What varieties are NOT included in the redbook that you feel should be?

tydye · November 28, 2009 12:33PM

Just curious to what others think

I will start - 1887 DDO Indian Head Cent. Obvious DD visible to the naked eye

erroid · November 28, 2009 12:39PM

1971D Ike RDV-006(smiling eagle); geeze, discovered in the mid 90's and still not listed....

Type2 · November 28, 2009 12:41PM

1938-D/D Buffalo. but there is a lot in the Buffalos.

dlmtorts · November 28, 2009 12:43PM

The B reverse Washington quarters. They have a brief mention but otherwise are absent from Redbook values.

COALPORTER · November 28, 2009 12:45PM

Trade $ type one and two and major DD.

ProofArtworkonCircs · November 28, 2009 1:18PM

<<The B reverse Washington quarters. They have a brief mention but otherwise are absent from Redbook values. >>
And please include the clad 1969 D thru 1972 D type B while we are at it.

fishteeth · November 28, 2009 1:19PM

1818 Pincer eight and 1821 no serif E's Half dollars

tydye · November 28, 2009 1:23PM

<< 1818 Pincer eight >>

I always liked that variety

fcloud · November 28, 2009 1:24PM

Some of the Mercury DDOs belong in there. A few of them are nice and strong doubling.

ProofArtworkonCircs · November 28, 2009 1:32PM

Ladies and Gentleman,
May I present the most amazing omission of all (or is it the most amazing inclusion). That is the 1956 proof half dollar type I and type II.
Its use seems to be mandatory at PCGS. Most other TPG's recognize it. Rarely there is an unattribured one on TT. Yet it is not in the Red Book and not in the CPG.

To be consistant I think they should include the 1958 Philly types I and II. Lest you think they are too common to bother with, have you ever seen a 1958 type II on TT? let alone a 1958 type II TT FBL? Are they not good enough for slabbing?

Yet the 1959 class III doubled die (I and II) is in the Professional Red Book and CPG, although not explained as such.

Just for my satisfaction, I would appreciate somebody shedding light on these two mysteries (to me at least). How did the the 1956 proof half rype I become so recognized? How come so few 1958 II's in slabs.

halfhunter · November 28, 2009 2:43PM

The 2008 Rev of '07 Silver Eagle of course ! ! !

HH

dbldie55 · November 28, 2009 2:56PM

The only "classic" coin that has no varieties listed are Liberty Nickels (I may be wrong, but in my quick scan all others have at least one)

The professional version of the Red Book lists 2 varieties, but I would think the should list the 1887 DDR in both of them.

Overdate · November 28, 2009 2:59PM

The 1960 proof "small over large" and "large over small" date cents.

The 1960-D small over large date cent is listed, but attributed as a large over small date.

sumnom · November 28, 2009 3:00PM

I'd like to see more 3CN varieties.

Unknown · November 28, 2009 3:10PM

This content has been removed.

19Lyds · November 28, 2009 3:14PM

Well, since it's been known about for 10 fricking years, here's another vote for the 1971-D RDV-006 Eisenhower!

(Announced December 1999)

Dentuck · November 28, 2009 3:20PM

Check the new Professional Edition of the Red Book.

The regular edition is a general guide book.

If it's not in the Professional Edition and you think it should be, let me know! That's what it's there for --- not as a die-variety reference as specialized as the Cherrypickers' Guide, but certainly a resource for more intermediate to advanced collectors and dealers.

19Lyds · November 28, 2009 3:46PM

<< Check the new Professional Edition of the Red Book.

The regular edition is a general guide book.

If it's not in the Professional Edition and you think it should be, let me know! That's what it's there for --- not as a die-variety reference as specialized as the Cherrypickers' Guide, but certainly a resource for more intermediate to advanced collectors and dealers. >>

Then by all means, do some research on the Reverse Die Variety 6. Its a vastly different reverse design over the regular Type 1 design. There is stong evidence that this design was the "intended" design for the copper nickel proofs which never materialized. That evidence amounts to the abundance of proof planchets and "prooflike" 1971-D Eisenhower coins.

Any IKE collector worth his/her salt has a few of these laying around.

ProofArtworkonCircs · November 28, 2009 3:54PM

<<If it's not in the Professional Edition and you think it should be, let me know! That's what it's there for --- not as a die-variety reference as specialized as the Cherrypickers' Guide, but certainly a resource for more intermediate to advanced collectors and dealers.>>

May I assume you have taken note of what has been posted so far? Or should we PM you a list directly?

Incidently, I also vote for the 1971 D Ike dollar FEV or RDV-006.

Dentuck · November 28, 2009 4:55PM

Email me directly at dennis . tucker @ whitmanbooks . com

frnklnlvr · November 28, 2009 7:53PM

I can't believe the 1956 proof type 1 and 2 Franklins still aren't mentioned in the RB.

kaz · November 28, 2009 9:53PM

I nominate the 1795 Flowing Hair half dollar, Small Head variety.

