This has been somewhat discussed before but I'd like to go into a bit more depth. In my estimation any change made in a coin that is a design change which has been officially mandated by law or policy constitutes a new type and not merely a variety, which is made by vagaries of the engraving, die making or minting processes. Changes officially mandated by law or policy include changes in design, composition, weight or dimension. Varieties are mostly found on early coinage which was engraved or stamped by hand but includes changes in letter or date sizes, different positioning of elements of the design, filled dies, doubling, etc. For example, in the Lincoln Cent series we have: 1909 with V.D.B. on the Wheat Ear reverse, made of Copper, Tin and Zinc 1909-1917 V.D.B. removed 1918-42 and 1947-1958 VDB added to Lincoln's shoulder 1943 Steel coated with Zinc 1944-1946 Copper and Zinc, no Tin 1959-1962 Memorial Reverse Copper, Tin and Zinc 1962-1982 Copper and Zinc, no Tin 1982-2008 Copper and Zinc coated with Copper Some say that small changes are simply varieties, so we have in the Two Cent series seen as varieties 1864 with small motto and 1864-1873 with large mottoHowever, when the change in motto size was made there were also changes made in the ribbon holding the motto, the leaves and berries and the shape of the feathers on the arrows. These changes can't have been simple changes in the engraving, die making or minting processes; they have to have been mandated by law or official policy and should be seen as separate types. Likewise, the Standing Liberty has three accepted types, the third being only a small change over the second 1916 1916-1924 "modesty" added along with Stars on the reverse 1925-1930 date recessed to prevent wearSimilar to the Indian Head Nickel with two types, again with only a small change 1913 Buffalo on mound 1913-1938 Buffalo on flat ground In the Seated Liberty Quarter series, many see it as only one type, I see six 1838-1840 original design 1840-1853 and 1856-1865 drapery added to Liberty's elbow 1853 weight decrease indicated by arrows at date, rays added to reverse 1854-1855 rays removed 1866-1873 and 1875-1891 Motto added 1873-1874 weight increase indicated by arrows at date There are many other examples of changes in other series that some consider only varieties while others consider them to be type changes. My point is that, as stated above, if the change is official, then it should constitute a type change. I have resolved this in my type collection by making every change a different type. It may be overkill for some but if two otherwise similar coins have differences, then they are different and deserve recognition of that difference. I think I'm in the minority on this; I know the coin folder manufacturers don't agree, however PCGS price listings do, for the most part, agree with me.
Nice writeup Dave , though I'd change one thing on the Standing Liberty quarter . The 1st design was 1916 with minor changes to her hair and gown , 2 areas to look for to see the diference between the 2 Type 1 pieces of 1916 and 1917 . Then the added chain mail and stars on the reverse with another change to her hair style also in 1917 . So there was both the Type 1 and Type 2 in 1917 . Sorry for the nit picking .
This is kind of the key to your discussion. The changes were not mandated by law or official policy, they were simple changes made by the mint in the engraving and die making process. And that's exactly why they are not changes in type. Have you ever read the actual laws for coins ? They are very general in their descriptions, so minor changes in the design are made all the time. You can read about some of them here - http://users.scronline.com/lockem/20thcentury.txt - A lot of folks aren't even aware that a lot of these changes were made, and that only covers a small portion of them. To show you what I mean about coin laws just read what you find here - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112 The laws for older coins were much the same, just using generic terms and descriptions like what you find at that link. For example, this is how the law describes the $50 AGE - (i)on the obverse side, a design symbolic of Liberty; and (ii)on the reverse side, a design representing a family of eagles, with the male carrying an olive branch and flying above a nest containing a female eagle and hatchlings; (B)have inscriptions of the denomination, the weight of the fine gold content, the year of minting or issuance, and the words “Liberty”, “In God We Trust”, “United States of America”, and “E Pluribus Unum”; and (C)have reeded edges. Now as you can see from that there is a whole lot of latitude given to the mint when it comes to the design of this coin. As long as those terms are met, they can make minor design changes just about any time they want. And they will make those changes based on several different things. It can be that the hubs are getting worn, it can be that they think a minor change will make the design strike up better or prolong die life. It can be all sorts of things. And in fact there have been several minor changes in the design of the US bullion coins, and they've only even been around for about 30 years. But most folks aren't aware that any changes have been made at all. Back in 2008 they changed the ASE, you can read about it here - http://www.ngccoin.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?IDArticle=955 - but I'll bet most folks never even noticed. And those changes were not dictated by any law or any official policy, the mint just did it.
"...the mint just did it" amounts to official policy. It's not as if the mint director walked in one day and said, "OK guys, let's move the eagle's leg over a bit." If there was any problem with the process, there would have been meetings to hash out a solution and an official policy would be dictated to implement the change. This is quite different from, say, an employee bumping the Jacquard during the transfer process and creating an extra leaf that wasn't part of the design. It wasn't an employee's whim to add VDB to Lincoln's shoulder, or decide to change the date field on the Buffalo or SLQ. These were official decisions. The scores of differences on the early hand engraved issues were not official changes, just employee-made varieties.
These are four different types. I each case the second date range is a different weight than the first.
