Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by satootoko, Nov 29, 2006.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
It is a shame that he is doing so well and yet, can't give proper credit in his cherrypickers guide to the discovers of varieties, unless they are his friend.
Checkout the 1909 S, Barber Half, inverted mintmark.
He had to locate this in Coin World.
Also, the 1916 S large & small mintmarks, note & photos sent.
There are a lot of misconceptions about the Cherrypickers' guide (First Volume). A lot was done by JT and Bill of course, but a huge amount was also done by Mike Ellis who seems never to get the credit he deserves for his work. I know when I mention the book in a column, I always add, "Edited by Mike Ellis" . ( I dont actually know who did the editing for Volume 2)
Without knowing how the book was produced, It's unfair to pin anything on JT, Mike or Bill for anything as particular as that.
From personal experience, I also know that it can be tough to determine who found something first. A few times something that has been reported or thought to be a first discovery turns out to be a coin I discovered years ago. I lead folks to Ken Potter to prove that I was the first to discover a variety as I send new stuff to him for attribution. That kind of stuff happens all the time since there is not just one place to report new finds.
While I am not familiar with the particular reference you are talking about and there may be an error in the reporting of a variety, it may also be that after the research was done that the variety had been reported before by someone else.
I would suggest that if the discovery of a variety was credited to the wrong person, it might be a good idea to write to Bill, or JT with the person they can talk to that has attributed the coin as the first of it's variety to be found.
Just a thought,
It is good to know that Mr. Stanton is alive and doing well! Maybe he can turn things around for PCI and give the other top 3 TPG's a run for there grading money!
Frank and Bill,
The very scenarios that you noted, are the very reasons that I will no longer show my new discoveries (most of them circulated) to certain folks that you mentioned when I attend the Coin Shows. It seems that I have been told that these were nothing only to find them show up as new discoveries in Coneca or some publication and showing BU specimens.
I think it is a fun thing to be able to contribute new information to the variety hobby. I am in the same boat as many of the other folks out there. Remember that I am a collector with the fortunate situation of being able to write about the coins I find in rolls.
I am sitting on so many new discoveries that really are new but even I am not sure what to do with them.
I've worked with Ken Potter, JT Stanton, John Wexler, Billy Crawford, (through wexler) and although I havent had the occasion to work with him yet, I understand that John Bordner is attributing halves.
I have stuff here that is not listed anywhere.
Many of us who search rolls and find good, new varieties can get frustrated at times with the complicated procedure of getting a new discovery recognized. I think that even the great numismatists that do the attributions have to have a tough time trying to figure out what is in the files of their colleagues.
There is no doubt that this is one of the areas of our hobby that is growing but is also a little complicated.
I have a feeling that at some point, if there isn't already, there will be an effort made to get all the information together in one place. Knowing for example that there are hundreds of RPMs and Doubled Dies that would have to be cross referenced, the task seems pretty daunting.
I know exactly what you mean! Even the experts and attributers must check with almost every expert, attributer, publication and the likes to determine if a possible new RPM or Doubled Die, has already been listed or submitted. It would really be nice if all of the Coin Experts and Attributers would get together and pull all of their resources to write and publish say "The Encyclopedia of RPM and Doubled Die Lincoln Cents" and then just publish quarterly and annual updates in between newer versions which should be published every 5 years or so, at the least. This should also be the case for most other coin series as well! Since so many folks want and expect a piece of the pie per say, I doubt that there will ever be such a book published and we all will still be stuck with purchasing and lugging around umpteen books on this Error/Variety or that Error/Variety for many, many years to come!
I also have quite a few discoveries that are probably new finds but I have many, many more that are probably already published, noted or recorded somewhere by someone. The thing that is even more frustrating than trying to determine if an error is a new find or not, is trying to determine what it is worth. I have literally hundreds of coins sitting in bags because I have no idea as to what they are worth and many times it is an excercise in futility to 2x2, label and then even try to sell some of them. It is sometimes so frustrating, that I have been tempted many times to just separate all of these coins by denominations and types of errors, into bags and and sell them this way on eBay.
I understand the "Flipover Double Struck" designation, but what does the "5% Indent" refer to?
Look at the obverse of the coin, the one with the date, and then go to the left side of the coin.
You will see the flipover strike (covering approximately 1/2 the area of the obverse, and showing the upside down figure of the Lincoln Memorial. Then move to the a small area, to the far left, you will see part of the Memorial was obscured, in the north west corner.
This was created by another planchet that was partially inserted into the coining chamber while this coin (no longer a planchet, since it was already struck once) was still there.
The other coin will show an incuse version of the area that is shown here, and may or may not be struck again.
Separate names with a comma.