If you could eliminate a coin from a Red Book listing what would it be?

TwoSides2aCoin · July 15, 2014 11:20PM

<< Definitely the 1922 "no D" Lincoln cent. I wish it had never happened. >>

Now that's classic. Will anyone else recognize the "pup".
( PICK UP POINT for non numismatic sorts)

tradedollarnut · July 15, 2014 11:39PM

<< 

<< 

<< I would eliminate the patterns which are not priced as patterns solely because of the unwarranted legitimacy conferred upon them by a Redbook listing: 1804 dollar, 1913 nickel, Stellas, etc. >>

The 1804 dollar is a pattern? Stunning discovery... >>

It's more precisely a fantasy piece. The term pattern currently encompasses actual patterns, plus die trials and fantasy pieces. >>

Nor is the Class I a fantasy piece. Do you even understand the coins that you are disparaging?

tradedollarnut · July 15, 2014 11:44PM

PS - the term is novodel. Not pattern, not fantasy piece. An official mint strike in a different year of a previously struck coin.

kennytpez · July 15, 2014 11:48PM

<< 

<< The 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln. >>

I checked my Red Book (2013 edition) and this coin is not in there. >>

The 2012 edition has it listed.

keets · July 15, 2014 11:51PM

The trifecta of this forum's version of Godwin's Law

yet the thread lives and even has legs, go figure!!

brg5658 · July 15, 2014 11:52PM

<< PS - the term is novodel. Not pattern, not fantasy piece. An official mint strike in a different year of a previously struck coin. >>

Wouldn't that require that at least some of the 1804 dollars had actually been struck in 1804?

I understand novodels to be defined as official strikes meant to reproduce actual issued coinage. There were no actual issued 1804 dollars. Care to clarify?

jmski52 · July 16, 2014 12:08AM

If Redbook lists any of the "smooth edge" Pres Dollars or Sac Dollars, it should list them all.

tradedollarnut · July 16, 2014 12:09AM

<< 

<< PS - the term is novodel. Not pattern, not fantasy piece. An official mint strike in a different year of a previously struck coin. >>

Wouldn't that require that at least some of the 1804 dollars had actually been struck in 1804?

I understand novodels to be defined as official strikes meant to reproduce actual issued coinage. There were no actual issued 1804 dollars. Care to clarify? >>

Mint records show 1804 dollars were struck. Just because we don't see any doesn't mean it didn't happen. They could have been melted, they could have been shipped and lost at sea ...or they could have had different dates on them.

brg5658 · July 16, 2014 12:27AM

<< 

<< 

<< PS - the term is novodel. Not pattern, not fantasy piece. An official mint strike in a different year of a previously struck coin. >>

Wouldn't that require that at least some of the 1804 dollars had actually been struck in 1804?

I understand novodels to be defined as official strikes meant to reproduce actual issued coinage. There were no actual issued 1804 dollars. Care to clarify? >>

Mint records show 1804 dollars were struck. Just because we don't see any doesn't mean it didn't happen. They could have been melted, they could have been shipped and lost at sea ...or they could have had different dates on them. >>

Mint records show that dollars were struck in 1804 -- not that any were struck with dies dated 1804. It's pretty well accepted they were struck with 1803 dies. Thus, I don't believe calling the much later "fantasy" issues dated 1804 novodels is correct.

Bayard1908 · July 16, 2014 1:24AM

<< PS - the term is novodel. Not pattern, not fantasy piece. An official mint strike in a different year of a previously struck coin. >>

In The Fantastic 1804 Dollar, Newman and Bressett refer to the coin as an "antedated fantasy." The use of "fantastic" in the book's title did not mean that the coin was amazing or wonderful, but, that it is a fantasy piece.

tradedollarnut · July 16, 2014 1:36AM

<< 

<< PS - the term is novodel. Not pattern, not fantasy piece. An official mint strike in a different year of a previously struck coin. >>

In The Fantastic 1804 Dollar, Newman and Bressett refer to the coin as an "antedated fantasy." The use of "fantastic" in the book's title did not mean that the coin was amazing or wonderful, but, that it is a fantasy piece. >>

That is quite the stretch in interpretation.

tradedollarnut · July 16, 2014 1:37AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< PS - the term is novodel. Not pattern, not fantasy piece. An official mint strike in a different year of a previously struck coin. >>

Wouldn't that require that at least some of the 1804 dollars had actually been struck in 1804?

I understand novodels to be defined as official strikes meant to reproduce actual issued coinage. There were no actual issued 1804 dollars. Care to clarify? >>

Mint records show 1804 dollars were struck. Just because we don't see any doesn't mean it didn't happen. They could have been melted, they could have been shipped and lost at sea ...or they could have had different dates on them. >>

Mint records show that dollars were struck in 1804 -- not that any were struck with dies dated 1804. It's pretty well accepted they were struck with 1803 dies. Thus, I don't believe calling the much later "fantasy" issues dated 1804 novodels is correct. >>

The intent was to strike a novodel. Whether they actually are or not is pretty much irrelevant and a subject of hindsight.