Let's just say that your definition of "official policy" and mine are different. The mint does not make official policy. The mint, from the director on down, are nothing but employees who do what they are told by "officials". They do not make policy. So no changes made by the mint, and only by the mint, can be, by definition, official policy.
Okay then, the "officials" are the ones who dictate the design changes making it Official Policy. Who decided to remove the V.D.B. from the Cent's reverse? Who decided to put the VDB back on the shoulder? Who decided that the Two Cent's Motto was too small and that it should be enlarged, along with changes to the ribbon, arrows and shield? Who decided that the design of the 3 Cent silver should be changed twice? Who decided that Liberty should have drapery hanging from her elbow? Who decided that the date fields on the Quarter and Nickel were too high and should be recessed? Who decided that Liberty shouldn't be half naked? Who decided that arrows should be placed on either side of a date to signify a weight change? These were all decisions made after input from various sources - whether it was the public, politicians or mint employees - saw some element of a design as a problem in sensibilities, durability, politics or manufacturing and effected an "Official" design change to rectify the "defect". This, as I said, was a change made through an "Official Policy" which led to a changed design which I classify as a new type rather than a variety. The above are far different from the early hand-engraved examples where two engravers, or even the same person at different times, would produce a design that had inevitable minor differences. Or when dates were hand stamped with the resulting positional differences. Or hand-stamping mint marks. Or re-stamping over a weak detail. Or defects in the machine transfer processes. Or various repeated defects and errors in the actual stamping process. All of these things make varieties, that were in no way a result of a decision somewhere "up the line" to make a particular change or misalignment of detail. So, new Types are a result of a deliberate change; Varieties are a result of human vagaries or machine mistakes.
David, let me ask you something. When you look up a word in the dictionary and see what the definition printed there is, do you accept that definition as being correct ? Or do you say to yourself - that's not right, that's not what that word means ? Well, that's what you are doing now. You are saying that you don't agree with the long established and long accepted definitions of the words type and variety because you don't think they are correct. And in numismatics that's a problem. And it is a problem because when people do that, when they start using words incorrectly and calling things by names/words that they are not, then in conversation nobody knows what you are really talking about. They think you're talking about one thing because they know the definition for the word/s you are using, when you are actually talking about something completely different. Now I'll readily agree with you that this kind of thing happens a lot in numismatics. A lot of people use words completely incorrectly simply because they really don't know any better. We see it all the time here on the forum and it causes confusion and misunderstanding. And what's worse is that people who are new to the hobby and still trying to learn, are being taught bad information, incorrect facts. And they don't even know it. That's why we have definitions to begin with, so everybody, anybody, when they see or hear a word used will know exactly what the other person is talking about. Otherwise chaos results.
I was of the opinion from reading the thread that David is of the opinion that the current definitions and usage of type and variety in the numismatic world create chaos and confusion. He was only putting up for debate changing them using stricter guidelines. That being A Variety is the result of an unintentional deviation in a coin's design attributed to error in the manufacture, pairing, etc of the die. A Type is the result of intentional actions by the Mint which result in a change or deviation in a coin's design.
You are absolutely correct Sir. GDJSMP All along I've said that my opinion of what is, and what isn't a Type is my own opinion. I don't really care if you agree or not, I will happily continue doing what I'm doing now. My main point has been the disparity of designating some series' changes as different types, while identical changes in other series only warrants a designation of variety. Or in a single series one change becomes a type change while another change doesn't. You haven't addressed that, and referring to a dictionary for a definition is a cop-out. While I developed my thinking on my own, it is relevant to see that the Wikipedia entry addresses the same issue with the same conclusion: Due to various reasons (including prohibitive cost), collectors will sometimes group several different coins together as one "type." For example, one could collect a Liberty Seated dime, quarter, and half dollar, and call that their example of a Liberty Seated coin for each denomination. Or, they could choose to collect an example of sub-types within the Liberty Seated design, including the with and without arrows at date, and with and without mottos. Additionally, delineating sub-types within a particular design is not always consistent. For example, almost all type collectors consider the 1909 "V.D.B." Lincoln cent to be different from the 1909 no-"V.D.B." Lincoln cent (where the designer's initials, V.D.B., were displayed on the bottom of the reverse and removed about a month later). However, the "V.D.B." initials were returned to the Lincoln cent in 1918 on the bottom of the bust on the obverse, and almost no type collector considers this a separate type. Likewise in the Lincoln cent series, the composition change in 1943 to steel and the composition change in 1982 from bronze to copper-plated zinc are considered separate types by almost all, but the brass composition used in 1944-1946 is not considered a separate type from the 1947 return to bronze. (The Lincoln cent series is full of other examples, including modifications to the size of Lincoln's bust during the early 1970s). Consequently, each collector will need to decide for themselves how specific they wish to be when putting together a U.S. coin type set, though the decision is often made for them if they choose specific albums, such as the very popular Dansco 7070. So, if your type set contains one Seated Liberty Quarter while mine contains seven, that's OK with me. If your Small Cent type set has three or four while mine has nineteen, so be it. You can enjoy yours and I can enjoy mine. Dictionary definitions change frequently over time and, in any case aren't always applicable to every situation. Accept change. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/...ibe-someone-who-is-stubborn-and-narrow-minded