Staircoins · November 28, 2009 10:20PM

The 1848 D/D Half Eagle should be there.

It's a major variety, recognized by PCGS, often with a bold D/D that's easy to see.

ProofArtworkonCircs · November 28, 2009 11:57PM

I find the 1951/1952 quarter and 1971 half obverse varities interesting. It looks like they had to hastily replace their master artwork with inferior artwork with doubling and design changes inadvertently occuring. They then did a proper job coming up with a replacement in mid- 1952 for the quarter and 1973 for the half. The quarter is the more spectacular of the two.

RTS · November 28, 2009 11:58PM

All 1794 Sheldon varieties...if space is an issue drop the modern coinage and work backwards until there there is enough space
for the 1794 varieties; let us be honest: all other federal issues are just numismatic footnotes and/or freak shows with respect to the large cents of 1794.

mozin · November 29, 2009 5:18AM

Besides the two already mentioned by Fishteeth, 1818 Pincer eight and 1821 no serif E's Half dollars, these I would like to see included in the REDBOOK Bust Half Dollar section:

1808 O-105 Large Letter
1808 O-107 Adam's Apple
1810 O-101 Morse Code
1810 O-102 T/T
1813 O-109a Single Leaf
1818 O-107 Rotated T's
1818 O-111 Spiked Cap
1820 O-108 Double Die Reverse
1822 O-107 Button Cap
1823 O-108a Reworked 3
1823 O-112 Tall 3
1825 O-101 Large Letter

Adding some of these certainly would create some action in the Registries. All of these are common, except for the 1813 Single Leaf R4.

Stew · November 29, 2009 5:35AM

<< 1971D Ike RDV-006(smiling eagle); geeze, discovered in the mid 90's and still not listed.... >>

<< Well, since it's been known about for 10 fricking years, here's another vote for the 1971-D RDV-006 Eisenhower! (Announced December 1999) >>

And A Third Vote.

I think this will begin to change when Everyday Collectors Collaborate and put out their own books

Which I hope gets published soon. Circumventing the large publishing houses who determine what gets in and what does not. There is a Definite concerted effort to keep certain Varieties from being widely reported
(My Opinion Only) If people begin a major effort on these then that will take away from other more "popular" Dollars that people have a lot of interest in promoting.
Again Just my Sunday afternoon opinion

Stew

tahoe98 · November 29, 2009 5:41AM

.......from what i've seen so far, i think the red book is gonna get a bit thicker in the future, maybe.

TwoSides2aCoin · November 29, 2009 5:55AM

Well, it's tough to get a condensed version when we keep gathering more information than is typically needed.
So, in order to keep the book the same size, we'll have to go to
A) smaller print

A two volume set
C) A price increase.
D) All of the aforementioned.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm trying to imagine what goes through the collective mind of the publisher/editor/writer's, and staff,
when faced with the daunting task of increasing information and still keeping the book the same size.

BigDowgie · November 29, 2009 6:05AM

I'll put a plug in for us Jefferson Nickel collectors. I would like to understand why the 1946-D / Inverted D was dropped? There are two other Inverted D's that should be listed; the 1953-D/ Inverted D (RPM#1) and the 1958-D / Inverted D (RPM#5). Anytime the Mint punches the mint mark upside-down and then tries to correct it, should be considered significant.
Dowgie

rmpsrpms · November 29, 2009 6:44AM

The 1956D/S DMM S between 1 and 9. Wiles' own photos (and the ones on CopperCoins) show almost a complete "S" of the correct size, and Wiles was wrong to delist it from CONECA. This is another one of those varieties that is visible to the naked eye and deserves to be in the Red Book alongside the RPM#8.

fishteeth · November 29, 2009 6:54AM

Another Bust half would be the 1832 dash date

ProofArtworkonCircs · November 29, 2009 8:35AM

<<And A Third Vote.>>

Sorry Stew. I was the third vote for the 1971 D FEV or RDV-006. You are the fourth. Get back in line. Anybody else care to cast a vote?

pcgs69 · November 29, 2009 9:01AM

<< I nominate the 1795 Flowing Hair half dollar, Small Head variety. >>

I agree!

ProofArtworkonCircs · November 29, 2009 9:51AM

I can't believe that I haven't yet mentioned the Washington Quarter 1968S, 1969 D, 1970 and 1970 D type M quarters.
Its history is very similiar to a type B. Only this was clad artwork modified for proof production, yet abandoned in mid year. It was then used on a small minority of business strikes over the next two years.

