“Type” versus “Variety”
renomedphys
Posts: 3,886 ✭✭✭✭✭
Okay so the last thread I started: “The one cent type set as I see it” began with an explanation and a list. It was soon pointed out that a lot of “Types” I posted could be considered “Varieties”. Depends on how you see it, right? From my perspective, overdates, doubled dies, unintended mint results are “VARIETIES” and intended mint results are “TYPES”. Maybe that’s over simplified.
Take the Indian Cent series. Type 1 - no shield. Type 2 - shield, copper-nickel. Type 3 - bronze. Further divided, the bronze without L 1864 could also be considered a type, as with the feather arrangements of pre/post 1886. Something like a doubled die, or an overdate, while collected as part of the series, in my view are “varieties”.
You can obviously get into some gray area when you start pointing out things like Bold N versus Shallow N reverses (was that really an intended design change or an anomaly of the production process?) or even the high/low leaves reverses of Flying Eagles. Speaking of Fliers, what do you say about the Large vs Small Letters obverses of 1858? It WAS an intended change, designed to address die life and striking issues. Where do you draw the line?
I could go on. Just trying to parse all the different reverses leaf configurations of Sheldon Cents is enough to muddy the distinction quite thoroughly.
Is this even an important distinction? Obviously we all have an idea what constitutes “Type”, and what makes a complete “Variety” set.
Comments
My view is similar to yours, Intentional substantial design changes are Type. Minor tweaks/ unintentional changes are varieties. Large vs Small letter obverse FEs I would call variety over type. 1864 L/no L also variety. The shield/no shield and CN/bronze are type.
My same view of the 1875 dime above bow/below bow mintmarks... Just a variety of the type. How about another one, Seated Liberty coins with arrows vs no arrows. Should they really be a "type" over being a variety?
My personal definition of Type is "any time the master hub, major design elements, or metal composition changed."
I believe this is close to your definition.
In my specialty of seated half dimes, this yields:
1. 1837, 1838-O no stars (major design element; hub is unchanged)
2. 1838-1840 with stars, no added drapery
3. 1840-1857 with added drapery
4. 1853-1855 with arrows, decreased weight (major design element, date and arrows usually on working hub)
5. 1857-1859-O dent on inside point of S3, flaw between S10 S11 gone
6. 1859 Philadelphia and 1859,1860 "transitional" - Paquet hub, hollow stars, taller Ms. Liberty, LIBERTY on shield taller
7. 1860-1873 Legend obverse
Perhaps an oversimplification: Type is in the model, variety is in the die, error is on the coin.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
In my view, this is a simple calculus.
A type is any major design ie type of coin. IMO, a Washington quarter and a Standing Liberty Quarter are two different types whereas a SLQ with type 1 obv vs type 2 obv are the same type.
Any small design element change made to the master hub (for example, the SLQ obv 1/obv 2 from above) is the same type but a different hub combination.
A variety is any mint made change, intended or otherwise, to any of the other dies or hubs (doubled dies, MM placements, etc).
Any degradation to the working dies resulting in die cracks, overpolished dies, etc should be considered die states and not varieties.
I'm sure some VAM and Overton people will disagree with the final point.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
I like your definition except our view of major design elements differs. I view all seated half dimes as a one type and all of your list above as varieties. The same with my series (Trade Dollars); I think there is one type and all of the various design changes to the hub I view as hub combos.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Yes, I agree, there is inherent subjectivity in the words "major" and "type".
And my definition does not work with Trade Dollars, where there were multiple hubs in use simultaneously over several years.
It works for seated half dimes, where each master hub was essentially retired after the new hub was made.
I recently started becoming interested in varieties and always considered type as to die design, varieties as purposeful changes to the die and errors as nonpurposeful minting strikes. Then no where near the level of you veterans, so I'll succumb to your definitions.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I had a similar discussion to yours @renomedphys But with Dimes in this thread https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1115209/type-set-beyond-the-basics. I'm having the same conflict with the SLD types (generally agreed on 6 types, Gerry Fortin says 8 Types), and whether to consider Roosevelt Small Head a type or variety, same with the transition to the .9999 Ag proofs. Would the 100th anni be considered a variety (since the design is the same), a type (metal is different), separate (a modern commemorative) ? The US Philippines dime, where the size changed but the design is exactly the same.
I guess a lot of it is personal opinion beyond what the "industry" says are the major types.
