Options
New Redbook Varieties
Boosibri
Posts: 11,876 ✭✭✭✭✭
Given the privilege of having so many Redbook contributors on the forum, I was wondering if anyone knows how often new varieties are added to the Redbook. There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to why some varieties are included and others aren't perhaps other than historical interest.
0
Comments
Recently, the Redbook chose to include a Type 1 and a Type 2 1971-D Eisenhower Dollar yet did not bother to include ANY descriptive substance on what differentiated the two coins.
Most folks realize that the 1971-D Friendly Eagle is the Type 1 while the common 1971-D is the Type 2.
PCGS picked up on this and modified the registry sets so that the "Type 2" received its own coin number (aside from the common 1971-D) and as such required 3 1971-D Coins for the Sets.
A standard 1971-D
A 1971-D Friendly Eagle
A 1971-D Type 2 coin
The IKE Group quickly informed them of the error which has since been corrected.
Now the question is "What include a Variety yet not include information on what constitutes the variety"?
The name is LEE!
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
You can see both sides of the argument. If the Red Book allowed a great many items to get in as a variety, the book would become uncommonly large, and the sheer volume of varieties would diminish the value of the listings. Conversely if a significant numbers of more important varieties were excluded it would diminish the value of the book. Therefore you need a balance.
To cite a classic example, the 1955 Doubled Die cent was discovered in 1955, but it did not appear in the Red Book until the 13th edition, which was published in 1959.
The Red Book listing and photos can mess things up too. In the early editions the photo of the "Small 5, Stems" half cent was not of the proper coin. It shows the far more common "Large 5 with Stems." This resulted in misattributions and confusion for a number of years.
<< <i>19Lyds, The 2015 RedBook has included a footnote for the 1971-D "Variety 2" as "Modified with accented crater lines." This footnote did not appear in the 2014 RedBook. Can you explain how this correlates to the 1971-D F.E.V. ? >>
There is no correlation at all. The Type 2 1971-D is the standard 1971-D. Any comments regarding "crater lines" in reference to a "Type 2 or Variety II" is just wrong.
It's funny how "descriptive text" regarding Eisenhower Dollars ALWAYS refers to some "interpretive" definition instead of getting right to the heart of the matter. Such things do nothing other than CONFUSE prospective collectors.
The RDV-006 (FEV) have an easily identifiable Island Configuration. Specifically, 4 Islands below Florida where as the "other variety (standard) has 3 distinct islands. It's easy peasey once the primary difference is shown.
Type 1-FEV (based upon chronology of "assumed" die creation)
Type 2-Common
To me, the Type 1 name should belong to the first variety "identified" (to minimize confusion) with the Type 2 belonging to the second variety "identified". This keeps the naming convention that same as when doubled dies are "identified".
Yes, the craters are different on the Redbook Type 1 but the island configuration is easier to spot.
The name is LEE!
Even assuming that demand was stoked for the varieties by their inclusion as these coins became part of specialist's set by collectors who defined their goals buy the Redbook or holder list/definitions of what constituted a "complete set" , IMO those days are long over with the Registries taking on the role of market mover in terms of defining how people structure their collections and the demand that springs for the keys needed in the fulfillment of common goals.
<< <i>I think the old adage of being included in the Redbook always correlating to increased interest is kind of wrong at worst and outdated at best. While there are some low mintage dates and random coins that gained "Redbook" fame with increased demand such as 1889 $10Libs and random coins like that as generations of collectors thumbed through the pages and saw small mintage's or interesting pictures that dealers in turn played up. I think most of the coins were already popular and in-demand which lead to their inclusion and thus the perception of collector interest being tied to inclusion thus becoming a chicken or the egg scenario or self fulfilling.
