Perhaps if the Standard Catalogue was maintained by Krause Publications, the situation would be different. A community-based site, like a wiki could also be more complete than the current efforts. As it is, I'm not sure if the Standard Catalogue is an effort to document what a few people prefer collecting and/or wish to sell vs. a wider effort to document the material available that can fit in H&K's guidelines.
Indeed, while NGC started encapsulating SCDs, it appears they are also not completely satisfied with its limits and have started to encapsulated non-listed items (though not listed as SC$ on the insert) such as Alaska and Hawaii statehood items. They have also started to encapsulated Heraldic Art medals as SC50C. For items not yet assigned HK numbers, it seems the 45-year old 1967 Alaska centennial celebration medals could be a rich set for consideration.
I can understand the frustration some SCD collectors and dealers have with the way Unlisted SCD is used on eBay, but I do not believe using the standard catalogue is viable given it's current breadth, or lack thereof.
Do you believe the Standard Catalogue is anywhere near complete relative to the material that could qualify based on H&K's guidelines?
<< <i>BTW, can you point me to the "other SCD thread" mentioned above?? thanks in advance. >>
Here's the recent thread on the Rockport Centennial. One of my issues with this thread is that people are disqualifying the piece without knowing much about or researching the piece in question.
<< <i>Good Point.
Nice pieces DUIGUY. I generally like pieces with attributed metals, like the "Virgin Utah Copper" on yours. I also checked out Dieges & Clust of NY and they've made some pretty ornate medals, including being the official provider Eagle Scout medals in the past. Thanks for sharing!
to the questions/thoughts in your previous post(s), i will share my thoughts....................
1. i feel that any effort to expand the current listed medals would, in the end, be counter-productive. from my perspective, while such an effort might mean the addition of many medals it might also mean the deletion of some already listed medals and would almost certainly change the already established criteria for inclusion. i'm sure the intention would be sincere, but the results would only muddy up the already murky water. hindsight being what it is, i'm confident that some celebrations could be seen as insignificant just as other as yet recognized could be seen as improtant. maybe Hibler-Kappen noted the Rockport event in 1960, saw it as irrelevant, and failed to include it for that reason.
2. your idea of a wiki-style "clearinghouse" for new medals makes sense. logically, that should be done by the holder of the copyright and may happen some day. i don't know if you active here when the secondn edition was undertaken by Tom Hoffman but that is essentially how things were done and the result speaks for itself.
3. i highlight this-----As it is, I'm not sure if the Standard Catalogue is an effort to document what a few people prefer collecting and/or wish to sell vs. a wider effort to document the material available that can fit in H&K's guidelines-----because it seems to be your personal thought borne out of frustration with certain items you can't "hawke" with the SC$ title attached. things began back in the early 1950's with a 20 page pamphlet by Richard Kenney comprising 181 listings, moved forward with a greatly expanded effort of 1000+ by Hibler-Kappen less than 10 years later and eventually the second edition of that book with further additions. i seriously doubt that what this is all about is marketing as you suggest.
4. please refrain from using what NGC does as a basis for what the Hobby should be doing. they serve our needs, not the other way around. there are also other references which have catalogued medals you believe were ommitted as SC$'s.
5. i can empathize somewhat with your frustration, but suggest that if the issue is really important to you that you might contact Tmot99 and offer some help in changing things. it is indeed a Herculean undertaking, perhaps you can start by compiling a list in an easily shared format as others before you have done. that's exactly how the second edition came into being.
It is interesting and has given me some insight into your line of reasoning and perhaps that of others.
I will start off by saying that money is not my motivation for wishing to expand what is considered a SCD.
My goals here are two-fold:
(a) to support a more positive and inclusionary approach to collecting as opposed to a negative and exclusionary approach.
(b) to expand our collective knowledge about the pieces in existence including issuer, mintage, mint, designer, event, etc.
It is interesting that you can assign money as a motivator to creating a more inclusive approach to collecting. It is incorrect and hopefully I will communicate that better.
Here are some responses. Given that many of the items you attributed to me were not what I was thinking about at all, the list highlights some differences in our thinking.
(0) Inclusionary and positive approach collecting: My goal is to have discussion be more positive (or at least neutral) about collecting, vs. negative.
