Bust Half-Dime Collectors/ Die Variety Attributors, do you use Logan McCloskey (LM) or Valentine (V)
STONE
Posts: 15,275 ✭
As I continue to designate all of my Bust coinage by variety, and more recently my Bust Half-Dimes, I came into wondering which designation I should use for the Bust Half-Dime section.
I've always used "LM" for classifying my Half-Dimes, but should I be using "V" instead? Is one better than the other, or is the difference minimal or non-existant?
So Bust Half-Dime peeps, which designation do you use when classifying your Die Marriages? (LM, V, or Both)
I've always used "LM" for classifying my Half-Dimes, but should I be using "V" instead? Is one better than the other, or is the difference minimal or non-existant?
So Bust Half-Dime peeps, which designation do you use when classifying your Die Marriages? (LM, V, or Both)
0
Comments
Since I have only the LM book, that is the one I have to use.
but V has historical significance and I'm always looking for differences between the two.
When listing an attribute # I use both to be specific.
R.I.P. Bear
As soon as I calm down, I will write another response,
making sure not to include anything that the demented and perverted censors will not allow.
I've noticed that about you!
R.I.P. Bear
The OP’s question is a good one, and worthy of consideration by all aficionados of the Capped Bust half dimes. Which numbering system for the series do you use, or should you use both? I can offer some historical perspective on this issue, and a couple of little known pieces of numismatic trivia that many might find of interest.
When I first began collecting the Capped Bust half dimes by die marriage, around 1980, the only remotely comprehensive reference on the series was Daniel W. Valentine’s “United States Half Dimes”, published by the American Numismatic Society in 1931 as #48 of their series “Numismatic Notes and Monographs”. Although incomplete and at times vague and ambiguous, it was all that we had at the time, and was embraced by the entire numismatic fraternity. Dr. Valentine himself, in his introduction, admitted the limitations of his offering, and hoped that someone in the future would pick up the gauntlet and greatly expand upon his work. The previous works by Harold P. Newlin and Will W. Neil were primarily focused on the early (Draped Bust and Flowing Hair) half dimes, and gave little or no attention to the Capped Bust or certainly to the Liberty Seated half dimes.
For approximately seventy-five years, numismatists, dealers, auction catalogers, curators, and individual collectors all learned to attribute and identify their half dimes using the Valentine “V” numbering sequence. It quickly became engrained into the numismatic lexicon, becoming as familiar as “S” numbers for Sheldon Large Cents and “O” numbers for Overton Bust halves. Significant half dime collections such as those of Newlin, Neil, Atw*ter, Eliasberg, Witham, Levine, Reiver, Harmon, and many others were all attributed and catalogued using the Valentine numbering system.
In 1986 Jules Reiver published his personal notes on attributing the Capped Bust half dimes, entitled “Variety Identification Manual for Capped Bust Half Dimes”, known to many as simply “VIM”. In his monograph, Jules expanded the number of known die marriages for the series to 86, and presented a useful method for methodically attributing all die marriages, yet he retained the original Valentine numbering system for the series.
In 1998, numismatists Russell J. Logan and John W. McCloskey coauthored the masterful “Federal Half Dimes 1792-1837”, which far exceeded all previous efforts on the series, and significantly raised the bar on all future numismatic reference books. Their book presented a history on the minting process, details on identifying and attributing all known die marriages in the series, and presented for the first time a comprehensive look at the concept of ‘remarriages’ in the series. During the several years that the book was being researched and written, Russ would send me copies of each individual page for every die marriage. My job as editor was not only to look over the spelling, grammar, sentence structure, and syntax, but also to carefully read the description for every die marriage and compare it with what I saw under the microscope on my own examples from my reference collection. I still have those original drafts and worksheets, complete with our marginal notes.
One of the most significant contributions to the study of Capped Bust half dimes presented in the Logan/McCloskey book was the introduction of the complete emission sequence, or order of manufacture, for all of the die marriages. This work was compiled by Logan and McCloskey, but particularly credit goes to the significant contribution of Mark Smith, who had conducted a many-years-long study of the collars, or ‘third die’, providing the much needed final verification of the emission order.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Logan/McCloskey reference was the decision to completely renumber the entire half dime series, from the old and accepted Valentine “V” numbering sequence to the new “L/M” numbering sequence, justified purely by the fact that it presented the die marriages in the emission order (i.e., LM-1 was minted before LM-2, which was minted before LM-3, etc.). When Russ Logan first mentioned this to me, I sent both he and John McCloskey a seven page letter in which I outlined the many reasons why I felt that this was inadvisable, and a poor decision. John McCloskey replied to me that my letter had completely convinced him that they should not renumber the series, but he also confided that his vote, as a full co-author, combined with my vote, as a lowly editor, would not outweigh Russ Logan’s vote. Russ proceeded, unilaterally, to renumber the entire half dime series, essentially ignoring and discarding a system that had been in place for nearly seventy-five years. Countless collections and auction catalogs had all been attributed according to the Valentine numbering sequence, and now they would all require a cross reference in order to compare them with newer research. Pedigree research would become a nightmare, and collectors of the same series, new and old, would be speaking as if in two different languages.
