You are redoing the Redbook. Name a coin you would de-list.

291fifth · February 24, 2006 8:36AM

My choice: 1937-D 3 legged Buffalo Nickel. This is a coin that has never, in my 44 years of collecting, struck me as anything more than a hype-job from the distant past.

HTubbs · February 24, 2006 8:38AM

Well,if you every come across one I'll be more the happy to take it off your hands!

ER · February 24, 2006 8:41AM

Silver plug flowing hair dollar. Hype. I mean, if you're gonna consider that as a variety, then why not list adjustment marks as another variety? JMHO.

RYK · February 24, 2006 8:44AM

Stella. If it's in, all of the patterns should be listed with their respective denominations.

Great, fresh idea for a thread.

D · February 24, 2006 8:56AM

Strawberry Cent.

-Daniel

Oldnewbie · February 24, 2006 9:28AM

The Voce Populi coppers. An Irish token without any colonial connection.

I like 'em, however.

TomB · February 24, 2006 9:30AM

1917 matte proof Lincoln and 1913 Liberty nickel. I'm certain there would be more if I thought longer on it.

ziggy29 · February 24, 2006 9:37AM

1913 V-nickel. A fantasy piece, never authorized to be struck by the Mint. There are others in this category, but this is perhaps the most prominent.

Hoot · February 24, 2006 9:40AM

The Kennedy half dollar. I hear Russ likes 'em.

While I can't think of any off-hand I'd like to see removed, I'd like to see some additions, particularly including the 1964 SMS pieces. Also, the Red Book varieties of half cents and early copper cents just seem like a bit of a joke. I suppose they constitute one way of collecting the pieces, but most who would bother to collect that way would be after Sheldon and Newcomb varieties.

Hoot

MrHalfDime · February 24, 2006 11:38AM

Without question, the 1861/0 half dime. It is not an overdate, nor a repunched date, and it is nowhere near "Rare" as it is always described. It is simply an 1861 half dime where the date numerals were struck into the working die using a defective 1 numeral punch. It should never have been listed in the Red Book, or anywhere else, and I can't help but wonder how many unsuspecting half dime collectors have shelled out good money for a common half dime.

CaptHenway · February 24, 2006 1:54PM

<< Without question, the 1861/0 half dime. It is not an overdate, nor a repunched date, and it is nowhere near "Rare" as it is always described. It is simply an 1861 half dime where the date numerals were struck into the working die using a defective 1 numeral punch. It should never have been listed in the Red Book, or anywhere else, and I can't help but wonder how many unsuspecting half dime collectors have shelled out good money for a common half dime. >>

Amen, brother. Amen.
Tom D.

DickyBetz · February 24, 2006 2:00PM

1917 Matte Proof Lincoln.

TommyType · February 24, 2006 2:18PM

How's 'bout the "1837 half-cent token". Seems pretty out of place considering that no other tokens are listed in the half-cent/cent area.

Or the Feuchtwanger token. (Ok...I just like saying Feuchtwanger).

Oldnewbie · February 24, 2006 2:21PM

<< 

<< Without question, the 1861/0 half dime. It is not an overdate, nor a repunched date, and it is nowhere near "Rare" as it is always described. It is simply an 1861 half dime where the date numerals were struck into the working die using a defective 1 numeral punch. It should never have been listed in the Red Book, or anywhere else, and I can't help but wonder how many unsuspecting half dime collectors have shelled out good money for a common half dime. >>

Amen, brother. Amen.
Tom D. >>

Now that's a bit of information I'd love to have as a fledging half dime collector.

So, do you think they're reading this?

tjkillian · February 24, 2006 7:01PM

<< Without question, the 1861/0 half dime. It is not an overdate, nor a repunched date, and it is nowhere near "Rare" as it is always described. It is simply an 1861 half dime where the date numerals were struck into the working die using a defective 1 numeral punch. It should never have been listed in the Red Book, or anywhere else, and I can't help but wonder how many unsuspecting half dime collectors have shelled out good money for a common half dime. >>

I agree strongly! It is a very common coin.

I'd also delist the 1869/9 indian cent. It is merely a repunched numeral.

Tom

PerryHall · February 24, 2006 8:11PM

<< Stella. If it's in, all of the patterns should be listed with their respective denominations.

Great, fresh idea for a thread.