(1) Expanding the current list: I was not requesting nor thinking about this. I also don't necessarily see this as a solution to creating a more positive collecting environment. Perhaps what you are saying is the way to achieve a more positive environment would be to expand the list; however, since the list will never be complete, I'm not sure this will be an efficient means of achieving a more positive discussion.
(1.1) Static current list: While I also was not thinking about this until you brought it up, I had thought that updating H&K would turn it into something like the Red Book or Krause, an ever expanding compilation of what is available with the goal of spreading knowledge. However, it appears what you are saying is that the updated H&K is designed to be a historical, static collection. I had not considered this and find it an interesting, if not historical, approach to collecting.
(2) Wiki-style crowd sourcing: Given the breadth of material out there, I do feel some sort of crowd-sourcing is necessary to do justice to the what had been made.
(3) Motivation for the H&K update: I mentioned this because of reports that pieces had been "pumped and dumped" at the time of release, but perhaps the cause and effect were mis-assigned. My main issue here is the negative approach some seem to have with medals not in H&K, Given that, it seemed that limiting what is in the H&K may create or feed on that attitude.
(4) Grading Services: I was also not thinking about NGC until you brought them up. However, since you mentioned your view of their certification practices, I felt the need to indicate that expanding H&K isn't necessary for certification by NGC. Some of the pieces they have slabbed do not have reference numbers so I'm not sure what they are using for references in those areas.
(5) Contribution: I have compiled a set of material for my own collecting and will do so if there is interest. However, much of it may not be relevant if H&K is designed to be a static collection. At some point, I may find an appropriate way to make the information available.
a single point i made(and perhaps one understood by the "disclaimers" in the other thread) was overlooked in your response, yet i believe it to be quite probable-----maybe Hibler-Kappen noted the Rockport event in 1960, saw it as irrelevant, and failed to include it for that reason. judging from the scope of their work i would presume that most noteworthy events were identified, investigated and included/excluded based on their criteria and independant judgement. that's not to some were missed, but i believe the opinion that if it isn't in the book they didn't know about it or ignored it is flawed. the catlogued events are just too thorough for me to subscribe to that notion.
i've been wrong before, though!!
<< <i>not trying to be arguementative, but the points i commented on in my previous post are all points you raised. to state you weren't thinking about them strikes me as a bit disingenuous. >>
I believe you are over-reaching and looking for something that isn't there. I also believe our trains of thought are very different on this issue and that what you ascribe to me may be what you interpret based on your perspective, though incorrectly applied.
Since you say these are points I raised, it should be easy for you to point out my specific text which leads you to believe the things I disclaimed. For example, I did a quick search for NGC and slab in both threads and found that I did not mention either word until after you introduced the topic with the line "i doubt NGC will encapsulate an unlisted medal." The same is true with expanding H&K listings. To introduce topics yourself and then ascribe them to me without references strikes me as more than a bit disingenuous
1) I did not work on the second edition of the book. It was a group of 4 of us that spearheaded this. Jonathan Brecher, John Dean, and Dave Hayes provided far more input to this edition than I ever could. Their depth of knowledge on the subject matter is second to none. Please stop referring to this as my adventure. These 3 men should be credited for the second edition.
2) Between Kenney and Hibler and Kappen, guidelines were established as to what defined a so-called dollar. Though they did stray from their own definitions, we, as the editors of the second edition, felt it necessary to stick to their original rules. However, we did not feel that it was within our right to remove what had already been included within the first edition of the H&K book.
3) We continue to keep track of new metal varieties that appear on the market. Even though a new edition of the book has not been printed, we do keep track. Adding any new medals, of which we can easily do, would require a totally new numbering system. You just can't add hundreds of medals within an alphabetical modifier format. It just doesn't work. The amount of work that went into the second edition was enormous and was accomplished in about 2 years. There were no digital records available. We had to re-enter the entire book, format it, make additions for varieties, and gather all new pictures. We got from point A to point B in 2 years even with a goal of C or D. However, the market just isn't needing another edition at this time so publishing one just isn't worth it.
4) NGC is no longer certifying anything that is not in a catalog somewhere.
5) The Rockport item, because it has the metal bracket attached, is not accepted as a so-called dollar according to the guidelines set forth by Hibler & Kappen. There is no rush to judgement. It's just following the rules. If you want to make up your own rules, I suggest writing your own book. I'd be cautious about referencing anything related to H&K and the So-Called Dollar book in any other format. The publisher is very protective (and rightfully so) of his copyrights.
