Red Book Question

I've looked and it's probably stated somewhere obvious, but I can't find the answer in the Red Book. I've noticed that for some listings right before the mintage number there is a number in parenthesis. E.g., 1939 Lincoln has (13,520) before the mintage number of 316,466,000.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is the number of proofs mint that year.

 

Thanks RLM. Knew it was something simple.

 

You may be right there. I just went and looked at page 8 on how to use this book and it does not say anything about (xxx). So I went to the Glossary in the back and there too for Proofs it did not say that they would appear in ( ).
I've never read the entire book from cover to cover but I really thought I saw that noted somewhere. If not it would be a good thing to send to Dennis Tucker, Publsher of Whitman Books. I've done things like that in the past and he actually does answer.

 

Page 21 of the 2010 Redbook about 1/3 down the page. Last sentence before the "Rare Coins as an Investment" section.

 

Knew it was there somewhere!

 

yup.

 

Still I think it would have been the type of notation that should have been explained in How to Use This Book section on page 8. Of course if that section was more explicit, it would be many, many pages longer too.

 

In the 2006 edition it is on page 9 under "Quantities of Coins Struck" the last line says "Proof totals are shown in parentheses, and are not included with coins made for circulation."

One thing you have to worry about is whether the figures are correct. In earlier editions they were not consistant and sometimes the mintage figures included the proofs and you had to subtract the proof figure to get the actual mintage sometimes they didn't. In later years they screwed up again and the mintage figures are still messed up. Check the figures for the Ike dollars and see what they say for the 1971 - 74 40% silver Ikes.

In the 1980's the mintage figures for most of the coins in book were the total mintage and you had to subtract the proof mintage to get the business strike mintage, but on the Ike dollars the mintage was NOT the combined total. it was just th business strikes and you did not have to subtract out the proof mintage (They did a few other series that way as well.) Then around 2000 they went through the book and separated the proof and business strike mintages so you no longer had to subtract out the proofs yourself. Problem was on the Ikes they went ahead and subtracted the proof mintage from the business strike mintage when they didn't have to. So now in my 2006 edition it shows the Unc mintage of the 1972-S 40% silver to be 381,425. The real mintage was 2,193,056. This type of error occurs on some other series as well.

 

From what I've observed over the years, putting the number of proofs made in parentheses near the mintage of biz strikes is a pretty common convention in numerous types of numismatic publications.

 

What the heck do you know about Red Books.. Geez..

 

It has always annoyed me that in the Red Book they don't give detailed grading standards for the Lincoln Memorial cents and other moderns like the do for most other coins...

 

I've mentioned this many times in the past. As far as the Red Book, actual errors can be brought to the attention of Dennis Tucker, Publisher, Whitman Books. He sometimes resides on the PCGS web site. He is really a great person to deal with and appreciates any comments or errors found that may be correctable in later editions. I've sent him many emails of errors I found in previous Red Book editions. One time he sent me a free book on Morgan Dollars as a means of thank you. I do suggest that if you do have questions and or find problems to contact him. Might be a reward for that info.
However, since Conder101 mentioned the appearance of the ( ) info was previously on a page that stated Quantities of Coins Struck and Mint Data. Due to the continuous expansion of information added to this book, that info is now on Page 20/21. And it is explained on the very last sentence of that item on page 21.

 

Just to clarify for those of you who don't know Treashunt.. He wrote this book.

I learnt something new in this thread.

 

Aw, shucks.

Sorry there.

 

Well, golly gee, Batman, thanks for the plug.

 

Dang good reading too. Actually learned a bit in that there book. Good job Frank.

One question though. Why did they pick Red for the cover? I know I know.. because it was called the Red Book. Anyone know the real answer?

 

um..............

because the blue was already taken by the Handbook (wholesale price guide)?

Great question, actually.

And, apparently I have a few ideas, but no actual proof.

oh, Ken, another question for you.

 

Looks like some more research is in order. Why Red? I wonder if anyone still knows since it was started so long ago. One little question again for the publisher.

 

Okay guys & Gals:

I just heard from Ken, who is probably the only still available authority on the matter form the early days.

He said : " think red was selected as the book’s cover so that it would stand out on the shelf wherever it was being sold. It may also have been the only color that was easily available at that time right after the wartime shortages. Or perhaps it was a combination of these two possibilities. "


So, until we can revive R. S. Yeoman, that will have to serve as the most probable answer.

Jim:
But, I have to admit: It was an EXCELLENT question, and one that I never thought to ask..

For future reference: does anyone else have a question?

If I don't know the answer it may be becuase I never thought to ask the question, and I would like to find out the answer.

So, inquiring minds out there?

Please ask.


Also, if anyone has an interesting Red Book (Guide Book) story, please pass it along to me. I am compiling info for the possible 2nd edition that Ken & I want to issue.