I have been getting different information from different sources about the 1988 reverse 89 cents. Wexler states there a 6 known die varieties of the Philly and 7 of the Denver mints. Then I read the info at the Lincoln Resource and they list 4 dies for the Philly and 1 for the Denver. Coneca shows 6 for the Philly and 3 for the Denver. Now I know the Lincoln Resource is incorrect because I found a Denver that was attributed as die 2 of 3 known. I looked at the pics on all the sites, and honestly, I have to wonder if some of the dies shown by Wexler might not be the same die with either deterioration or maybe evidence of cleaning ? Any of you guys know what the exact info is ? Thank you, Gary
This is not unusual as it happens with a great many things in this hobby. This expert says one thing and 2 more say something else entirely different. Often the differences are merely related to time factors, meaning that say 6 months ago only 3 varieties were known but today 7 are known. And not everybody updates their web sites either. That's one possile reason. Another is that this expert might find some very tiny, miniscule difference and to him that consitutes a new variety. But to everybody else it does not, so that variety is not counted by them while it is by the first guy.
On the dies that are mint marked, these different locations can be a very good marker for identifying different varieties. On the plain cents, this help is missing. They have to rely on die makers to ID coins. Some fail to consider that a pair of dies maybe switched with different OBV's/REVs. Die markers come and go. So it is possible to re-ID one incorrectly. Not all coins get sent into each attributer. Thus some may identify some that others have not seen yet.
Thanks guys. I looked again at the Wexler varieties and I honestly cannot see some of the markers that would make sure it was a different die. I mean dirt can get into the works, and mark a die. But it could be the same one ? Still I guess, it doesn't matter how many are minted, but how many are certified ? The education continues.
Dirt/scratches on the surface are incuse. Die scratches are raised and can be traced back to a die in that die state to show scratches. Breaks/chips/cracks/die dots just get worse with time and do not go away like scratches could. The best place to look for a faded scratch is next to the devices. The wear off very slow in that area.
The article by Crawford shows all of the mint mark positions, which makes it evident that all the dies are indeed different.
"The article by Crawford shows all of the mint mark positions, which makes it evident that all the dies are indeed different." Thanks jallengomez for posting the link to my Die Variety News (DVN) web site. Yes, the latest DVN Issue #17 illustrates the 7 different 1988-D Lincoln cent transitional varieties (reverse of 89) that are currently assigned in my files and is available for your viewing at your leisure. I also included cross-reference with Wexler's file numbers along with die markers (if known) as well as the particular "D" mint mark positions with relationship to the date to help in identifying a particular listing. Regards, Billy (DieVarietyNews)
Welcome to Coin Talk! It's a great publication, so I direct people there whenever I can. Thanks, Jody
Thanks Chris, Crawford and Wexler both show the same dies with different numbering, so I guess Coneca either doesn't recognize a couple that only show a very minor marker or they haven't updated their info ? I did note that 5 were submitted by the same source and one is not attributed. Interesting information. Thanks gary
Hi Billy! Glad to see you here! I saw the issue also and thanks again. I can't remember if I had mentioned that I received the coin safely or not, I did ! Jim
I re-read all the news and even went back to previous issues. Thank you Mr. Crawford for supplying the information. I noticed that Mr. Koelling had submittedf 5 of the varieties. Mr. Wiles of CONECA attributed mine as a die #2, but I don't see the cross reference # ? And that is the attribution given by ANACS. I guess what I am trying to learn is how to cross reference the different lists ? This has become more confusing than I imagined, as I had thought there was a greater standardization ? I was under the impression that the variety lists recognized each other to a greater extent and there was a viable method to cross check ? Thanks, gary
Gary, The reason why I did not cross-reference to CONECA's registry numbers for the 1988 Denver transitional varieties in my DVN #17 is because the Variety Vista web site does not show any die markers for their Die #2 listing. Without the die markers, I can not make a positive cross-reference. John Wexler and I have closely coordinated with each other on the specific die markers which we are able to cross-reference with each others files. I would recommend you check your coin to see if you can match up to any of the die markers that are illustrated in my DVN Issue #17. Regards, Billy
Thank you Mr. Crawford. I am certainly going to try. Now that it is slabbed, it may be a bit more difficult ? I would like to add, that this has become very valuable to me as a "social outlet". Being included in this forum and others has enhanced my life greatly. Being again "on the hunt" and getting quite an education in the process has once again made this an enjoyable and worthwhile hobby after a long, long haitus. Again, I would thank you, and all the other guys. gary
Billy, I went over the coin with a 30x behind my 7x lamp and believe it to be #3. The mint mark position is correct and none of the markers for Nos 1,2, or 4 seem present. Thank you again for all this information and the publication of the DVN. Now I at least think I know what I have. lol Tell me, are we getting a Red Book listing on the variety while I am still around to see it ? Thanks, gary
