Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="KBBPLL, post: 8391565, member: 104064"]In my case, I don't really care that much whether the slab says "discovery" or not - they simply won't attribute something new until the "right" person submits it. [USER=16729]@mlov43[/USER] has a valid point - you can present plain-as-day evidence, and it gets a shrug. I realize this is a distraction from the OP's coin, but the process I went through is perhaps relevant. In late 2018 I discovered that there was a third Barber dime reverse design type, introduced in 1900, and shortly thereafter in 1901 modified to become a previously recognized "reverse II" type (really "reverse III" now). I asked ANACS in early 2019 what the process was. They were kind enough to respond, saying that I should contact Wiles (CONECA) or Wexler, as an "outside party" who would publish it, and then ANACS would recognize it as a "discovery." Not only did subtle details of the 1900 dime reverse change, but there were 1899 P-mint coins with the 1900 type that were released early, and 1900 S-mint still produced a relatively scarce number with the 1899 design. I thought both of these discoveries were rather interesting, on top of a completely unrecognized design change. Wexler never responded. James Wiles was gracious enough to reply, and said that CONECA long ago had relegated 19th century varieties to the "specialty clubs." Fine. I subscribed to the Barber Coin Collectors Society, and published an article in their journal. Pretty astounding that a design change had gone unnoticed for 120 years, right? Naive me, I expected someone from another publication might contact me to do their own article. I got crickets. I decided to be more aggressive, and contacted both Coin World and Numismatist. Neither publication responded. Meanwhile, Wiles had cc'd Bill Fivaz with Cherrypickers' Guide, and Bill seemed interested. Many emails were exchanged. They would include this in their next edition! Man, I was stoked! For the next two and a half months, I emailed back and forth, and spent many hours working up a complete, factual, new narrative about the Barber dime reverse types and the relative scarcity of design transition varieties 1899-1905. Then I got this: "Due to space limitations, I'm afraid we won't be able to work this in." Fast forward over two years later, to April 2022. The publisher contacts me, they still haven't published the latest edition, and they're interested in my discoveries again. Would I mind, you know, repeating all the work I did two years ago? I asked - what is the deadline? Response - we want to wrap this up in the next week. I dumped it in my archive and didn't reply. I wasted all my time over two years ago and you want me to drop everything and waste my time again? No thanks. This is apparently how it goes in US numismatics. The thing is, the original design types and transition varieties of Barber dimes have been known for over 40 years. Same with the quarters. They are marginally mentioned on the TPG websites but not attributed, and even then most of it is wrong.  It's funny to me how they all attribute 1939 Jefferson nickels with "Rev of 38" and "Rev of 40" - how the heck did that get in there? They enhanced the steps of the building on the reverse, and somehow that's worthy of a designation? That's how it goes. Circling back to the OP - there's no money in it for a TPG to designate a coin that might be the only one that exists. It's not about knowledge, it's about how many people are going to want to submit and ask for the designation. I'd still try ANACS though.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches