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

291fifth · July 14, 2014 11:28PM

My choice:

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?

LindeDad · July 14, 2014 11:34PM

Some tasks are fultile.

DennisH · July 14, 2014 11:40PM

1914/3 Buffalo nickel. I've never been convinced about that one.

TwoSides2aCoin · July 14, 2014 11:43PM

Eliminate ? I would include a few of Dan Carr's pieces as Americana.

BillJones · July 14, 2014 11:54PM

The 1804 "Restrike" cent. It is not a "restrike," and it is only a 19th century counterfeit.

The thing was made from a combination of a discarded and altered 1803 obverse die and an 1820 cent die. Believe or not the registry ATS let a guy use that thing in his type set, and he got credit for a Mint State coin.

BillJones · July 14, 2014 11:57PM

<< Eliminate ? I would include a few of Dan Carr's pieces as Americana. >>

Please ... Give it rest.

Maybe we need to include the new Chinese counterfeits in the Red Book as well ... like the "1888-CC Morgan dollar." That thing is just as legitimate as the Carr creations since the real coin never existed and it does not have "COPY" on it.

Bayard1908 · July 15, 2014 12:00AM

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.

tradedollarnut · July 15, 2014 12:04AM

<< 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...

DaveWcoins · July 15, 2014 12:04AM

Eliminate? Why would anyone want to do such a thing?

If some collectors derive enjoyment from collecting a coin, what point is it to spoil their fun?

The only area I would consider deleting from the Redbook would be (1.) debunked varieties that really aren't, and (2.) coins that are proven to be forgeries and have been sold as genuine (the Good Samaritan Shilling and some of the faked pioneer gold coins/bars come to mind; these have been deleted from the Redbook over the years).

PerryHall · July 15, 2014 12:05AM

<< 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. >>

Agree. Also, the 1856 Flying Eagle cent is a pattern and should be eliminated.

WingedLiberty1957 · July 15, 2014 12:59AM

1970-s small date Lincoln

So obscure and hard to detect that PCGS and NGC seem to regularly get this one wrong

IMHO a better name would have been high 7 and low 7 (rather than large date and small date)

MidLifeCrisis · July 15, 2014 1:03AM

<< 

<< 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. >>

Agree. Also, the 1856 Flying Eagle cent is a pattern and should be eliminated. >>

Why?

What's the goal of eliminating them?

PerryHall · July 15, 2014 1:11AM

<< 

<< 

<< 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. >>

Agree. Also, the 1856 Flying Eagle cent is a pattern and should be eliminated. >>

Why?

What's the goal of eliminating them? >>

They are not regular issue coins. The Red Book doesn't include the 1858 Indian cent pattern with the Indian cent series for example. I have no problem including them in the back of the book as patterns which is what they are.

PerryHall · July 15, 2014 1:13AM

<< My choice:

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? >>

Sort of like the 1922 Plain Lincoln cent.

PerryHall · July 15, 2014 1:18AM

<< 

<< 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... >>

Not a pattern but certainly not a regular issue, especially the ones made around 1860 by the midnight minters for favored collectors.

TwoSides2aCoin · July 15, 2014 1:29AM

<< 

<< Eliminate ? I would include a few of Dan Carr's pieces as Americana. >>

Please ... Give it rest.

Maybe we need to include the new Chinese counterfeits in the Red Book as well ... like the "1888-CC Morgan dollar." That thing is just as legitimate as the Carr creations since the real coin never existed and it does not have "COPY" on it. >>

tradedollarnut · July 15, 2014 1:30AM

<< 

<< 

<< 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... >>

Not a pattern but certainly not a regular issue, especially the ones made around 1860 by the midnight minters for favored collectors. >>

Not a regular issue but the Class I coins are certainly legitimate mint products made in the somewhat ordinary course of business for the Mint. Just because one resents their fame and price is no reason to remove them from the Redbook.

messydesk · July 15, 2014 1:39AM

The part of me that thinks objectively would say that the "1789" Mott Token doesn't really belong where it is (Colonial issues), since it's a backdated store token from the 1830s. The part of me that thinks it's very cool and bought a nice early die state doesn't think it should be removed.

TPRC · July 15, 2014 1:43AM

<< Eliminate? Why would anyone want to do such a thing?

If some collectors derive enjoyment from collecting a coin, what point is it to spoil their fun?

The only area I would consider deleting from the Redbook would be (1.) debunked varieties that really aren't, and (2.) coins that are proven to be forgeries and have been sold as genuine (the Good Samaritan Shilling and some of the faked pioneer gold coins/bars come to mind; these have been deleted from the Redbook over the years). >>

+1

I have always wondered, however, why and how certain pieces made it into the Colonial section of the Redbook, while others didn't. For example, I have 2 Washington Success Tokens and several Conders that don't appear, strictly speaking, to be Colonials. I still don't think they ought to remove them, I just wonder at how those choices were made.

Walkerguy21D · July 15, 2014 1:57AM

I'm Ok retaining popular and legit varieties of US minted coins.
Patterns that were strictly patterns could go - or include all of them.
The Colonial listing could use a good weeding out as well....one not mentioned yet is the
London Elephant token. It wasn't minted here, nor was it intended to circulate here. I think the
listing states 'some may have been brought over by colonists'.....if that's the criteria to appear in
the Redbook, you may as well add a good portion of the Krause World catalogs.

PerryHall · July 15, 2014 2:08AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< 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... >>

Not a pattern but certainly not a regular issue, especially the ones made around 1860 by the midnight minters for favored collectors. >>

Not a regular issue but the Class I coins are certainly legitimate mint products made in the somewhat ordinary course of business for the Mint. Just because one resents their fame and price is no reason to remove them from the Redbook. >>

Agree with you. I never said eliminate it from the Red Book. Just explaining why others may think otherwise.

Patches · July 15, 2014 2:49AM

None, less information is not better

OKbustchaser · July 15, 2014 2:55AM

Any and all die state "varieties". For example, the 1807 "Bearded Goddess" half. It is an ordinary die state of an otherwise reasonably common coin...another example is the "three-legged buffalo". These are not separate varieties--they are simply examples of normal coins struck from old worn dies which happened to garner cool nicknames.

jcping · July 15, 2014 3:04AM

No one called 1913 V-nickel yet

dcarr · July 15, 2014 3:08AM

<< 

<< Eliminate ? I would include a few of Dan Carr's pieces as Americana. >>

Please ... Give it rest.

Maybe we need to include the new Chinese counterfeits in the Red Book as well ... like the "1888-CC Morgan dollar." That thing is just as legitimate as the Carr creations since the real coin never existed and it does not have "COPY" on it. >>

The OP did not specifically indicate that they were talking about fantasy-date over-strike coins.
Maybe they were referring to Hard Times Tokens or Ameros.

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.

PS:
If you are not going to "give it a rest", why should the OP ?

PerryHall · July 15, 2014 3:15AM

<< 

<< Eliminate ? I would include a few of Dan Carr's pieces as Americana. >>

Please ... Give it rest.

Maybe we need to include the new Chinese counterfeits in the Red Book as well ... like the "1888-CC Morgan dollar." That thing is just as legitimate as the Carr creations since the real coin never existed and it does not have "COPY" on it. >>

Should we eliminate the New Haven restrikes of the Fugio cent from the Red Book? These are not actual restrikes since original dies were not used.

BillJones · July 15, 2014 3:38AM

<< 

<< 

<< Eliminate ? I would include a few of Dan Carr's pieces as Americana. >>

Please ... Give it rest.

Maybe we need to include the new Chinese counterfeits in the Red Book as well ... like the "1888-CC Morgan dollar." That thing is just as legitimate as the Carr creations since the real coin never existed and it does not have "COPY" on it. >>

Should we eliminate the New Haven restrikes of the Fugio cent from the Red Book? These are not actual restrikes since original dies were not used. >>

Those things were made in the mid 19th century and have a legitimate collector base. It also helps to show the difference between them (thin rings vs. thick rings) and the original coins.

AMRC · July 15, 2014 3:43AM

Nothing. Thanks.

kiyote · July 15, 2014 3:52AM

The ARRC Bingle tokens.

rec78 · July 15, 2014 4:07AM

1837 half cent token. It even says "token not a coin" in the book. I do have one of these however and the listing in the red book has increased its value over the years.

dcarr · July 15, 2014 4:24AM

<< 1837 half cent token. It even says "token not a coin" in the book. I do have one of these however and the listing in the red book has increased its value over the years. >>

The Red Book does have listings for quite a few things that are not (and/or were not) official legal tender.
Examples are: Hard Times Tokens; Civil War Tokens; pioneer gold coins; "Pillar Dollars"; colonial coins; Lesher Dollars"; etc.
If it circulated in the United States as "money", then I think listing it is ok.

mozin · July 15, 2014 4:25AM

<< Any and all die state "varieties". For example, the 1807 "Bearded Goddess" half. It is an ordinary die state of an otherwise reasonably common coin...another example is the "three-legged buffalo". These are not separate varieties--they are simply examples of normal coins struck from old worn dies which happened to garner cool nicknames. >>

I hope not.

I would hate to lose the REDBOOK listings for Capped Bust Half Dollar die state varieties, such as 1807 Bearded Goddess LDS, 1812 Single Leaf LDS, 1814 Single Leaf LDS, 1817 Single Leaf LDS, 1817 Punctuated Date (Since the dot is entirely removed in the late die state), 1823 Broken 3, 1823 Patched 3 (The repaired Broken 3), 1823 Ugly 3, or even the 1836 50C/UNI (Since the 50C/UNI is entirely removed in the late die state). These are all quite well-known varieties, each commanding much more money than the ordinary date die states.

I am wondering why the 1813 Single Leaf is not in the REDBOOK. It has been in both of the latest two editions of the Overton-Parsley book, and PCGS recognizes it.

johnny9434 · July 15, 2014 4:28AM

the 1913 v nickel. it was never authorized as far as im concerned.

MidLifeCrisis · July 15, 2014 4:35AM

A Guide Book of United States Coins....

It should be renamed to A Guide Book of United States Coins and Related Issues.

I wouldn't eliminate anything from it. If anything, I would add more foreign coins that circulated in early America.

Patterns, tokens, restrikes, varieties...they all have a place in American numismatics and should be included. It is a guide book, after all.

sparky64 · July 15, 2014 8:13AM

<< I wouldn't eliminate anything from it. If anything, I would add more foreign coins that circulated in early America. >>

My thoughts exactly. I wish they had a small section for Spanish Dollars.

planonit · July 15, 2014 8:15AM

<< Believe or not the registry ATS let a guy use that thing in his type set, and he got credit for a Mint State coin. >>

That is asinine. Did they reverse this policy? I mean that is really beyond silly.

mdwoods · July 15, 2014 8:26AM

I wouldn't take anything out. Why reduce the amount of knowledge available in the book? Instead make notations about the questionable items.

CoinZip · July 15, 2014 8:31AM

Instead of eliminating things I would rather see more information, or support as to why they are listed ???

MrHalfDime · July 15, 2014 8:51AM

"The only area I would consider deleting from the Redbook would be (1.) debunked varieties that really aren't"

And we should start with the infamous "1861/0" half dime, which never should have been listed in the first place.

MGLICKER · July 15, 2014 8:59AM

Redbook is fine as is.

Academically, the mint cancelled "waffled" pieces would be a candidate for elimination as the mint no longer considers them to be coins.

BLUEJAYWAY · July 15, 2014 1:30PM

Maybe a concession for both sides could be a seperate listing/section within the Redbook for the debated pieces. Just not under the specific listing of the "normal" circulation strikes. Kind of like what they do for errors etc. Then the parties that wish to buy a listed error/variety (1922-P cent or 3 legged) could still say they own a "Redbook" listed coin,along with the "stature" of it listed in the "Redbook". Then it would be up to the collector to determine if they want it as part of the set, but at the same time if they don't, they won't feel their set is incomplete based on how the set is listed in the book.

mr1931S · July 15, 2014 1:50PM

This speak of removing coins like the 1804 dollar and 1856 FE cent from the Redbook is heresy.

Bayard1908 · July 15, 2014 9:05PM

<< 

<< 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.

Bayard1908 · July 15, 2014 9:16PM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< 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... >>

Not a pattern but certainly not a regular issue, especially the ones made around 1860 by the midnight minters for favored collectors. >>

Not a regular issue but the Class I coins are certainly legitimate mint products made in the somewhat ordinary course of business for the Mint. Just because one resents their fame and price is no reason to remove them from the Redbook. >>

You conflate my belief that the coins are illegitimate with an unwarranted presumption of resentment. I like consistency, logic, and truth. Putting such coins in the Redbook amongst the regular issues is inconsistent, illogical, and untruthful.

keets · July 15, 2014 9:19PM

and I am dutifully stunned --- a member asks what should be a simple question resulting in some fun choices and it turns into a piss-and-moan debate including some of our better members with pokes at a PCGS competitor, the Chinese and even Dan Carr.

what a colossal joke.

PerryHall · July 15, 2014 9:24PM

<< This speak of removing coins like the 1804 dollar and 1856 FE cent from the Redbook is heresy. >>

I have no problem listing patterns and fantasy coins with the regular issue coins as long as the Red Book indicates their status as not being part of the regular series. As others have said, more information is always better than less information in a reference book.

ldhair · July 15, 2014 9:29PM

The 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln.

coppercoins · July 15, 2014 9:53PM

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

PerryHall · July 15, 2014 10:05PM

<< The 1917 Matte Proof Lincoln. >>

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

mr1931S · July 15, 2014 10:32PM

I have no problem listing patterns and fantasy coins with the regular issue coins as long as the Red Book indicates their status as not being part of the regular series. As others have said, more information is always better than less information in a reference book.

My 1959 Redbook has 2 full pages (p.129&130) devoted to the 1804 Dollar.It seems that you would have no problem with the 1804 Dollar information and where it appears in the 1959 Redbook based on your statement above,PerryHall.

As for 3 and 3-1/2 legger Buffalo Nickels,I say let 'em join the herd.2014 Redbook not only has "1937D,3-legged" entry with the other regular issues,complete with an asterisk for it in the Mintage column,but also entry for "1936D,3-1/2 Legs," with its own asterisk.

Removing either of these recognized varieties of the Buffalo Nickel from the Redbook would be inconsistent with the rest of the Redbook where an asterisk appears in the Mintage column for a coin,no matter the series.

messydesk · July 15, 2014 11:10PM

<< and I am dutifully stunned --- a member asks what should be a simple question resulting in some fun choices and it turns into a piss-and-moan debate including some of our better members with pokes at a PCGS competitor, the Chinese and even Dan Carr.

what a colossal joke. >>

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

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

Comments

Leave a Comment