Is it possible to validate a discovery without evidence of multiple examples extant...

coindeuce · September 28, 2008 8:02AM

or the hope of finding any Mint records?

NHSBaseball · September 28, 2008 8:08AM

I would think so, if it were verified by a group of the most educated collectors in that specific area- much the same as when a new die variety for Bust Halves or other coinage is discovered.

RWB · September 28, 2008 8:18AM

It would probably depend on the specific subject area and the nature of the discovery.

Also, there are many items mentioned in original documents that are presently unknown.

firstmint · September 28, 2008 8:20AM

John Ford did this repeatedly between 1950-1980.

coindeuce · September 28, 2008 8:27AM

<< <i>John Ford did this repeatedly between 1950-1980. >>

I'm not sure wether to laugh or cry on that note.

jonathanb · September 28, 2008 8:29AM

This has happened repeatedly in the field of errors. For a long time it was thought that true double-headed and double-tailed coins didn't exist. There are a bunch known now. I think they've been authenticated based on characteristics of the two individual dies.

Of course it also depends on how much validation you need. When I found the first (only) example of the Adams Academy award medal (Julian SC-1), I stood up and said, "This must be it!" Several experts later said "Sounds good to me!". And that was about it. And that was fine.

I've seen plenty of auction listings with full-page writeups about something neat that couldn't bee validated 100%. The lack of validation doesn't seem to affect sale price.

What does validation really give you in this case?

coindeuce · September 28, 2008 8:33AM

"What does validation really give you in this case? "

Maybe some important new info regarding a New Orleans issue.

RWB · September 28, 2008 8:45AM

One of the most important factors is the ability to independently validate the new information. Sometimes, the new stuff is only a piece of something larger which we don’t have, and if we base too much on the small piece, we may end up with the wrong conclusion.

One example that I’ve seen lately is the revision of mintage of the 1893-S dollar from 100,000 to 77,000. Turns out, the 77,000 number is based on one list prepared a year after the fact. When other pieces of the puzzle are examined, everything points to the 77,000 number as simply an incomplete piece of information or a hasty conclusion. Kind of like the Burgess Shale critters in Gould’s Wonderful Life.

Nysoto · September 28, 2008 10:20AM

Here are two different discoveries that were made, at some level, on the PCGS message board. They were both unique when confirmed and authenticated, the 1807 now has three known: Baley's 1807 O-115 1806 O-129 discovery

Bayard1908 · September 28, 2008 4:57PM

<< <i>

<< <i>John Ford did this repeatedly between 1950-1980. >>

I'm not sure wether to laugh or cry on that note.

>>

It made me laugh.

lathmach · September 28, 2008 10:13PM

Mint record don't mean anything.
According to mint records, the Carson City mint wasn't in operation in 1846, but go on Ebay and you'll find 1846-CC Seated Dollars.
That's proof enough, ain't it?

Ray

Is it possible to validate a discovery without evidence of multiple examples extant...

Comments

Leave a Comment