For half cents, do Cohen and Breen numbers indicate that each system is imperfect, or fully compleme
Longacre
Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
I was taking a look at the Col. Steve Ellsworth collection of half cents, being auctioned soon by Heritage. It is a nice catalog with a lot of good information. I have also read Breen’s treatise on half cents, which I think is an outstanding book for anyone interested in the series.
I know that there are two regimes for classifying half cents-- Cohen numbers and Breen numbers. Half cents are not the only series where there are two different sets of indentifying numbers and classification systems. Therefore, my questions below can apply to half cents, or any other series that regularly uses two systems.
(1) Does the fact that there are two classification systems regularly in use indicate that Cohen and Breen numbers are inherently imperfect, or does it indicate that each system actually complements each other?
(2) How much weight is given to the “first” system that has been in use, even though a newer and possibly better system might come along? In particular, I am thinking of the “BD” numbers for early gold, which is a superior system from what I can see, but I see other classification systems being used, too.
(3) Can a classification system EVER fully make a prior system obsolete, given the fact that each researcher has access to different coins and there is some element of judgment involved in the creation of the system?
(4) Does the professional reputation of the researcher influence how likely it is that the new system will be accepted?
(5) Does the marketplace, in effect, dictate how useful or reliable the new system will be? In other words, I think the market has to be active in the particular series in question, and, most importantly, the collectors would need to be willing to share their coins with the researcher.
I know that there are two regimes for classifying half cents-- Cohen numbers and Breen numbers. Half cents are not the only series where there are two different sets of indentifying numbers and classification systems. Therefore, my questions below can apply to half cents, or any other series that regularly uses two systems.
(1) Does the fact that there are two classification systems regularly in use indicate that Cohen and Breen numbers are inherently imperfect, or does it indicate that each system actually complements each other?
(2) How much weight is given to the “first” system that has been in use, even though a newer and possibly better system might come along? In particular, I am thinking of the “BD” numbers for early gold, which is a superior system from what I can see, but I see other classification systems being used, too.
(3) Can a classification system EVER fully make a prior system obsolete, given the fact that each researcher has access to different coins and there is some element of judgment involved in the creation of the system?
(4) Does the professional reputation of the researcher influence how likely it is that the new system will be accepted?
(5) Does the marketplace, in effect, dictate how useful or reliable the new system will be? In other words, I think the market has to be active in the particular series in question, and, most importantly, the collectors would need to be willing to share their coins with the researcher.
Always took candy from strangers
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
0
Comments
1) It depends on the series. In my opinion, the Breen numbers for half cents were unnecessary, but he wanted the recognition for his work. Maybe he was a bit jealous of Sheldon's fame with large cents. I only use Cohen numbers for half cents, with Manley die states. I have never used a Breen number on a half cent, although his book on the subject is well written and, in my opinion, his best work.
2) Again, it varies from series to series. You are correct that the BD attribution system for early gold is superior to the other systems. Those earlier researchers (i.e. Clapp, Adams, etc.) did not have access to the same number of early gold coins as Bass did, so there are many holes. When attributing early gold, the Bass/Dannreuther system carries all of the weight. Even the relatively recent work of Taraszka has become obsolete since the introduction of the BD system.
3) See #2 above.
4) Each work stands on its own, regardless of reputation. Researchers will look beyond personal characteristics and simply focus on the body of work before them.
5) I don't think market activity has any relevance to the reliability of a new system. How active was the market for Canadian trade tokens when Breton wrote his treatise in 1894?
<< <i>(3) Can a classification system EVER fully make a prior system obsolete, given the fact that each researcher has access to different coins and there is
some element of judgment involved in the creation of the system?
( >>
Are McGirk numbers still referenced for large cents?
Walter Breen came out with his publication of the half cents in 1983. This was a well presented study and presentation, but as with most of Breen published works, it was done in large part by others (in this case Jack Collins and Jon Hanson).
Breen's name has been used on "authoritive" works for decades, even though he did not provide most of the relevant information.
The long standing fued (aka: hatred) between Cohen and Breen was a classic exchange of wordsmanship. Cohen came out on top with his "lower-than-whale-dung" description of Breen's work. EAC'ers know all about this from the Penny-Wise exchanges.
Both works are usable, but the Cohen numbers are better known and used by most dealers and cataloguers.
The same can be said for the Breen numbers found in his 1988 Encyclopedia. It was not much more than his ego at that point that made him create his own numbering system. Unfortunately, Breen made up his own numismatic history as well.
Although Valentine #'s had been used for some 60 years, the authors of "Federal Half Dimes"(Russ Logan & John McCloskey) did not hesitate to change the numbering system as they changed the arrangement of the die marriages to follow the emission sequence and added a new twist of die re-marriages.
New collectors have had no problem using this new numbering system instead of Valentine #'s (Although old timers such as MrHalfDime can't seem to let valentine go
For the Bust Dollar series both B#'s (Bolender) and BB#'s (Bowers-Borckardt) are used all the time for aution descriptions.
Sometimes a new numbering system just does not work or does not catch on such as the Duphorne numbers for Bust Quarters that did not supplant the Browning numbers.
I think it has a lot to do with the quality of the reference to a certain degree, but the first good reference will usually stick.
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
I have been called much worse than 'old timer', although I much prefer the term 'experienced'.