Even assuming that demand was stoked for the varieties by their inclusion as these coins became part of specialist's set by collectors who defined their goals buy the Redbook or holder list/definitions of what constituted a "complete set" , IMO those days are long over with the Registries taking on the role of market mover in terms of defining how people structure their collections and the demand that springs for the keys needed in the fulfillment of common goals. >>
If you have been collecting as long as I have (since 1959), there was a time when the Red Book was "the numismatic bible." It is still a bargain because you can't get that much general information from one place that is as easy to carry to a show.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think the old adage of being included in the Redbook always correlating to increased interest is kind of wrong at worst and outdated at best. While there are some low mintage dates and random coins that gained "Redbook" fame with increased demand such as 1889 $10Libs and random coins like that as generations of collectors thumbed through the pages and saw small mintage's or interesting pictures that dealers in turn played up. I think most of the coins were already popular and in-demand which lead to their inclusion and thus the perception of collector interest being tied to inclusion thus becoming a chicken or the egg scenario or self fulfilling.
Even assuming that demand was stoked for the varieties by their inclusion as these coins became part of specialist's set by collectors who defined their goals buy the Redbook or holder list/definitions of what constituted a "complete set" , IMO those days are long over with the Registries taking on the role of market mover in terms of defining how people structure their collections and the demand that springs for the keys needed in the fulfillment of common goals. >>
If you have been collecting as long as I have (since 1959), there was a time when the Red Book was "the numismatic bible." It is still a bargain because you can't get that much general information from one place that is as easy to carry to a show. >>
i would agree with that esp the (there was a time when the Red Book was "the numismatic bible). My whole point was that it isn't the end all it once was and the people who think it is a one way ticket to market manipulation are slightly off base. PCGS designating something a Major is much bigger deal now days IMHO
<< <i> PCGS designating something a Major is much bigger deal now days IMHO >>
I think the major TPGs have something like 6,000 or 7,000 active collectors in their
set registries. The Red Book sells about 50 times that many books in a slow year.
I'm not saying the set registries are insignificant --- there's a lot of passion there,
and some very heavy hitting when it comes to the ol' checkbook. But new collectors
don't cut their teeth on third-party grading and registry sets. Those are more
sophisticated concepts for intermediate to advanced collectors.
<< <i>
<< <i> PCGS designating something a Major is much bigger deal now days IMHO >>
I think the major TPGs have something like 6,000 or 7,000 active collectors in their
set registries. The Red Book sells about 50 times that many books in a slow year.
I'm not saying the set registries are insignificant --- there's a lot of passion there,
and some very heavy hitting when it comes to the ol' checkbook. But new collectors
don't cut their teeth on third-party grading and registry sets. Those are more
sophisticated concepts for intermediate to advanced collectors. >>
I get that and to be clear I am not disparaging the redbook in any way. I grew up on it like the rest of us and it is THE numismatic reference book.
I just think its market influence at Making markets and drumming up (advanced) specialist demand is often over stated.
<< <i>I just think its market influence at Making markets and drumming up (advanced) specialist demand is often over stated. >>
Sometimes collectors and dealers can be very bullish on getting a favorite coin listed in the
Red Book, in an attempt to drum up popular interest (and, they hope, watch the market,
and therefore the value of their holdings, skyrocket).
I explain to them that the Red Book reports on the market and collector trends; it
doesn't seek to spearhead popular interest in any particular die variety or other coin.
If the Red Book's editors see strong, broad interest within the hobby community for a
particular variety, it has a much better chance of being included in the book.
Strong, broad interest can be manifested many ways. If we see a lot of letters to the editors
of the hobby newspapers . . . or receive letters and emails ourselves . . . and hear people
talking about the variety at coin shows, club meetings, and online . . . and see articles
and possibly even books being written by collectors, dealers, and other numismatists . . .
and observe the growth of a healthy and vibrant secondary market, with buy-sell-and-trade
prices actively published and discussed . . . All of these things point toward an active and
popular interest in a particular die variety.
Do the editors and publisher of the Red Book have a vested interest in drumming up
popular interest in any given variety? No.
But do we want to report on well-developed trends that show signs of long-term "here to
stay" activity within the hobby community? Yes!
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>
<< <i> PCGS designating something a Major is much bigger deal now days IMHO >>
I think the major TPGs have something like 6,000 or 7,000 active collectors in their
set registries. The Red Book sells about 50 times that many books in a slow year.
I'm not saying the set registries are insignificant --- there's a lot of passion there,
and some very heavy hitting when it comes to the ol' checkbook. But new collectors
don't cut their teeth on third-party grading and registry sets. Those are more
sophisticated concepts for intermediate to advanced collectors. >>
The TPG's (PCGS Specifically) do not refer to coins as "Major". "Major" is the default since any coin which is in fact a doubled die or some type or an "established" variety which is NOT in the CPG automatically becomes a "Minor Variety".
Now I have heard PCGS representatives "use" the term "Major Variety" but since their labels do not specifically state "Major" I can only conclude that major is the default regardless of how untrue it actually might be.
Personally, I think it sucks that the TPG's are now "RELYING" upon a document that, more times than not, provides minimal attribution verifications and often times provides incorrect variety attribution information. Being professional grading companies that assign grades according to value, they should know where to go to validate their attributions.
The CPG screwed up the photographic evidence for the FS-801 and FS-802 Washington DDR coins which cost a lot of folks a lot of money and resulted in a LOT of misattributions which resulted in a lack of interest. Now, both coins go to the appendices where future correct attributions may or may not occur. I recall the 1977-D DDO Kennedy (FS-101) residing in the 4th Edition of the Vol II CPG and PCGS would not attribute the coin. I'm wondering what's going to happen to the varieties the get "put into" the appendix?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>While the Red Book has made progress, it still falls well short of expectations in view of the mature US coin market that is predicated on significant research. >>
Expand on that sentiment if you would, my good chap.
<< <i>
<< <i>I just think its market influence at Making markets and drumming up (advanced) specialist demand is often over stated. >>
Sometimes collectors and dealers can be very bullish on getting a favorite coin listed in the
Red Book, in an attempt to drum up popular interest (and, they hope, watch the market,
and therefore the value of their holdings, skyrocket).
I explain to them that the Red Book reports on the market and collector trends; it
doesn't seek to spearhead popular interest in any particular die variety or other coin.
If the Red Book's editors see strong, broad interest within the hobby community for a
particular variety, it has a much better chance of being included in the book.
Strong, broad interest can be manifested many ways. If we see a lot of letters to the editors
of the hobby newspapers . . . or receive letters and emails ourselves . . . and hear people
talking about the variety at coin shows, club meetings, and online . . . and see articles
and possibly even books being written by collectors, dealers, and other numismatists . . .
and observe the growth of a healthy and vibrant secondary market, with buy-sell-and-trade
prices actively published and discussed . . . All of these things point toward an active and
popular interest in a particular die variety.
Do the editors and publisher of the Red Book have a vested interest in drumming up
popular interest in any given variety? No.
But do we want to report on well-developed trends that show signs of long-term "here to
stay" activity within the hobby community? Yes! >>
Here's an idea to take back to your boss:
How about dividing the Redbook into multiple volumes such as what the CPG has done? I know that there are literally THOUSANDS of different varieties for some coins and each one that can be verified and classified SHOULD be in a list for collectors somewhere.
In wandering through the various attribution guides which exist out there, it can get very confusing deciphering which variety number goes with which coin. Almost to the poibnt of requiring the purchaser to be a specialist in whatever series they are purchasing.
Ex:
The 1971-S Proof DDR IKE which has doubling on par with the 1961 DDR Franklin is identified as DDR-005 by CONECA, WDDR-010 by John Wexler and IDDDR-035 by Tom Kalantzis of IKE Dollar Doubled Dies. Thankfully, there aren't other attributers out there with their own numbering schemes for these coins such as the 2009 DDR Lincolns.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>How about dividing the Redbook into multiple volumes such as what the CPG has done? I know that there are literally THOUSANDS of different varieties for some coins and each one that can be verified and classified SHOULD be in a list for collectors somewhere. >>
An intriguing idea!
The Red Book is meant as an overview reference guide. It's not comprehensive or encyclopedic,
but it strives to provide as much valuable information as possible to as many readers as possible.
The Red Book includes some die varieties (like the 1955 Doubled-Die Obverse Lincoln cent, for
example), but not every die variety.
A few months ago a reader wrote in to ask why the Red Book doesn't include information on the
"Bugs Bunny" Franklin half dollar. I reassured him that yes, Whitman considers these to be legitimate
die varieties. Detailed information on various dates is featured in the Cherrypickers’ Guide, which
is a more specialized reference than the Red Book.
