This week's issue of the JR Newsletter has all sorts of good
information. Nathan Markowitz starts us
off:
I would like to reply to Bob Stark and embellish the
comments made about the silver happenings a few weeks ago on this forum.
Indeed, early dollars WERE represented in Colorado
springs. We chose the 1798 B-16 die marriage
with its wonderful die stage progression. Three representatives made
cameo appearances with two VF mid/late state examples and the latest know
example from the Willasch collection in mint state. For anyone who loves
cracks and cuds its hard not to warm up to this die marriage; an especially
wonderful experience to view them side by side.
Going forward, we would like to have more early dollars
represented at the show; I encourage anyone to attend or send along their
example of the chosen die marriage so it too can be shown alongside its
brethren; we depend on the collectors to send their examples as this is an
entirely voluntary event. If anyone has an idea for a die marriage to be
displayed next year, this is a great place to make the suggestion and its never
too early to make a proposal; just remember that we need the coins to
"show up" to make it work. Next year the show is in Dallas
at DFW the first weekend of May, and in 2016 its in downtown Charlotte
April 6-9 (if memory serves).
Nathan Markowitz
------
James Higby wrote:
A small typo correction to Denis Loring's R-scale: R-5
should read 46-60 and R-5- should then be 61-75.
In addition to this, there is the matter of condition
rarity. An R-6 die marriage would be represented by 13-30 examples, but
if 29 of them are G5 and only one is F15, then the Fine15 becomes an R-8+
while the other 29 are all R-6-.
Things get complicated once you get past Brown & Dunn!
James Higby
------
Steve Tompkins sends this, on the same topic (rarity):
I wanted to reply to Mike Sherrill's comments from last
week, but forgot to do so until the new issue came today...
When a die marriage is given a particular rarity rating,
what exactly does this mean?
I would say that it would mean what each author for every
series has stated it means, as different people have different definitions.
However, there is a universal consensus as to what each level of rarity
consists of as far as quantities go, as was stated by Denis Loring:
I grew up with the
dime book - my definition of rarity probably derived
from page 20 and is "estimated number of surviving examples in all
grades, both attributed and not". But to take other examples, the 1836
B5 quarter is widely regarded as R6, in one of the quarter books "15-17
known". In the latest dime census, the 1820 JR12 is listed as R6 with 17
reported. My first thought is, "these are actually R5+ die marriages".
from page 20 and is "estimated number of surviving examples in all
grades, both attributed and not". But to take other examples, the 1836
B5 quarter is widely regarded as R6, in one of the quarter books "15-17
known". In the latest dime census, the 1820 JR12 is listed as R6 with 17
reported. My first thought is, "these are actually R5+ die marriages".
Although I applaud the authors of the dime book, as I
believe it is the impetus for raising the level of research and presentation of
die marriage attribution reference books and is the starting point for any
serious student of early US Mint coinage, I have to disagree with the
definition presented above by Mike. If that is what they meant then I don’t
agree. Actually, this what it states in the dime book under the heading of
"RARITY" on page 20:
“The following table
shows the approximate number of dimes in existence for a given rarity:”
It goes on to list the range of coins for each level of
rarity from R-8 through R-1. At the time, the addition of a plus or minus was
not in general use as it is today to distinguish the separation between the
higher and the lower parts of the range.
The issue might be in the statement “in existence”. Perhaps
Mike is interpreting this to mean those coins that are both attributed and
those not yet attributed. If so, then I
would state that this kind of thinking has the potential for problems down the
road.
How can you state with any certainty how many coins of a
given die marriage exist if they are not yet all identified? Any rarity rating
given using these criteria may be correct, but can be just as incorrect.
Attempting to define a rarity rating based on how many you think might exist is
fraught with error possibilities.
A case in point is the rarity rating given by Don Parsley in
the 4th addition of Overton for the newly discovered 1807 O-115. Parsley stated
that it was an R-6, most likely due the fact that he believed that more would
surface. He even gives a condition census that includes 5 separate coins
(although he states that these are estimates…)!
However, after almost 10 years since it was discovered,
only five examples have been identified, making the die marriage an R-7+.
That is not to say that more won't be found some day, but to start out with
R-6? The population could increase five-fold and still be an R-6. What if
no more are ever found? It would have been better to give a rating based on
known examples than supposed examples..
This example shows what I believe rarity ratings should
represent…the total number of coins known to exist at a given point in time.
Things are not static, they change over time, and rarity ratings can and should
change over time. They will be updated and changed when a newer reference is
published and for the rarest die marriages, will be tracked, in between
editions of a series reference. In fact, the rarity rating for the more scarce
coins is probably more accurate than for the lower ratings. (Who has the time
to actually count examples for R-1, R-2 & R-3?)
As to the rarity ratings listed in the new quarter books,
both state that the 1836 B-5 is an R-6+ with 15-17 examples known not R-6. This
was accurate at the time, but since has changed. Several more examples have
been discovered and the population is now in the lower 20’s making the rarity
an R-6 for the die marriage. Will it eventually become an R-5+? Maybe…but to
state such now or when the books were published would be irresponsible in my
mind. Will another 10 coins be discovered and attributed? Again, I say
maybe…but I doubt it.
Anyone who wants to seriously collect a particular series
needs to arm themselves with all the information they can. This includes the
latest edition of a reference book on the series, and any new information
pertaining to examples of the rarest die marriages. I will also state that the
census compilations we see in the JRJ need to be taken with a grain of salt, as
they are far from all encompassing and only include those examples that the
membership reports. Believe that there are more examples than reported, perhaps
many more.
Steve M. Tompkins
------
Finally, a couple of notes from the Editor:
The email address for Pete Mosiondz, Jr. was
left off of his listing for books offered for sale. The address is choochoopete(at)comcast.net
Also, the email address for Paul Hybert listed
in last week's JR Newsletter was incorrect.
The correct email address is jrcsweb(at)yahoo.com