Bayard1908 · July 16, 2014 1:50AM

<< 

<< 

<< PS - the term is novodel. Not pattern, not fantasy piece. An official mint strike in a different year of a previously struck coin. >>

In The Fantastic 1804 Dollar, Newman and Bressett refer to the coin as an "antedated fantasy." The use of "fantastic" in the book's title did not mean that the coin was amazing or wonderful, but, that it is a fantasy piece. >>

That is quite the stretch in interpretation. >>

It's not a stretch in the slightest; it was exactly the authors' intent. "Antedated fantasy" is a quote, not an interpretation. If not considered a fantasy piece by Newman, what is your explanation for the remarkable coincidence that "fantastic" is in the book's title and the coin is referred to as an "antedated fantasy?"

tradedollarnut · July 16, 2014 1:54AM

I take it at face value - that they called the coin fantastic in the title exactly as intended - because it is the king of American coins. Just because YOU can't stand it doesn't change that fact

brg5658 · July 16, 2014 2:01AM

<< I take it at face value - that they called the coin fantastic in the title exactly as intended - because it is the king of American coins. Just because YOU can't stand it doesn't change that fact >>

You are incorrigible.

tradedollarnut · July 16, 2014 2:04AM

<< 

<< I take it at face value - that they called the coin fantastic in the title exactly as intended - because it is the king of American coins. Just because YOU can't stand it doesn't change that fact >>

You are incorrigible. >>

Thank you

TwoSides2aCoin · July 16, 2014 2:08AM

How to eliminate a coin from a Red Book listing:

A) Buy Red Book

Buy Sharpie
C) Pay Pal me $19.95 for further instructions on "How to Use your Sharpie"

tradedollarnut · July 16, 2014 2:17AM

Newman also titled a chapter in the book "The Diplomatic Gift Delusion". He must have had quite the egg on his face after that one.

DeliaBug · July 16, 2014 2:22AM

To answer to OP's original question:

<< The 1937-D "three-legged" nickel. I would like to know the story about how this came to be listed in the first place.

Was it listed in the Wayte Raymond coin book? >>

In the Raymond books, the first mention of this is in the 1954-55 edition where it states "1937 D. Some poorly struck pieces of this date give the buffalo the appearance of having only three legs" but it does not warrant a separate listing.

In the next edition, the 18th and final one, it did list the 1937 D separately (.75 in Unc for regular and $30.00 for the 3 legger in Unc) and the note has changed to "1937 D. Some pieces of this date struck from a clogged die give the buffalo the appearance of having only three legs".

telephoto1 · July 16, 2014 2:30AM

I agree about the Elephant tokens and the Sommer Islands pieces, neither of which were struck here, and the Bingle pieces, which were strictly tokens in the first place, not to mention being issued before Alaska was even a state. And, if we're including Puerto Rico and Philippine coinage struck here, why no Panama listings? Just another example of Redbook inconsistency.

TommyType · July 16, 2014 3:09AM

It seems to me that adding or deleting an entry in the Red Book is akin to deciding Pluto is not a planet.

While the logic may be correct, the time and effort required to justify the change makes it seem a whole lot easier just to leave it the way it was.

Bayard1908 · July 16, 2014 3:43AM

<< I take it at face value - that they called the coin fantastic in the title exactly as intended - because it is the king of American coins. Just because YOU can't stand it doesn't change that fact >>

Back when he was an appellate lawyer, Justice Roberts lost a Supreme Court case 9-0. When asked why he lost 9-0, he joked that it was because there were only 9 justices. Your argument's lack of persuasiveness reminds me of that story.

telephoto1 · July 16, 2014 4:41AM

Since it is being discussed (sort of), I have always wondered about something. Who exactly was responsible for deciding that the 1804 dollar was the "King of American Coins"?
Was there any thought behind it, or was the phrase simply created by someone attempting to sell one?

TwoSides2aCoin · July 16, 2014 4:41AM

<< 

<< I take it at face value - that they called the coin fantastic in the title exactly as intended - because it is the king of American coins. Just because YOU can't stand it doesn't change that fact >>

Back when he was an appellate lawyer, Justice Roberts lost a Supreme Court case 9-0. When asked why he lost 9-0, he joked that it was because there were only 9 justices. Your argument's lack of persuasiveness reminds me of that story. >>

Not to go too far off topic, but this reads to me, as history would show, that his loss led to an appointment to the highest court in the land. Looks like a WIN. No joke.