It wasn't my intention to discuss H&K in detail but it's good to hear the information given the discussion. I understand and appreciate the level of effort it took to update H&K which is why I didn't request additions be made but that people be more forgiving on unlisted pieces.
Regarding the numbering system, it seems the current system can be extended to a base10+base26 system fairly easily. This would support an enormous number of medals while remaining completely backward compatible with the existing system. This method would remove the need to migrate to a totally new numbering system and leave the existing numbers intact. I can explain this system in more detail if there is interest.
Regarding the Rockport medal, it seems the version on John Raymond's website is struck plain in which case the struck plain version would not violate the particular rule. Additionally, given that the struck plain version exists, the hanger could have been added later. What I found curious is that people did not seem interested in seeing if a struck plain version existed but may have simply presumed one did not exist. I'm curious why there seemed to be no interest in seeing if a struck plain version existed.
The only "rule" I've seen mentioned in the recent discussion which isn't on the H&K list is the one regarding milestone events be of national interest. I did not see that rule on the list and it appears a number of H&K listed pieces did not qualify using that rule, of which I listed several. Since the rule is not in the list, I would have appreciated a quote/reference from H&K. I'm not sure if he has any intention of publishing his own book. I rely on H&K's rules and believe it is desirable to quote rules for clarity so nothing is lost in the interpretation. I also believe this is legal under US Copyright Law. If you are also relying on H&K's rules, I would appreciate you pointing out text you are relying on so there is nothing lost in the interpretation. For example, you stated the list of guidelines was created to 'set their definition of a "so-called dollar"' and not just to reduce the number of medals in the book. I referenced H&K's text which suggests the guidelines were used to reduce the number of medals. I'd appreciate you referencing the H&K text which discusses your point so I can read that section myself. If you or others believe quoting these types of excerpts on this website is unacceptable or violates US Law, please let me know.
<< <i>i stand corrected.
Sorry for that. I understand what you were trying to accomplish in seeking an alterior, financial motive.
For clarification, I don't sell SCDs and have no desire to. I'm a collector right now and just prefer a more postiive collecting environment.
<< <i>
The only "rule" I've seen mentioned in the recent discussion which isn't on the H&K list is the one regarding milestone events be of national interest. I did not see that rule on the list and it appears a number of H&K listed pieces did not qualify using that rule, of which I listed several. Since the rule is not in the list, I would have appreciated a quote/reference from H&K. I'm not sure if he has any intention of publishing his own book. I rely on H&K's rules and believe it is desirable to quote rules for clarity so nothing is lost in the interpretation. I also believe this is legal under US Copyright Law. If you are also relying on H&K's rules, I would appreciate you pointing out text you are relying on so there is nothing lost in the interpretation. For example, you stated the list of guidelines was created to 'set their definition of a "so-called dollar"' and not just to reduce the number of medals in the book. I referenced H&K's text which suggests the guidelines were used to reduce the number of medals. I'd appreciate you referencing the H&K text which discusses your point so I can read that section myself. If you or others believe quoting these types of excerpts on this website is unacceptable or violates US Law, please let me know. >>
My comment about the copyright has to do with publishing a new book or website and not discussing the current book.
I interpret the H&K text much differently. You seem to interpret that so much can be included that they used the rules so they didn't have a huge reference. I interpret the rules as defining so-called dollars. Your interpretation appears to allow virtually any medal regardless of size or subject matter to be included. I think their comment to reduce the number of medals is to define the scope that they wanted to work on. I do not have my book in front of me, but you should also be looking at the sentence after their rules where they suggest that some of the other restrictions merit their own reference.
My view is what is labeled as a So-Called Dollar should be made narrower rather than wider. The list of pieces that get into this classification is endless. If you have ever lived in New England you know that many communities have issued “town medals” over the years. Considering the aspect of size as well as the lack of hangers or needles so that they could be worn on a piece of clothing, many of these pieces would have many of the attributes to be So-Called Dollars. Even some of the annually issued NENA medal (New England Numismatic Association) could qualify. The So-Called Dollar needs to be restricted so that inventive dealers will not be able to expand it for their own purposes.
One area which could be open to interpretation concerns the question of off-metal pieces. As a collector of 19th century presidential campaign medalets, I can tell you that off-metal pieces do crop up from time to time. Once such items are verified as genuine, they should be included in the set automatically
<< <i>My comment about the copyright has to do with publishing a new book or website and not discussing the current book. >>
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure because I noted several people would mention H&K's rules and guidelines without providing the supporting text.