It might be of interest to many that the original intent of the L/M authors was not to use the prefix “LM” for each of the die marriages. The original plan was to use the designation “DM”, for “die marriage”, for each of the marriages (e.g., DM-1, DM-2, etc.). All of the original drafts that I still have use this DM designation. It was not until just before publication, when Russ submitted a final draft of the book to Q. David Bowers for review and writing the preface, that QDB suggested using the prefix “LM” (for Logan/McCloskey) instead. This suggestion apparently found favor with the co-authors, and was adopted.
After the release of the Logan/McCloskey book in 1998, I was discussing a particular Capped Bust half dime die marriage with Russ Logan at a national coin show, and, having cut my teeth on the Valentine numbering system and finding great difficulty in simply changing to another system, asked Russ what the new “LM” number for that die marriage was. He replied “Damned if I know. I still use the old Valentine numbers”. I was stunned. The very author of the radically new numbering system, and even he did not use it!
I can admit to being an old dinosaur, resistant to change, and clinging to the past. But being forced to learn a completely new numbering system for a series that I had collected for so long was analogous to learning the multiplication tables all over again, with all new numbers. The old system was permanently and indelibly imprinted on my brain, and I could not, or would not, make the change. It should also be pointed out that, as valuable as the emission order might be, numbering the entire series in that order works only until a new die marriage is discovered that no longer fits the model. Recently, when Edgar Souders discovered the new 1835 die marriage, we had no choice but to assign it the next number in the sequence, LM-12, and were greatly relieved when, upon further study, we learned that, completely by coincidence, the number LM-12 properly placed it in the emission order. We dodged a bullet on that one, but may not be so lucky when the next die marriage is discovered. Then we will learn that being forced to suffer this significant inconvenience was completely unnecessary.
New collectors to the series, such as Barndog, Cladiator, Stone and others, have had the Logan/McCloskey reference available for the entire time they have collected the series, and thus have had no old habits to change. But old dinosaurs like myself have been forced to completely relearn the series. This may not seem like much of a task, but try talking about the nuances of various die marriages among both old and new collectors of the series, each speaking a different language, and the discussion quickly degenerates into chaos. In the last two JRCS half dime census surveys, I have included both designations (LM and V) for each die marriage, and will continue to do so until the last of us old farts have gone to that great coin show in the sky. I have no doubt that one day, the ‘new’ LM numbers will become completely embraced by all students of the series, but until that time I suspect that page 78 of the L/M book (the cross reference between the Valentine and Logan/McCloskey numbers) shall remain the most often used page in the book.
That was an absolutely perfect response to this question. And I thank you for taking the time to again re-write your response after the first try went belly-up.
It addressed the history of the original "V" designation of these coins and it's LONG use in the numismatic marketplace.
It took into account a transitional period of re-writing Valentines book and bringing about clearer details of these coins.
You then proceeded to explain that the Alphabet of designations was completely mixed up by the publication of the L/M reference book and subsequent new number system.
Your further reasoning on the future of Bust Half-Dime desingations (by more modern collectors) evolving into a lonely L/M designation hit right-on-the-spot my feelings of this dilemma, and the main reason for bringing up this question.
Frankly, I'm not surprised by the votes I've received in the poll.
It has turned out almost exactly as I suspected it would. I'm predicting that the generally Newer collectors choose to only designate only by L/M and disregard the more primitive V designations all together. The answers for Both probably come from the longer-standing collectors who used the V system originally but have since kept their records up-to-date by also adding the LM number in.
<< <i>I'd love to know who posted the one lonely vote for the Valentine (V) numbers, only. I'm not sure who it is, but he and I are most certainly soul mates.
I hope you know that there's children present
Oh, and I'd like to know too. I just hope it's not someone pulling our leg or a random vote(r)!!!
<< <i>I just spent one full hour writing a response to the OP's excellent question, but the host's automatic censor objected to the inclusion of the name Atw*ter, because it contained the word TW*T, and completely eliminated the entire post!!!
As soon as I calm down, I will write another response,
making sure not to include anything that the demented and perverted censors will not allow. >>
<< <i>relaxed with a glass of scotch >>
Good idea Mr.HD, I think I'll go drain a bit out of the Oban bottle.
I recently picked up a Capped Bust half dime and the attribution on the label from Gerry Fortin intrigued me.
I little Google searching and voila! Up jumps this old but incredibly informative post by @MrHalfDime.
This collective knowledge contained on this forum is fantastic.
A great loss to the hobby.