When CONECA removes a RPM from their listings and then later down the road re-issues the number for a new RPM qualified as a replacement? I personally would perfer the original RPM remain listed and it be qualified. With new RPMs receiving an original unique number when listed. Another question - take the Lincoln Cent 1946-S WRPM-010 and the 1946-S WDDR-002 as examples. It's a good possibility that if you have atrributed the coin as one of these varieties that it is also the other. So how should the varieties be listed? Choose 1 of the following A) 2 listings - (WRPM-010) for the RPM collectors and (WDDR-002) for the Double Die Collectors (without regard to the different observe or reverse)? B) 3 listings - (WRPM-010 undoubled), (WDDR-002 no WRPM) and (WRPM-010-WDDR-002)? C) 4 listings - For the RPM collectors (WRPM-010 undoubled), (WRPM-010 Double Reverse) and for the Double Die collectors (WDDR-002 no WRPM, WDDR-002 with WRPM) eventhough the variety exhibiting the WRPM and WDDR is listed twice ? And what about VAMs ? Do they have to issue a new listing just because later in the dies life that crack grew a little longer or healed just a bit?