I directed him to the Fifth Edition, Volume II of the CPG.
The variety is also included, I told him, in the fifth edition of the Guide Book of United States Coins,
Professional Edition, which is intended more for the intermediate to advanced collector and specialist.
The Red Book should be more reflective of what exists. I appreciate that the goal may not be to serve as a comprehensive guide to US coins, but certainly it could include additional varieties and/or coin types than it does. As an example, as part of the introduction to a specific series, there could be a small section that identifies the key varieties. There are certain coins that have been around for awhile, some are significant and others less so, that have not been included in the Red Book that should at least be acknowledged.
Examples?
1918-D WLH no initials which was discovered over 50 years ago- not in the Red Book
1971-s Ike type I proof- the first one was discovered some years ago-perhaps 10-12 years ago (I am not sure off hand), but certainly this is worthy of inclusion. I really doubt there is a compelling reason for the continued oversight...
I could go on, but I would rather stop and encourage others to offer constructive suggestions.
Final comment for this post... A price guide represents coin valuations at the time of publication whereas a reference guide can and should extend well beyond that.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>What is worse, and potentially more damaging to the hobby than having a legitimate variety overlooked, and not listed in the Red Book, is to have a non-existent or bogus variety listed, thus taking on a life of its own. One such variety is the so-called 1861/0 Liberty Seated half dime. This presumed overdate was first listed in the Red Book several years ago, and has remained there ever since. However, in Issue #40 of the Gobrecht Journal (official quarterly publication of the Liberty Seated Collectors Club), dated November 1987, Thomas DeLorey, former chief authenticator at ANACS (CaptHenway on this forum) correctly identified the alleged 1861/0 overdate as simply a regular date coin for which a defective numeral 1 punch had been used to impress the date into the working dies. The rounded shoulder of the punch (the area surrounding the digit 1) was struck so deeply into the working die(s) that it appeared to be an under-digit 0. In fact, it has been shown that there were actually several working dies exhibiting this anomaly, making the supposed "1861/0" one of the most common varieties for the date. Attempts by Tom DeLorey to have this variety de-listed have been unsuccessful. I am slightly amused as I peruse a bourse floor, looking for scarce and rare die marriages of half dimes, and see numerous examples of the "1861/0", all listed as RARE, and priced accordingly. My amusement subsides, though, when I think of the money unsuspecting collectors lose with each purchase. And every dealer who sells one of these improperly described, even misrepresented, coins has a legitimate excuse, simply pointing to the Red Book. >>
Stephen,
I absolutely agree that the 1861/0 is simply the result of a damaged date punch. The same was done on the 1865 Two cent, that Breen called a 5/4.
Both of these varieties had extra metal in the exact same relative position to the primary digit, which if you consider that the date was punched into the working die by hand, and the probability of striking the two date punches in the exact same location, and leaving the exact same extra metal is probably 0 chance.
I read Tom's article, I have read through all of the LS journals, and read others who believed it was an overdate during different periods.
I also see that the premium realized at coin shows and auctions is not that dramatic, which IMO reflects that many do not believe it to be an overdate.
Obviously as you specialize in the LSHD, you are better aware of this.
Does PCGS, NGC, or ANACS list this as an overdate, I believe I have seen them listed as "1861/0" on the holders.
I see CPG lists this variety as an overdate, but includes the note in the bottom that some do not believe it is an overdate. They also state that there are 5 varieties of this.
In the 2014 Red Book, it shows a photo and lists this variety as "1861 So-Called 1 Over 0", I believe this is a good precautionary step in not stating it is an overdate, but a variety that has been called an overdate.
Sometimes I believe what Ken B does is to bring it down a step, see what the market and reaction is, then take the next step.