One thing we have to agree on is "THEY called the coin"
Heads or Tails…. We should be able to accept that easy enough, shouldn't we ? WIth respect to "those" coins. The coins I initially referred to are "struck from " or "struck for". To "place" into collector's hands for the express purpose of manufacturing for the collector. I think. I could be wrong, but at least I think.

MGLICKER · July 16, 2014 4:47AM

<< Not to go too far off topic, but this reads to me, as history would show, that his loss led to an appointment to the highest court in the land. Looks like a WIN. No joke. >>

Well except for those that deplore the ACA, but that is another matter.

TwoSides2aCoin · July 16, 2014 4:48AM

<< 

<< Not to go too far off topic, but this reads to me, as history would show, that his loss led to an appointment to the highest court in the land. Looks like a WIN. No joke. >>

Well except for those that deplore the ACA, but that is another matter. >>

Okay, I rest my case here Mark.
Kindly… as it were.

Joe

Coinosaurus · July 16, 2014 5:00AM

<< 

<< 

<< I take it at face value - that they called the coin fantastic in the title exactly as intended - because it is the king of American coins. Just because YOU can't stand it doesn't change that fact >>

You are incorrigible. >>

Thank you >>

All of you - go borrow the Newman video from the ANA Library - from the 1993 ANA, "My 75 Years in Numismatics" - and then you can see in Newman's own words how he interpreted the word "fantastic."

I could tell you the answer here but I think you will find the experience far more compelling if you do your own research, and you will likely not forgot the answer.

Besides that, it's just fun to watch Newman dish on any and all numismatic topics.

pennyannie · July 16, 2014 5:21AM

It is hard to look at this with un biased eyes.

streeter · July 16, 2014 5:31AM

I have an issue with Redbook valuing older issues of itself. I think that section should either
be much more conservative or be deleted.

COALPORTER · July 16, 2014 6:10AM

<< How to eliminate a coin from a Red Book listing:

A) Buy Red Book

Buy Sharpie
C) Pay Pal me $19.95 for further instructions on "How to Use your Sharpie" >>

Really, that is why I stared buying the spiral bound edition and ripping
out anything newer than 1892

tradedollarnut · July 16, 2014 7:52AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< I take it at face value - that they called the coin fantastic in the title exactly as intended - because it is the king of American coins. Just because YOU can't stand it doesn't change that fact >>

You are incorrigible. >>

Thank you >>

All of you - go borrow the Newman video from the ANA Library - from the 1993 ANA, "My 75 Years in Numismatics" - and then you can see in Newman's own words how he interpreted the word "fantastic."

I could tell you the answer here but I think you will find the experience far more compelling if you do your own research, and you will likely not forgot the answer.

Besides that, it's just fun to watch Newman dish on any and all numismatic topics. >>

Ain't gonna happen so you may as well spill the beans.

Sorry, but he may be a very smart numismatist but he was pretty far off base on the 1804 Class I coins if he was gonna title a chapter in his book what he was. Bayard may be right about his conjecture on the play on words in the title as the entire book reeks of a hatchet job.

coinguy1989 · July 16, 2014 9:47AM

<< 

Also, a Chinese "1888-CC" Morgan Dollar isn't: over-struck on a real Morgan Dollar; isn't real silver; wasn't struck using a surplus US Mint coin press; wasn't made by a person that designed coins for the US Mint.
>>

For all you know, the first two things could be true for a contemporaneously made piece, and since you were not acting in any official capacity or performing a function spelled out by federal statute, I don't see how the last one is even relevant. I don't think your pieces should be listed, but I also don't think a lot of the tokens and private restrikes should be listed in the Red Book either.

brg5658 · July 16, 2014 1:15PM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< I take it at face value - that they called the coin fantastic in the title exactly as intended - because it is the king of American coins. Just because YOU can't stand it doesn't change that fact >>

You are incorrigible. >>

Thank you >>

All of you - go borrow the Newman video from the ANA Library - from the 1993 ANA, "My 75 Years in Numismatics" - and then you can see in Newman's own words how he interpreted the word "fantastic."

I could tell you the answer here but I think you will find the experience far more compelling if you do your own research, and you will likely not forgot the answer.

Besides that, it's just fun to watch Newman dish on any and all numismatic topics. >>

Ain't gonna happen so you may as well spill the beans.

Sorry, but he may be a very smart numismatist but he was pretty far off base on the 1804 Class I coins if he was gonna title a chapter in his book what he was. Bayard may be right about his conjecture on the play on words in the title as the entire book reeks of a hatchet job. >>

And, TDN, can you please point me to your published and researched scholarship on the issue at hand?

...

...

...

...thought so...

tradedollarnut · July 16, 2014 1:19PM

WTF?

If you could eliminate a coin from a Red Book listing what would it be?

Comments

Leave a Comment