<< <i>I interpret the H&K text much differently. You seem to interpret that so much can be included that they used the rules so they didn't have a huge reference. I interpret the rules as defining so-called dollars. Your interpretation appears to allow virtually any medal regardless of size or subject matter to be included. I think their comment to reduce the number of medals is to define the scope that they wanted to work on. I do not have my book in front of me, but you should also be looking at the sentence after their rules where they suggest that some of the other restrictions merit their own reference. >>
I will check out the portion of H&K's text you suggest.
For my part, I evaluate H&K's guidelines on three levels:
(1) What they actually wrote. In the text I referenced, they specifically said the guidelines were to make the work more manageable ("within a manageable perimeter") and did not mention it was to define the term SCD. If people wish to interpret the guidelines text and list as defining the term SCD, they may do so, but it would be good to recognize that's an interpretation and not what H&K actually wrote there.
(2) What they actually catalogued: As noted, they "violated" their guidelines many times. For example, you mention "regardless of size" and this is exactly what H&K actually did, cataloguing medals from 12mm (HK-487-490/1033) to 54mm (HK-1015). In addition to reading the text as it is and not what we would prefer it to be, I think it is important to look at what they actually catalogued.
(3) My interpretation: Based on what H&K actually wrote and what they actually catalogued, my interpretation is that, given more resources, they would have catalogued more. This is inline with their text and work. To say that the SCD definition is strictly limited by the guidelines does not seem to follow either H&K's actual text describing the guidelines or their work.
While our interpretations may differ, I recognize that it's acceptable to have varying interpretations. At the same time, I'm comfortable in knowing that my interpretation is inline with their actual words and work I've referenced, and thus I'd like to think probably their thinking and goals as well. I will find the section you mention and adjust my interpretation if appropriate.
I can see how some may be frustrated that H&K violated their guidelines if one is seeking to strictly interpret the guidelines as a definition for SCD. This is because H&K themselves do not appear to view the guidelines as a strict definition or requirements list. However, if one views the guidelines as a pioritization list and not a hard set of requirements, the materials they did catalogue will better fit the guidelines they provided.
<< <i>First, a suggestion. It took me about five minutes to figure out that SCD = So-Called Dollars. Once the initials have been defined, using “SCD” is fine, but you need to do that at the outset. The use of “jargon” is one of the pitfalls are urged to avoid. Although virtually all of us are coin collectors, many of us do not specialize in this area. I have some pieces that are considered to be So-Called Dollars, but I own them for other reasons. >>
Apologies for that Bill. Next time I'll try and remember to spell it out in the OP.
<< <i>My view is what is labeled as a So-Called Dollar should be made narrower rather than wider. The list of pieces that get into this classification is endless. If you have ever lived in New England you know that many communities have issued “town medals” over the years. Considering the aspect of size as well as the lack of hangers or needles so that they could be worn on a piece of clothing, many of these pieces would have many of the attributes to be So-Called Dollars. Even some of the annually issued NENA medal (New England Numismatic Association) could qualify. The So-Called Dollar needs to be restricted so that inventive dealers will not be able to expand it for their own purposes. >>
I think this is an issue that is on the minds of some; however, I do not think this type of thinking should dominate what is classified or not.
The primary goal in my mind should be classification and knowledge which is for posterity. What collectors and dealers do with that is secondary in my opinion, given that this tends to be more temporary.
<< <i>One area which could be open to interpretation concerns the question of off-metal pieces. As a collector of 19th century presidential campaign medalets, I can tell you that off-metal pieces do crop up from time to time. Once such items are verified as genuine, they should be included in the set automatically >>
Using a strict interpretation of H&K's guidelines (at least going forward) may mean those items cannot be included due to guideline #6 "No purely presidential or political medals." A more liberal interpretation would be that H&K would have covered those materials given time and resources. When examining the materials they did catalog, I could not find any presidential campaign (or inauguration) materials. However, presidential monument dedication commemoratives are included such as this privately struck Washington Monument SCD, HK-145. It appears it is unknown whether this was given out at the opening ceremonies or to visitors as a souvenir.