I make the delineation between Type and Variety in more broad strokes as well. I'm not sure how the hardcore EAC guys roll, but I've always considered major design changes as Type... ie. Flowing Hair, Liberty Cap, Draped Bust, Classic Head, Coronet Head, and Braided Hair... I'm focused on the Coronet Heads... or, "Middle Dates". I was drawn to them because of the number of Varieties... Overdates, Sillies, Boobies, and more date size variations and lettering variations... and on. We can even collect them by die state and the die breaks... 1817 "Mouse Head"... or 1829 "Wheelspoke" reverse... etc.
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
But what constitutes a “substantial design change”? As an example to consider - @renomedphys (with whom you said you had similar views) wrote “…Further divided, the bronze without L 1864 could also be considered a type…”
I don’t consider the presence or lack of the initial “L” a substantial design change. Do you? And what about the difference between large and small letters on 1858 Flying Eagle cents?
My point is that each person has his/her own idea regarding whether a design difference is significant enough to meet the threshold of “type”. And that’s perfectly fine, as collectors should collect however they please.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The only hard distinction between type and variety IMO is the distinction between intentional differences and unintentional differences. Whether the intentional differences are significant enough to justify a type designation is totally subjective. I tend to look for any excuse to expand my type set, so pretty minor differences qualify, but that’s just me. Money and rarity come into play for me as well.
I hope this thread continues - I’ve picked up clues from some of the posts above, great fun to research unfamiliar claims to type and then the thrill of the hunt.
BTW I’ve used metal composition to a greater extent than i believe is customary when defining type. A dimension often overlooked IMO.
Exactly. "Substantial design change" has no specific definition and is subject to a persons perception. From the comments in this thread, it is apparent that many of us have varying degrees of opinion on this definition. The answer to your questions of what my opinion is about the 1864 L/no L and the 1858 large/small letter cents was stated in my previous post that you quoted... they they are varieties, not type. I was just putting out two cents on the matter. Talking about two cents, I view the large motto and the small motto as varieties not types, similar to how I view the large and small letters of a FE cent.
The definition of "type" depends on how broad or narrow a collector you are, or plan to be.
Consider the "archetypical" type set of US coins: the Dansco 7070. The heading on each page in this album is "major types", a phrase which implies the existence of "minor types" within each of these major types. But for "major types", they are very broadly defined - they have to be, otherwise the 7070 "album" would be the size of a complete set of Encyclopedias.
This broad definition is fine, if you're a generalist. But if you're deciding to specialize in one specific coin series, then these "major types" are going to be too broad, in the sense that it will only leave you with a tiny handful of coins needed to "complete" a collection. If someone told you they had a "complete set of flying eagle cent types", you'd probably expect them to have more than 1 coin in their "Set". So you would assume that somebody saying that would be using a narrower definition of "type" than can be found inside the 7070.
Ultimately, many US collectors collect by album. So the definition they end up using is the one that's printed inside their album. So it is the album manufacturers who, ultimately, decide what qualifies as a "type" and what doesn't.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded the DPOTD twice.
Maybe the biggest grey area is the Lincoln cent VDB. Variety or Type? Jefferson nickel 1942 silver Variety or Type? Any date change on a coin - Variety, Type?
My personal opinions: 1) VDB - definitely variety: 2) 1942-1945 war nickels - type, 3) date change, only - definitely neither type nor variety.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm trying to go by the Red Book for my type set guidance. I does not list the 1909 Lincoln VDB nor the 1921/1922 Peace Dollar High Relief as types. I guess I can see why, but in my opinion the Westward Journey Jefferson Nickels 2004 and 2005 should both be a type, not a variety. The obverses are completely different.
Historical significance should be considered. The VDB story is numismatically interesting. The high relief Peace dollar is a no-brainer as a distinct type visually and has an historical context. Make your own rules.
So I guess my inclusion of this coin because it’s a Lib Cap with a flat date makes it a sub-variety of “head of ‘93”. Funny because my main motivation for buying it was to get the flat date 😂
Empty Nest Collection
The 1973 Lincoln Cent came with a brand-new reverse. It featured a rather large "FG" designers initial, with the reverse used for the entire years' coinage.
After review, the Mint thought the initials were too large, and in 1974 again issued Cents with a brand new smaller "FG".
So, what would you consider the 1973 Lincoln Cents to be?
A one-year Type Coin or a Variety?
Pete