Using as an example the 1937-D Lincoln Cent variety (WRPM-001, RPM-1, 1MM-001) which could also be 1937-D Lincoln Cent variety (WDDR-001, DDR-1, 1DR-001). So the question to all variety collectors is Do we recognize 3 separate varieties 1. 1937-D (WRPM-001, RPM-1, 1MM-001) – Coins that exhibit the RPM but not the reverse DDR 2. 1937-D (WDDR-001, DDR-1, 1DR-001) – Coins that exhibit the DDR but not the obverse RPM 3. 1937-D (WRPM-001+DWDDR-001, RPM-1+DDR-1, 1MM-001+1DR-001) – Coins that exhibit both the RPM and DDR OR WHAT?
They would be considered three different things altogether. Values would be assessed according to whether the coin is an RPM, DDR, or both. Both would of course be worth the most.
Just to take the semantics question a little further to the fringe. Based on the idea that working dies are not replaced in obverse/reverse working pairs - would it be correct to assume that most all coin varieties (RPM, DDO, DDR, etc) would have at least 2 opposite corresponding obverse/reverse dies? Potentially making two varieties from one.
It is safe to assume this is always possible, but it is not 'likely' or 'certain'. Dies are switched individually when they need to be switched without regard to the other die. If an obverse and reverse die are hung together and work together, it is entirely possible for them to be switched at the same time. They can also be switched one at a time, creating different die pairings for doubled dies, repunched mintmarks, etc. I know of over 2,000 different die varieities in the Lincoln cent series. Roughly 250-300 of the ones I know of had an opposite die switched while the die variety was being minted. In some of these cases, the opposite die was switched twice. I only know of a couple dozen cases where there was a die variety on both sides of the coin, and of those only a small handful had the possibilities you list above.
A lot of good info in the above post. What a stroke of luck that my choice as an example variety ends up being one of a handful.
Now there is where the semantics comes in. From the training of specialists in the early coins a die variety is the result of the marraige of given PAIR of dies. For us when a single die is swapped out it creates a NEW die variety. So you can't have say a single die variety with a recognized obverse such as a DDO that comes paired with two different reverses. Each pairing would be a separate die variety. Charles is using the term die variety to mean a recognized difference on a single die. And I would assume that he would describe the pairing of that die with more than one opposite die as being the same die variety. Terminology may be shifting over to the way Charles is using it. In the older series there is starting to be a shift to referring to different pairings as die marriages, allowing for the identification of interrupted marriages and remarrages.
Okay...here's very CLEAR warning for the beginners who are confused enough to STEP AWAY from this thread...because it's about to get a LOT more confusing! So, Conder... Well, in actuality there are two completely different accepted uses for the term - one for the years of multiple hubbed dies on which doubled dies can occur, and the other for the earlier, generally hand-cut dies with punched date characters. Now before we split hairs, there is some overlap between the two and the line is a clouded fuzz...but... The term 'die variety' as used for earlier coins (generally seated coins and before) is indeed each individual die pairing. The same thing in later coins would simply be termed 'die marriage' and would be left at that. The term 'die variety' as used for later coins (generally seated coins forward) means any die that has something different from the norm at the time the die is created - like hub doubling, repunched dates, repunched mintmarks, etc. Thing is, the two terms are NOT interchangeable by the types in which they are used (mostly)...so for 20th century coins, the changing of a die is simply changing die marriage, and does NOT create a 'die variety'. I haven't studied American coinage of the late 1830s-1870s to really dig deeply enough into the various listing systems used for them to figure out whether the majority uses the term for die marriages or whether the majority uses the term for doubling, but I would imagine the latter since none of the dies in this era were hand-cut, punched, etc. So I'm going out on a limb here with my clouded judgement and knowledge in earlier coinage to say that the Overtonian students would call 'die variety' a die marriage because the dies were all created with differences in the designs that are discernible usually to the naked eye, whereas the seated students would argue that since all their dies are hubbed with the same design that a 'die variety' is an overdate, repunched mintmark, or a doubled die. Therein lies the difference, but for sure all the Lincoln cent students and any other of the same era would say the definition lies with doubling, not die marriage.
Would you now like to correspond in discourse regarding the term 'type' and its many over-uses so that we may disclude the remaining 4% of our audience still following our current exchange? Juuuust kidding!
Actually quite interesting! Charles, in reference to this quote, is this information your personal research or is it found in some source(s). I would think it would give some insight into possible population numbers. Not exact of course, but if a Lincoln die variety had more than one married combo, it would be more likely the possible population was higher than a single marriage. I have been researching the 1960-D/D DDO sm/lg date and have seen conflicting estimates of numbers. By the way, congratulations on the Presidency of SLCC. I joined 20+ yrs ago and let it lapse, but I am going to rejoin before the next mail-bid. Jim
Now his kind of thread is very helpful, and lacks arrogance and additude. Much more in line with the CT way. Knowledge and sharing is a very big part of CT, and thanks . Additudes and ego get checked at the door here.
Any more the difference between information gathered and information discovered on my part is generally a fog, but this particular piece is from my own personal observation. Unfortunately, however, it does not lead in the direction of noting specific population because dies are changed for a number of different reasons, overuse being only one of them. An RPM could be hung as a hammer die with a reverse which has already had a hundred thousand strikes. That reverse die could be changed after only a couple thousand strikes of the RPM obverse. The RPM obverse could develop a premature crack and break after only 15,000 strikes, and here we have an RPM that only exists up to mid-die state (which are generally difficult to find) that has two different reverse die pairings. While this scenario is not only hypothetical but singular in nature, any number of possibilities could exist that create the reality of two paired dies with another die that had a rather short life. There are other cases in which a die was known to have an extended life and kept the same opposite die throughout - like the 1995 DDO. Hundreds of thousands are likely, yet only one die pairing is known to exist (to my knowledge). Regarding your reactivation in the SLCC - You should send your information to me through my Post Office Box to renew. You may not know yet, but the SLCC now has a web site located at http://www.lincolncentsociety.com. My address is obtainable through the 'join or renew' link in the navigation pane.
I realize so many things could happen to alter the number of a certain Lincoln variety that it would be unreliable. I appreciate you taking the time to answer. I will use the website you gave rather than try to remember to mail it in to Dr. Taylor. Thanks Jim
To be quite candid about the situation, it would help me continue to fund the club and keep it alive for the renewals to come to me at the end of this month rather than sending them to Dr. Taylor. He has handed the entire operating cost of the club over to me without any capital to run it on...so basically it is all coming out of my pocket until I get enough renewals to pay for the existing membership for which I receive nothing but a pat on the back for taking it over.
Very informative post! I knew you and desertgem would get along. He is always on the hunt for varieties.
Sorta - old school vs new school so to speak Just playing Devil’s Advocate here - when attributing a modern variety is analysis of the characteristics of the opposing die always part of the routine process?
NoCharles I'm not going to debate "Type" with you because that is an even bigger can of worms. And we seem to be in agreement about Die variety as well. Your answer pretty well parallels mine. Simply that the students of the older coins and those of the modern ones use the same term for two different things. And as I said we are slowly replacing our use of the term with die marraige which brings our group more in line with yours so we both use the same language. (But since every die is different, I doubt we will adopt the use of die variety to indicate a difference in the die.) In the long run that will be an advantage because it will reduce confusion.