When Russ Logan and John McCloskey were researching the "Federal Half Dimes", I was taken on board as an editor and fact checker, making use of my reference collection to check die state information and other details. Early on, I became acutely aware of Russ Logan's insistence to change the Valentine numbering system for the half dimes, which had served collectors very well for nearly three quarters of a century. It was ingrained in the literature and auction catalogs, and firmly inculcated in the minds of all half dime collectors. Any arbitrary change, without solid and indisputable reasons for doing so, would be potentially disastrous. When asked why he insisted on changing such a longstanding tradition, Russ replied only that his new numbering system delineated the emission sequence, or order of manufacture, of the various die marriages. I pointed out that the emission order was adequately presented on pages 61-64 of the L/M half dime book for all who sought that information, but to no avail. I wrote a long letter to both Russ Logan and John McCloskey, detailing my reservations about changing the numbering sequence, and managed to change John McCloskey's mind, but as he later confided to me, his vote, combined with my own, did not outweigh the one vote from Russ Logan.
The Logan/McCloskey numbering sequence continues to be an obstacle when half dime collectors get together to discuss their favorite series. 'Old timers' like myself cling to old habits, while newer collectors, particularly those who were weaned solely on the Logan/McCloskey reference, know only the L/M numbers. It is often like we are speaking two different languages. I recall one time at a FUN Show, after the L/M reference was released, I was discussing a particular half dime die marriage with Russ Logan, using the Valentine number, and asked him what the new L/M number was. He relpied "Darned if I know; I still use the Valentine numbers".
The new L/M numbers certainly serve a purpose for die marriage and remarriage collectors, specifying the emission sequence. But just as soon as a new die marriage is discovered that upsets that sequence, the entire reason for renumbering the sequence goes out the window. For the recent discovery, by Edgar Souders, of the 1835 LM-12, we dodged a rather large bullet, as the LM-12 (the next available number in the sequence) coincidentally fell properly into place in the emission order. We may not be so lucky for the next discovery. There is a rumored but not confirmed new discovery in 1830, an early remarriage for the LM-1, which, if true, will upset the emission order numbering, and obviate the whole reason for renumbering the sequence.
I fully understand the underlying reasons for an author/researcher to renumber a series for which he has published a new reference book. If he does not renumber the series, future collectors and researchers will not be able to determine if a cited number is from the old reference or the new reference when discussing or cataloging coins. There is also the vanity reason for wanting to number the series, with the first letter of your surname. But authors should recognize that renumbering a series, for whatever compelling reason, will cause confusion among collectors and numismatists until long after all of the 'old timers' have died off and dispersed their collections.
Now let's get back to discussing $12,500 statehood quarters.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
of his maid's recent activities in it.
In referring to coins in my collection I generally attach an attribution from as many
recognized sources that I can locate. This is done as a convenience to anyone who
may want to research what each attributer has to say, or compare any differences
between them. Is this an incorrect approach to making attributions? All comments
are welcome.
R.I.P. Bear
Absolutely not. I like to say that there are no wrong ways to collect; do whatever provides you with enjoyment and makes sense to you. As long as you make an effort to provide accurate attributions, it makes very good sense to attribute your coins to as many different sources or references as apply to your series.
To help myself and other 'old timers' work through the aforementioned change in die marriage attribution numbers for the Bust half dimes, I typically refer to both numbering systems when citing a specific die marriage, such as 1829 LM-12/V10, or 1833 LM-5/V10. Hopefully, after many years of such duality, the new L/M numbers will sink in.
I prefer to attribute using Howard Spindel's system. Howard devised (reluctantly, but out of necessity) a new method to track and to organize the vast number of Shield 5c varieties in SNV. Beginning with the letter "S" - which stands for SNV but could just as easily refer to Spindel - each attribution number carries information that classifies the coin. The prefix of each number conveys both the hub pairing and the kind of variety. A three-digit number follows the prefix to designate a particular variety of that kind and hub marriage. In this way, SNV numbers more closely resemble CONECA numbers than either F- or FS- numbers. One who is familiar with the system will recognize an 1867 S2-3007, for example, as a repunched date on obverse A (notched arrowhead) paired with reverse IIa (reverse of '67). The system makes much more sense to me than assigning numbers arbitrarily, and new discoveries are easily incorporated without upsetting the established order.
The reason Breen and Cohen used different numbering for US Half Cents is because of the emission sequence, I.e. the sequence of dies used for specific years. Dies broke and new ones were cut--this has to do with which die varieties were coined first for any given year. Breen and Cohen differed on certain varieties of emission.
Also, the Cohen book is basically a list of varieties. The Breen book is many times more thorough and informative; plus, many issues (years of coins) are more complicated than Cohen pro ports. The in depth study isn't easy and requires much understanding and reading by even the more advanced student; for newbies it can be overwhelming!
The visual difference is obvious--just compare the quality of the coins and photography for learning variety differences; the different is between night and day!
Cohen 's CC was worthless because he couldn't grade, while the Breen book was many times more informative and the information on the CC (while seriously needing updating 40 years later) is still universally used and quoted by collectors and cataloguers even today. The Breen book began the use of serious half cent pedigree chains used by advanced collectors.
Early dollars were sufficiently cataloged in the Bolender system (B numbers). While the BB approach was an unnecessary duplication, I prefer it. The reason is that I could make a costly mistake in forgetting the date with the B number. I know completely what I am dealing with using the BB number.
An example would be B-2. If looking at 1796 and 1797 dollars, it makes a big difference. The BB-63 (1796 B-2) is a great coin that is not seen so often. But the BB-72 (1797 B-2) is a major rarity.