Kevin
Thank you for your comments and input regarding the "1861/0" half dime. I think that the more light we all shed on this bogus variety, the better off the hobby will be. However, in your comments you stated:
"I also see that the premium realized at coin shows and auctions is not that dramatic"
I'm afraid I cannot agree with this statement, at least as far as published prices realized reveal. If we look at the PCGS Price Guide (which does list the 1861/0 as a separate entity), for instance, we can see that they attribute a substantial premium to this variety. For example, in AU-55 grade, a generic 1861 is listed at $155.00, yet an AU-55 example of the supposed "1861/0" is listed at $600.00! In MS-63 grade, a similar premium can be seen, with prices of $285.00 for the generic date, and $950.00 for the supposed overdate. A 300% - 400% premium is quite dramatic. And prices seen on representative examples of this variety in the marketplace are representative of the PCGS Price Guide suggested pricing. If we look on eBay, there are presently 21 examples of this 'rarity' listed, all with premiums well over the generic 1861 date. It is incumbent on all of us to educate the public about the potential pitfalls of purchasing any example of the alleged "1861/0", particularly if a premium is involved. If any collector is determined to purchase an example of this variety, resist the urge to pay any premium for an identified example. Simply look closely at virtually any 1861 half dime, and locate your own example for a generic price. Trust me, they are everywhere.
Perhaps you are right, that Ken Bressett and the Red Book are attempting to slowly reduce the status of this variety, and gauge the hobby's reaction. Maybe one day we will finally rid ourselves of this misrepresented variety, potentially making room for other, more deserving varieties to be listed.
<< <i>Given the privilege of having so many Redbook contributors on the forum, I was wondering if anyone knows how often new varieties are added to the Redbook. >>
Insider trading.....
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots
<< <i>"I also see that the premium realized at coin shows and auctions is not that dramatic"
I'm afraid I cannot agree with this statement, at least as far as published prices realized reveal. If we look at the PCGS Price Guide (which does list the 1861/0 as a separate entity), for instance, we can see that they attribute a substantial premium to this variety. For example, in AU-55 grade, a generic 1861 is listed at $155.00, yet an AU-55 example of the supposed "1861/0" is listed at $600.00! In MS-63 grade, a similar premium can be seen, with prices of $285.00 for the generic date, and $950.00 for the supposed overdate. A 300% - 400% premium is quite dramatic. And prices seen on representative examples of this variety in the marketplace are representative of the PCGS Price Guide suggested pricing. If we look on eBay, there are presently 21 examples of this 'rarity' listed, all with premiums well over the generic 1861 date. It is incumbent on all of us to educate the public about the potential pitfalls of purchasing any example of the alleged "1861/0", particularly if a premium is involved. If any collector is determined to purchase an example of this variety, resist the urge to pay any premium for an identified example. Simply look closely at virtually any 1861 half dime, and locate your own example for a generic price. Trust me, they are everywhere. >>
Stephen,
I figured you would be much more knowledgeable on the premium realized on these as you have studied this series probably more than anyone else, and I agree, a 300-400% permium is very significant.
My perspective was from seeing this variety in local public coin auctions, whereas it realized only a little premium even though it it was listed as an overdate. Of course this might be due to the collectors at the auction not aware or collecting this series. I have also seen this variety at local coin shows, and the dealers might have listed it for much more than the normal date, but they were willing to negotiate it down based on the questionability of it being an overdate.
Kevin
<< <i>Kevin:
...............I'm afraid I cannot agree with this statement, at least as far as published prices realized reveal. If we look at the PCGS Price Guide (which does list the 1861/0 as a separate entity), for instance, we can see that they attribute a substantial premium to this variety. For example, in AU-55 grade, a generic 1861 is listed at $155.00, yet an AU-55 example of the supposed "1861/0" is listed at $600.00! >>
Price Guide values are meaningless in the real world.
For example, a 2008-D John Quincy Adams Position A presidential dollar has a PG Value of $115 while the same coin in a First Day of Issue Slab has a PG Value of.....................
(you ready?)
$550!
I have one of those coins which I cannot give away at $195 First Day of Issue or not.
Sure, poo poo the slab label but the point I am trying to make is that PG Values are based upon "reported and published" sales. Those figures could very well be w-a-a-a-y after the fact (as in the Presidential Dollar above) and until coin dealers and auction houses start reporting newer figures, the numbers will never change. And really, what coin dealer is going to sell at a loss much less report that loss?
If the coin is a nul or delisted l variety, what auction house is even going to list it?
As such, the PG Figures will just remain static.
The name is LEE!