I hadn’t purchased a Red Book since 2019 and I have a complaint about the 2026 edition. In the 2019 edition, the intro description of each ‘regular’ coin type had a listing of general guidance for a range of grades (G4, F12, etc.) based on extent of wear. The 2026 edition seems to have eliminated this. My question is: Why did they do this? Seemed like valuable info to be providing.
They removed the grading section to allow more room in the book for other information. If you want more specifics and a list of other things they changed I highly recommend watching the 2026 Red Book review by "The Coin Geek" on YouTube and the Red Book Podcast video (episode 7 I believe) with John Feigenbaum, Jeff Garrett and Ben "The Coin Geek".
I’ll take a look at your explanation source. But this change seems illogical to me, considering the relatively few pages that information takes up overall, combined with the usual recommendations for newbies to “purchase a red book”. Accordingly, this valuable, basic grading guidance for typical coin types should be always provided in it, IMO.
Actually, I too am disappointed they removed it. Edit: Also I don't like they way they rearranged the commemoratives section. All the descriptions in one place, all pictures in a different place and all the pricing in another.
Disappointed is an absolute understatement. This is supposed to be the one book if someone is interested enough to opt to get just one book. And the numismatic intelligentsia behind the book decide to eliminate such valuable guidance? Talk about an unforced error! Perhaps the advice for new collectors now should be to find a 2019 red book, because the current crop of red book editors have lost their way in search of a dozen less pages. Terrible judgement from all involved in this matter.
The 2022 edition (large print, spiral edition, 75th anniversary) still has the general guidance for grading and the commeratives with descriptions and pictures co-mingled.
I think Whitman has been dropping the ball in a lot of ways. CPG Vol II 6th Edition gutted the section on Barber dimes for example, and both Vol II and Vol III list some inverted S Barber quarters and halves that have been debunked in the BCCS journal. Where do they get this material and who is vetting it? The 3rd edition of Barber Silver Coins touts "revised and updated" but is essentially a reprint of the 2nd edition. In the intervening years, discoveries of a third Barber dime reverse type, third quarter obverse type, and second half dollar reverse type have been made, along with many related transition varieties. The publisher was well aware of all of it and chose to not update anything important. I'm not sure what's going on with Whitman, but it seems like grading guides are a fundamental part of coin collecting and the Red Book.
Most collectors have purchased the ANA Grading Guide or some other grading reference. Unlike The Red Book, there is no need to buy another grading guide for many years. The guildlines in The Red Book had no photos and really didn't mean much to novices. Should they have been left the grading guide? Probably. Does it matter a whole lot? I don't think so.
I think they should have kept it in the book. Pretty handy for folks joining the hobby. I'm sure Whitman is having to make some tough choices. The book is up to about 500 pages and they can't reduce the font size any smaller. They probably don't want to have it grow into a two volume set.
Consider that CPG published a bunch of inverted S Barber varieties without verifying with BCCS. The publisher is a BCCS member and the BCCS president wrote the Barber red book forward. Whitman is just making their own judgements about what has "collector interest", which is their prerogative. My main criticism in the case of the red book is that with the dimes they continue to repeat information that they know is incomplete or wrong.
I understand your complaint but if you go to what should be the definitive source for verification (BCCS Website) http://barbercoins.org/index.shtml - What do you find?
@justafarmer . Funny. I have been to the Seated web page a thousand thousand times. Until this morning I didn't know their was a counter page similar to the old LSCC site. thanks for posting that. James
I've been through everything on that site multiple times. It's a great general resource - links to the online Lawrence books, authenticating the three key quarters, journal archives through 2016, etc. However, other than a few things on the front page, it hasn't been updated in years. If a publisher wanted to verify RPMs, RPDs, transition varieties, etc, there's not much there. You would have to go to the printed journal for anything discovered since 2016, and there has been a lot. They have been working on a comprehensive database for a while so maybe that will be online at some point.