then again, they couldn't have ID'd every event which took place and when a medal such as the Rockport example pops up it causes confusion. i would ask Zoins or someone at the Raymond website if they could provide some sort of Historical background on the medal in question which might point to its Local, Regional or National significance. it could end up as just a nice looking medal issued by a town to celebrate its Centennial.
desirable but I've always felt that Hibler Kappan was primarily about the items included
is their specific collection(s) rather than a comprehensive list of all the medals that might
be included. This isn't to say the parameters are arbitrary but that the items included tend
to be random and only the more desirable items that fit the definitions. For those who deal
in the medals and for those who can afford all these the listing is superb but for those who
seek completeness then even the parameters seem very exclusionary. There are a great
number of scarce and desirable items not included or made since the release of the book.
There are also common and less desirable items that could be included.
Of course "to each his own" always applies and I do find myself stretching a little for medals
that appear inthe book. I suspect this might have more to do with resale value than true
collector value however.
ttt
<< <i>if a medal isn't listed in either the first or second edition of the book, then it isn't a SC$. i know this sounds dismissive, it's just the simplest answer >>
I don't think it's dismissive. It's your subjective opinion and you are entitled to it. Just because we may not agree, it doesn't mean you can't have your opinion. I will note that your approach to following the guidelines strictly appears to be inconsistent with H&K's text and catalogue.
<< <i>sort of echoes some of what BillJones wrote. >>
It appears both you and Bill Jones are concerned dealers may take advantage of SCD classification. While I understand your concern, my greater concern is knowledge so I don't think the actions of dealers are necessarily a good determiner for classification. I believe it's good to conduct research independently of sales.
<< <i>i consider that Harold Hibler and Charles Kappen did some very impressive research and didn't miss much(so they got to make the rules). >>
I also consider their work very impressive but the interesting thing is that some SCD collectors and dealers appear to take a hard line on H&K's guidelines which they don't even take. You can have your opinion but it does not look like H&K agree with your stance on the strictness of the "rules," a word that they don't appear to use.
<< <i>if an event which had medallic tribute associated with it was omitted there was probably a reason, and "significance" in a National or Local sense was probably lacking as judged by Hibler-Kappen. i suppose that the judgement from almost 50 years ago by two researchers may be inadequate for some of us, but it is all we nave until someone continues where they left off. i don't see that happening soon.
then again, they couldn't have ID'd every event which took place and when a medal such as the Rockport example pops up it causes confusion. i would ask Zoins or someone at the Raymond website if they could provide some sort of Historical background on the medal in question which might point to its Local, Regional or National significance. it could end up as just a nice looking medal issued by a town to celebrate its Centennial. >>
This is very speculative (i.e. you appear to be guessing). I don't like to guess.
Regarding your comment on sizes, I will note that I don't necessarily consider medals of every size to be inline with what I interpret H&K's goals to be.
While their guidelines specified materials from 33mm to 39mm, they catalogued material from 12mm to 54mm. In examining the material they catalogued outside of the guideline range, it seems that the smaller pieces were made of gold (some with additional metals) similar to the size of 13mm US gold dollar and the larger pieces were made for direct bullion value comparison to the dollar. Given this, my interpretation is that the 33mm-39mm range is a guideline and not a strict rule, but where they diverged from this guideline in practice, they tended to focus on pieces that were related to the bullion value of $1.
.............................but you do guess in your assumption that the Rockport medal is a SC$, that's why i made the suggestion that perhaps someone should research it.
that brings me to an interesting thought.................perhaps there needs to be some sensible basis for an item to be referred to as a So-Called Dollar aside from a seller/dealer/collector saying it is simply because they assert that it fits into what they view as arbitrary guidelines anyway. what significance does the Rockport medal make note of?? what is noteworthy in a regional/local/national sense about the celebration or the town/county?? what do you know about the medal that you could share with this forum to bolster your thought that it is a SC$??? i believe these are the types of questions that Mssr.'s Hibler and Kappen asked themselves as they were assembling their work.
now, to be clear, i'm not a dealer. i have owned and sold some of the finest graded and lowest extant SC$'s in the catalogue within the various genres that interest me. strangely, while collecting these medals i have from time to time stumbled across items which haven't been listed. to the best of my knowledge i have never called them Unlisted SC$'s. perhaps they have been an unrecorded Variety of some sort(alloy, die pairing, die variety of a known medal, etc) like what Tom mentioned earlier. others have been from an already noted event. still others have been from an event not in the Standard Catalogue. my feeling is that the use of the term Unlisted So-Called Dollar is entirely a marketing tool, it is used in venues like eBay to draw attention and it is placed in a convenient location where it will be noticed. i can't recall hearing the term used by the serious dealers i've talked with at Coin Shows or bandied about by collectors who know a little about this niche of the Hobby. to that end, when i see it used i almost wholly ignore it.
edit to add that, as always, i could be wrong in my recollection.
i think you mean 33-45(but silver Bryan Dollars are listed).
