I was able to get back to the coin shop today and I managed to get a couple of decent upgrades for my type set. One of them was a pretty buffalo nickel and the other was a capped bust dime. After getting home, I started to look into my current capped bust dime (a very well-circulated one) and PCGS has this particular coin at something like 150 survivors and at R7. So what I am curious about is the accuracy of these estimates, including that R number. For clarity, it's a 1823 Large E dime that is getting bumped out for a 1837. I'd guess the 1837 might be in the XF range, and the 1823 maybe Fine on a good day. Anyways is their survival estimate something that might be construed as under- or over-estimated and would that then change the rarity number associated with it? I recall before when I had posted about my California fractional and mentioned that R number someone else had said they saw an entirely different number elsewhere. Curiosity sometimes gets the better of me so I find myself coming back here and starting a new topic to be short-lived and hopefully walk away a bit wiser. And... so you aren't left reading all of this without seeing any pictures of any coins, here's my new additions!
Check that Buffalo for an RPM. The MM placement looks really close to RPM-009. http://varietyvista.com/03 Buffalo Nickels/RPMs 1938-D.htm
I can't help at all with specialist varieties or R-numbers on stuff like that, but I will say, Man, that's a nice looking Bust dime! The Buffnick looks great, too!
R-numbers are always estimates. Sometimes they're based on a lot of data, like rigorous surveys of collections, and sometimes they're estimates. The problem with them is that once they're in a book, you can't change them. You can publish an update later, but then you have both numbers out there for people to use. With VAMs, the numbers were very rough estimates due to the sheer number of silver dollars that there are that couldn't be examined. On top of that, the level of detail used to define a specific variety increased over the years to where the originally published rarity scale was no longer useful. Add to that people incorrectly inferring value from these estimates and the decision was made to no longer use them at all. The study of 1878 8TF is probably mature enough by now that they could be reintroduced for those varieties only, but the bad information is still out there, and that would confuse matters. Relative or ranked rarity is more useful measure. Don't get me started on the "URS" numbers. I'll start and finish by simply saying it's a bad scale and leave the rant for another time.
Well, that was a quick Google search (URS numbers) that I read the result and quickly thought "no thanks!" It seems very similar to what confused me from the beginning, which you put into perspective rather well. I've used coinfacts a lot and read those little excerpts at the bottom and at least several times they mentioned the era in which they were from. When that bulk of information is 30+ years old, it makes me wonder if those R numbers and survival estimates are also as old and, as you pointed out, could or could not have been updated. I think it's helpful to have information like that available, even if it's dated, but having something like a "last updated" date on it would be helpful, too.
In order for the information to be useful, it has to be managed like a population report. A single, comprehensive source updated at predictable intervals. I think EAC might do something like this. Maybe also JRCS and BHNC. Popular early federal stuff fits that paradigm well. Seeing dates attached to individual R numbers now makes you have to wonder if an old number is wrong or stable.
To succinctly answer the OP's question: Generally all R values are estimates. The exceptions are for quite rare coins in the range of R-6 to R-8 plus unique survivors. The estimates range from fairly credible to not very credible at all. Depends on the issue and the amount of serious collector attention over time. This is where deep dives into the specifics of collecting a particular issue pays off. JRCS regularly conducts census surveys of the various denominations of the silver denominations from 1794 to 1837. Admittedly, these are only surveys of those who choose to reply (mostly JRCS members) and do not include all survivors. Many raw and unattributed coins are not identified. But the surveys are not just numerical counts, they are leavened with the knowledge and experience of the members. Thus, sometimes previous census rarities are changed, usually reducing the rarity, say from an R-5 to an R-4 as new known survivors are identified. The same, more or less, can be said of EAC for early US copper and C4 for pre-Federal and Colonial issues. As for the 1823 dime in the OP's post, there is no way that a coin with 150 known survivors has been assigned a rarity of R-7. The Sheldon scale (both the original from 1949 and more modern versions) assigns R-7 to a known survivorship of 4 to 12 examples. My references list only three die marriages for 1823. JR-1, R-3. JR-2, R-4. JR-3, R-2. The large E (E of STATES) varieties are either JR-2 or JR-3 both using Reverse W. R-2 is 501-1000 survivors. R-3 is 201-500 survivors. R-4 is 76-200 survivors. Now, sometimes a coin might be a very common R-1 but have a conditional rarity in grades above or below a certain point. There are even particular coins or series where circulated coins are rarer than uncirculated coins. But if someone claims a R value for a conditional rarity, they need to specify that it's a conditional rarity otherwise it's just a lie. I'm familiar with the URS scale and I see its logic but I fail to see the need for it. I have the same feelings for it as I do for the NGCX decimal grading scale - OK but why? All these scales are arbitrary anyway except for the original genesis by Dr. Sheldon of his R scale which was designed to arithmetically "fit" his intended pricing scheme. Anyway, hope this sheds some light and no confusion.
I don't understand why they put up those R numbers if they're wholly inaccurate, but they're there for certain.
PCGS uses a different scale -- the PCGS CoinFacts Rarity Scale™. It's a classic example of precision without accuracy, having 92 different rarity numbers from 1.0 (> 1,000,000) to 10.1 (none known). As the PCGS CoinFacts Rarity Scale™ is a registered trademark of PCGS, it's unlikely that anyone else will use it. The traditional 8 numbers is sufficient and well-understood (unless you're a CWT person, then you have 9).
I too had to Google "URS numbers". And then I had to change the keywords to "URS numbers numismatics" to get a relevant result. I was unfamiliar with this.
When it comes to Bust Dimes I always refer to the 'Bust Dime Variety Identification Guide' by Zack, Scuderi and Merrill. The guide describes 4 varieties for the year, as @Publius2 says. From your pictures you appear to have an JR-2, which is rated R3 in the guide, ie, scarce with 201-500 estimated examples extant. The scarcest variety for the year is JR-1, which is described as R4- (76-200 estimated). The year 1823 has 3 die varieties. Two of them are large E's. Jr-2 is one of the Large E's. It is an overdate 1823/2. This is the scarcest variety for the year at R4. The guide is already about 8 years old so current numbers may differ somewhat. However, as previously mentioned, the publishers base their estimates on their extensive expertise with Bust Dimes, specially when it comes to the varieties which most collectors seek like 1809, 1811/09, 1822, 1814 and 1820 STATESOF, 1824/2 JR-2, and 1829 Curled Base 2. Maybe a few others. Finally, a word of wisdom (not from me) regarding R numbers: Over time, they will invariably always decrease.
Ohhhh, I see now. I didn't know that they made up their own rarity scale. That seems a bit counterintuitive, but then again... why would they use something already in place when they can just make another scale that fits their purpose better? Haha! Thanks! I really had no idea that their scale was of their own making, and now it makes sense as to the differences of those numbers from before, too.
I'd never heard of this - learn something new every day. Including the useless stuff. But now that I know about it, it's something else to be wary of claims to rarity.
According to my dime variety book by Davis, Logan, Lovejoy, McCloskey and Subject, the 1823 dime with large E's reverse, was used on two varieties. One is quite scarce and is rated as R-5, 76 to 200 known. The other is an R-2, which is a fairly common variety. The large E's are not an iron clad indication of rarity. I don't care for the "URS" rarity scale. I understand that it's supposed to be easy to remember, but I'm more of Sheldon scale guy. I hope you take this in the right way, but I am not a fan of the 1837 dime you purchased. It appears that the surfaces are dark and rough, especially on the reverse. Black is the last stage for silver toning and corrosion, and I see some pits in the surface. I say this for educational purposes. As young collector, in the 1960s and early '70s, I learned though the school of hard knocks. I may have been taken once with problem coins, but I filed that away and avoided getting taken again. The coin also has an unfortunately placed rim bump right below the date. Things are very different, with some dealers, when they are buying or selling. When they are buying, everything is wrong with a piece. When they are selling they down play or ignore it. I like coins where the dealer passes or low balls you because he can't use it or does not like the price. As for the "CoinFacts" raity esimates, I think they often understate the number of coins that exist. It might be a way to make collectors feel special that they own something.
That book does show the Variety 2 (JR-2) as an R-5. But that book was published in 1984. The later book by Zack et. al., copyright 2015 Bust Dime Variety Identification Guide lists the JR-2 as R-4. This is a classic example of a rarity rating declining as time goes by and more examples come to light. The LM book on dimes is very much still relevant as it provides much more detail on the series, particularly die states and emission orders. I collect Capped Bust Half Dimes by die marriage and there are many examples in that series where the original Logan-McCloskey rarity ratings have had to be modified due to more examples being discovered since the original publication of the LM half dime book in 1998. As to the OP's 1823 dime, he never showed us a photo of this coin but only told us it is a "Large E" coin. If a firm attribution is desired, please post obverse and reverse shots.
I'll tell you what pisses me off. What good is a R rating (rarity rating for an attribution) when those ratings are so obscure and impossible to find without an expensive subscription to some rating service?
I always welcome criticism of any sort. It takes quite an effort to actually offend me in any way, and I believe that nobody here has ill intentions when discussing numis related topics. I had noticed the rim ding at the shop, but the price was right for me to get this one as an upgrade over the slicked circ-cam coin that is the 1823. I've got several problem-coins in my 7070 currently, mainly because they were too good of a deal to pass up and have pretty nice details on them for the money paid. Over time, I will upgrade those coins again to be problem-free specimens, and deal with those detail coins afterwards. I do sincerely appreciate your comment, as well as everyone else's, as I know that learning the ropes on a bumpy road can be a bit jarring sometimes. I like to think I've learned a lot in this wonderful hobby but I know there's still a long, long way to go before I let myself replace that "Semi-Amateur" moniker in my profile with something else. In the short of it: No sweat! I roll with the punches!
Good point you make. That is the reason why I always double check rarity ratings with the sold archives at Heritage, Stacks/Bowers and Goldbergs. If anybody keeps up to date with the latest newest rating it is probably them.
Sharing my example of the 1823 dime, Large E's. This is the least scarce of the two large E varieties. Also an overdate.