>>

Don't show the greatly overrated 1856 flying eagle cent with the regular issue cents. Its a pattern!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PerryHall · February 24, 2006 8:17PM

<< The Voce Populi coppers. An Irish token without any colonial connection. >>

The Hibernia coins shouldn't be listed since they are Irish coins. If you list them, you should list every foreign coin that circulated in America during the colonial period.

ColonialCoinUnion · February 24, 2006 9:10PM

The 1914/3 Buffalo - I'm still not convinced that the overdate its really there.

291fifth · February 24, 2006 9:48PM

Here are a few more I would de-list:

1866 Repunched Date Shield Nickel. There are hundreds of Shield Nickel die varieties, why list this and ignore the two different date punches used in 1869?

1879/8 Proof Shield Nickel. I once owned one of these and was never convinced it was an overdate. As Shield Nickel die varieties go it is a minor one.

Conder101 · February 24, 2006 10:54PM

There are a BUNCH.

For starters, most of the Washington pieces. Most of them are English tokens.

The God Preserve London elephant tokens. Obvious reasons. And the other elephant tokens as well. I suspect they are fantasies rather than actual tokens for circulation.

The Voce Populi tokens.

The Pitt and Rhode Island ship medals. They ere medals not coins.

The Albany Church penny, this is a communion token.

The KY token, English token.

Franklin Press, same reason.

1792 half disme, pattern issue. On second thougt it can stay as long as they keep it in that section showing the early patterns that lead to our first true coins.

1837 half cent token.

1795 reeded edge large cent, experimental issue.

1795 Jefferson head cent, not a mint issue.

1856 FE cent, pattern issue.

And many more.

tradedollarnut · February 24, 2006 11:04PM

1851-O Seated Dollar. It's not a distinct coin. I think it's been shown all that happened was an O mint dollar was used as a planchet for a restrike proof 1851.

Oldnewbie · February 24, 2006 11:23PM

Geez, Conder, leave a coin for someone else.

ColonialCoinUnion · February 24, 2006 11:41PM

Some things are in the Redbook and have been collected because they have historically been collected as part of the American series - there may not be a scientific or technical basis, but there is an historic, traditional and romantic basis.

Sort of like why we continue to say Gold Bless You when someone sneezes.

Regulated · February 25, 2006 1:38AM

Issues that haven't been mentioned:

Lose the Sommer Islands pieces - they were struck for Bermuda, not the U.S.

Mott Store Cards

Franklin Press Tokens

1811 restrike Half Cents

1804 restrike Cents

1823 restrike Cents

1859 transitional Half Dimes and Dimes (sorry Art)

1851 $50 Lettered Edge Slug 887-Thous/No "50" Reverse

This gives me an idea for an even better thread...

Barry · February 25, 2006 1:45AM

Not to repeat any from above...

1922 No D 1c - just because there were no Phila cents that year? So what?

1838 Partial drapery dime - how many other clashed dies are considered a variety?

Nysoto · February 25, 2006 4:02AM

All varieties. Let the specialist books cover them, the Redbook listing only increases demand and prices.

Shamika · February 25, 2006 4:08AM

<< The 1914/3 Buffalo - I'm still not convinced that the overdate its really there. >>

Even if it is really there, it's not significant enough to include it. The 3 legger is another one that's iffy.

How about the 22 Plain Lincoln cent?

fcloud · February 25, 2006 4:19AM

How about all Wisconsin Statehood Quarters. Regular, High Leaf, Low Leaf, Clad Proof, and Silver Proof, and any others that I may have missed.

CaptHenway · February 25, 2006 4:24AM

It took me years to convince Ken Bressett to change the 1869/68 cent listing to 1869/69. I am content to leave it in like that, lest future collectors mistake it for an 1869/68.
Still working on him re the so-called 1861/0 half dime.
Tom D.

<< 

<< Without question, the 1861/0 half dime. It is not an overdate, nor a repunched date, and it is nowhere near "Rare" as it is always described. It is simply an 1861 half dime where the date numerals were struck into the working die using a defective 1 numeral punch. It should never have been listed in the Red Book, or anywhere else, and I can't help but wonder how many unsuspecting half dime collectors have shelled out good money for a common half dime. >>

I agree strongly! It is a very common coin.

I'd also delist the 1869/9 indian cent. It is merely a repunched numeral.

Tom >>

You are redoing the Redbook. Name a coin you would de-list.

Comments

Leave a Comment