Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;messydesk, post: 26693709, member: 1765&quot;]R-numbers are always estimates.&nbsp; Sometimes they&#039;re based on a lot of data, like rigorous surveys of collections, and sometimes they&#039;re estimates.&nbsp; The problem with them is that once they&#039;re in a book, you can&#039;t change them.&nbsp; You can publish an update later, but then you have both numbers out there for people to use.</p><p><br /></p><p>With VAMs, the numbers were very rough estimates due to the sheer number of silver dollars that there are that couldn&#039;t be examined.&nbsp; On top of that, the level of detail used to define a specific variety increased over the years to where the originally published rarity scale was no longer useful.&nbsp; Add to that people incorrectly inferring value from these estimates and the decision was made to no longer use them at all.&nbsp; The study of 1878 8TF is probably mature enough by now that they could be reintroduced for those varieties only, but the bad information is still out there, and that would confuse matters.&nbsp; Relative or ranked rarity is more useful measure.</p><p><br /></p><p>Don&#039;t get me started on the &quot;URS&quot; numbers.&nbsp; I&#039;ll start and finish by simply saying it&#039;s a bad scale and leave the rant for another time.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in