When I write a check and if for whatever reason that check needs to be voided - I leave it in my records as voided and I do not issue another check in the future utilizings that voided check's number. It remains in my records as voided as it reduces the chance of any future confusion. I do not recycle or re-issue invoice numbers, employee #s, Purchase Orders, warehouse receipts, cotton bale tags, elevator delivery receipts, contract #s and etc. Every document is issued in numerical order. If a document is voided, contract satisfied or etc that document's identification number is never recycled or reissued again. It just makes good easy accounting sense in my opinion. Why the rant here in cointalk you may ask - well I am a variety collector and it just bugs me that the major attributors, CONECA, Wexler, Daughtery and etc do reuse/re-issue variety catalog numbers. They'll void a variety in their listing for whatever reason and then if a new variety is discovered down the road will catalog it using the voided variety number. I have varieties in my collection that were attributed years ago. Now when I refer back to my boxes of varieties and stumble accross a variety that has been replaced - I don't know if the coin I am holding is the voided variety or the new replacement variety without having to attribute it all over again. To be honest I find it very aggravating. I know the major attributors have their reasoning behind this practice and I am sure that it is fairly solid. I am of the opinion that voided listings should remain as part of the variety listing catalog and noted/qualified as voided and the catalog number not re-issued. Especially now that grading services are adding variety attributions to their slabs. As sometime in the future that variety may be voided yet that slab would still indicate its indentity as a variety (in error) for the life of the slab. And once that variety number is re-issued to a new discovery that older slab would give a false indentity of being a completely different variety. At least if a voided listing was retained and noted in the attributor's catalog - one could refer to this information and learn that the coin is no longer considered a variety, a dup;icate listing or etc. That is my rant
justafarmer what you are saying does make good common sense. I always said if the coin experts would stop trying to beat the other experts to attribute a new error or variety then so many mistakes would not be made in the first place. and you are right a coin that is proven to not be what it is labeled as then that variety or error number should not be used on other newly discovered coins. I would love to be able to get die numbers assigned for the detached leg bison coins so folks can know which coin they are buying. there are at least three different varietys of them and the best type is far and beyond better that the other two types. some folks say the detached leg coins are not much good but IMO the best type is a awesome coin to collect and has three or four times more missing design than the 37D three legged buffalo.
I think the Dollar VAM listings are done the way you are reffering to. I'm not sure why others aren't. Maybe Mike Diamond or Billy Crawford could get on this thread and answer that for you.
I don't catalog die varieties and don't have any idea why they might pursue the described policy. But I agree that a voided catalog number should be retired, not re-used.
I emailed James Wiles regarding the RPM-004 and RPM-005 being "replacements". He replied: "Replacement means that what is listed in the Master listing will not match what is in the RPM Book. The entries in the RPM Book were deemed to not be RPMs and thus were removed and replaced with new listings. " "" I further queried: "Thanks James. If someone had gotten one of these RPM’s attributed by ANACS before it was “replaced”, wouldn’t that cause a problem? I guess I’m wondering why an RPM number was “re-used” so to speak instead of just stricken from the Master Listing or annotated as “De-Listed”? "He replied: "These were done 10 years ago, so I doubt there will be much confusion. Of course you should never trust a TPG to get an attribution correct.I use the replacement method because most collectors don't want to have "holes" in their collection. " So there you have it. I learned a while back that ANACS attributions from 10 years ago (the small holders) are unreliable and as such, try to avoid purchasing attributed coins in those holders. I'm of the opinion that any attribution should be viewed with skepticism until validated by CONECA. This isn't exclusive to ANACS either as I've gotten some invalid attributions from PCGS and NGC as well.
You asked me to provide an example and I did. I directed you to 2 easily verifiable examples. Read Dr. Wiles' response again. I leads me to believe that although the examples I provided occurred 10 years ago; retreading variety numbers is still standard operating procedure. What about a variety that may be de-bunked today and the newly discovered variety tomorrow?