<< <i> I don't like to guess.
.............................but you do guess in your assumption that the Rockport medal is a SC$, that's why i made the suggestion that perhaps someone should research it. >>
Actually, what I'm doing is called deductive reasoning. The basic premises is that if medals that follow the guidelines are SCDs and a specific medal follows those guidelines, then that medal is a SCD. Furthermore, other city and county centennials are listed, so using deductive we have if city and county commemoratives are SCDs, and a medal is a city or county commemorative, then the medal is a SCD.
The reason I mentioned you hypothetical is speculative is because (a) we don't know if they reviewed the medal or not and (b) guessing that it was reviewed, we further don't know why it was discounted.
I feel such an exercise as you propose would be futile because we don't even know if they reviewed the medal or not. Furthermore, to make any comparison valid, we would need a control set., i.e. we need to know what was used to judge listed local (city and county) medals, i.e. HK-598, HK-599, HK-612, HK-615, HK-617, HK-625, HK-631, etc. Did H&K list any objective inclusion criteria for these city and county commemoratives, e.g. city/county population, median income, distance for major metropolitan area? If the answer is yes, then I think your exercise could be somewhat worthwhile. If we do not know this information, knowing the answers for the Rockport Centennial provide no additional usable information and thus would be a futile exercise.
<< <i>that brings me to an interesting thought.................perhaps there needs to be some sensible basis for an item to be referred to as a So-Called Dollar aside from a seller/dealer/collector saying it is simply because they assert that it fits into what they view as arbitrary guidelines anyway. what significance does the Rockport medal make note of?? what is noteworthy in a regional/local/national sense about the celebration or the town/county?? what do you know about the medal that you could share with this forum to bolster your thought that it is a SC$??? i believe these are the types of questions that Mssr.'s Hibler and Kappen asked themselves as they were assembling their work. >>
I feel the Rockport already passes the 8 guidelines to qualify as an Unlisted SCD, especially given that there are other minor County and City commemoratives listed. If it's that important to play police for what people call a SCD (even an unlisted one), I was going to suggest you could have the term trademarked and have an approval organization provide the stamp of approval you seem to want. However, the term is already in the vernacular and in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary so I think that option is no longer available.
<< <i>now, to be clear, i'm not a dealer. i have owned and sold some of the finest graded and lowest extant SC$'s in the catalogue within the various genres that interest me. strangely, while collecting these medals i have from time to time stumbled across items which haven't been listed. to the best of my knowledge i have never called them Unlisted SC$'s. perhaps they have been an unrecorded Variety of some sort(alloy, die pairing, die variety of a known medal, etc) like what Tom mentioned earlier. others have been from an already noted event. still others have been from an event not in the Standard Catalogue. my feeling is that the use of the term Unlisted So-Called Dollar is entirely a marketing tool, it is used in venues like eBay to draw attention and it is placed in a convenient location where it will be noticed. i can't recall hearing the term used by the serious dealers i've talked with at Coin Shows or bandied about by collectors who know a little about this niche of the Hobby. to that end, when i see it used i almost wholly ignore it.
edit to add that, as always, i could be wrong in my recollection. >>
I feel I can see your concern more clearly now. It appears your concern over the Unlisted SCD term has to do with the buying and selling of SCDs on eBay.
Truthfully, that's not something I think about so I don't have a response for that. I do think your issue is made more challenging by the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition.
All I can say (for now) is that it seems logical to call a medal, that meets the guidelines for an SCD and is unlisted, an Unlisted SCD.
<< <i>While their guidelines specified materials from 33mm to 39mm,
i think you mean 33-45(but silver Bryan Dollars are listed). >>
You're right. Thanks for that.
This topic is really more work than I thought it would be, but I guess that's to be expected when there are financial interests at stake.
Here's to looking forward to more great SCDs in the future.