Stew · November 29, 2009 9:59AM

<< Sorry Stew. I was the third vote for the 1971 D FEV or RDV-006. You are the fourth. Get back in line. Anybody else care to cast a vote? >>

Sorry Sir I Graciously give way and correct myself

I am Vote number 4 For the Eisenhower 1971-D RDV-006

Stew

FullStepJeffs · November 29, 2009 10:03AM

I'll vote for the following Jeffersons to be added:

1939-D DDO-001
1940-S RPM-001
1942-P RPM-001
1942-P RPM-009 DDR-003
1943-D RPM-001
1943-D RPM-003
1943-S RPM-001 DDO-001
1944-D RPM-001 DDR-001, DDO-002
1944-D RPM-004
1944-P RPM-017
1944-S RPM-001 DDR-003
1945-D RPM-002 DDO-005
1945-D RPM-004 DDO-010
1945-D RPM-005 DDO-006
1945-D RPM-019 DDO-003
1945-D RPM-021 DDR-002, DDO-008
1945-P RPM-013 DDO-009
1945-P RPM-018 DDR-009
1945-P RPM-057 DDO-002
1945-S RPM-009 DDR-001
1947-D RPM-001 DDR-001
1948-S RPM-004 DDR-001
1955-D RPM-001 DDR-004
1958-D RPM-005
1964-D RPM-006
1971-D RPM-001

Here's a glimpse of a 39D DDO1:

or a 43-D DDO-001:

or a 1944-D RPM-004:

Steve

tydye · November 29, 2009 10:10AM

I like that 39 DD. I want one of those

Stew · November 29, 2009 10:28AM

One of these would be cool also

ProofArtworkonCircs · November 29, 2009 11:00AM

Type B Washington quarters have been mentioned before, but a 1964 D with the clad artwork reverse would be a natural to include with them. It too, is mentioned in the present Red Book, but does not have its own line and price.

BigDowgie · November 29, 2009 11:15AM

Steve,
Awesome list of Jeffersons! And the same "awesome" on the 1939-D DDO picture.
Dowgie

ModernDollarNut · November 29, 2009 11:19AM

I have to do it, vote six for the 71-D Ike FEV. Rob

dlmtorts · November 29, 2009 12:21PM

"I have to do it, vote six for the 71-D Ike FEV. Rob"

Text

The Ike seems to be the most popular choice so far. C'mon - no other votes for the B reverse Washington quarters?

FullStepJeffs · November 29, 2009 12:21PM

<< Steve,
Awesome list of Jeffersons! And the same "awesome" on the 1939-D DDO picture.
Dowgie >>

Thanks to the Dowgie... but as the PCGS Gods tells us, you just can't see them with the naked eye... or can you?

But, I digress.

Back to your normal programming...

Steve

OnWithTheHunt · November 29, 2009 2:35PM

I don't know about the redbook, but why this one hasn't even made it into the Cherrypicker's Guide has always baffeld me. It's been known for years.

MrEureka · November 29, 2009 5:25PM

While not a "variety", the Standish Barry Doubloon is strangely absent from the Colonial section, and should be added.

OKbustchaser · November 29, 2009 9:01PM

Unlike my fellow bustie guys (Fishteeth and Mozin) I don't think that there are ANY bust half varieties that need to be added...but there are a BUNCH that should be deleted. For example, the 1807 "Bearded Goddess", any of the "single leaf" dates, or the "patched" and "ugly 3" 1823s. These are not individual varieties--they are merely die states of regular dates which happen to have fancy nicknames.

EagleEye · November 30, 2009 12:16AM

Flying Eagle Cents
1856 Low Leaves (S-4)
1858 Large Letter Low Leaves
1858 Small Letter Low Leaves (Typically found)
1858 Large Letter High Leaves (Typically found)
1858 Small Letter High leaves

High Leaves are type of 1857.

1857 Clashed die obv w/ 50c obverse.
1857 Clashed die rev. w/ 25c reverse.
1857 Clashed die obv. w/ $20 obverse.

koynekwest · November 30, 2009 2:03AM

"I don't know about the redbook, but why this one hasn't even made it into the Cherrypicker's Guide has always baffeld me. It's been known for years."

Looks like Die #6, which is the strongest of the 13 known dies for the date. I've been in touch with Bill Fivaz on this one-I, too, think it deserves inclusion in the CPG.

As to the Red Book-I don't believe they are too fond of listing any multiple die variety by die number so I wouldn't hold my breath on that (the 1936 DDO cents and the 1971-S proof cents come immediately to mind.) And while I agree that the Red Book should not be a treatment on die varieties there are quite a few MAJOR varieties that aren't currently listed that should be. I've been in touch with Mr Tucker concerning this.

swhuck · November 30, 2009 7:04AM

I can't believe nobody's mentioned a few of these yet:

1939 Proof Jefferson, reverse of 1938
1939 Proof Jefferson, reverse of 1940

1936 Proof Cents and Nickels, Satin vs. Brilliant

1964-67 SMS individual coins (1965-67 sets are listed, but coins are important individually)

1914/3-D and 1914/3-S nickels

1878 Morgan, Long Nock
1890-CC Morgan, Tail Bar

What varieties are NOT included in the redbook that you feel should be?

Comments

Leave a Comment