Coppercoins-Varietyvista

[ave13co]

Looking at Coppercoins listings for RPM, I noticed that the terminology naming each coin is different than Varietyvista....or am I looking in the wrong place?

[Daniel]

Nope and RPM is a repunched mint mark and that's what counts.

[ave13co]

They are a bit different but I figured it out. Copper coins...1960D-1MM-002 and at Coneca...1960D-RPM-002. Wexlers and Crawford seem to be following that same RPM terminology.

[PetesPockets55]

I'm guessing each site developed their terminology independent from each other. Not sure if there was an accepted term prior to these sites being established.
I'm not sure what was used as a reference for varieties before modern attribution sites?
Paul :w , Daniel :ebay: <Youtube> or Mark :eureka: ? (Chronological, I think. lol: )

[mhonzell]

Each type of coin has had someone specialize in varieties for that type. As that person became an expert, they also gained name recognition and their initial(s) became part of the variety designation. Or, their method of cataloging became a standard (at least for them.)

Indian Head Cents : Rick Snow - S
Morgan Dollars / Peace Dollars : Van Allen / Mallis - VAM
Colonial Coins : Breen - B
Shield Nickels : Howard Spindel - S

All : Wexler - W
All : Fivaz-Stanton - FS
etc.

Knowing this little detail may help find more information on the coin.
But, keep in mind, they categorized EVERY variety they could find. VERY FEW hold interest to the average collector and would hold no extra value.

Some of these have helped you out by showing examples of all their varieties, (eg. Wexler) but that doesn't make them worth more.
Some only work with a particular type. (eg Copper Coins, Lincoln Cent Resource, VAMWorld, etc.)
Some will not recognize a variety unless they have actually attributed it, (eg. CONECA) but that doesn't make it worth more either.
Some will only list those popular with collectors, (eg. Cherrypickers, NGC, PCGS) and that still doesn't make it worth more.

If you are serious about finding varieties, you have to know your resources.

Some other main characters in variety attribution:
Half Cents (1793-1857) : Cohen
Large Cents (1793-1814) : Sheldon
Large Cents (1816-1857) : Newcomb
Half Dimes (1794-1837) : Logan/McCloskey
Dimes (1796-1837) : John Reich Society
Liberty Seated Dimes (1837-1891) : Fortin
Quarter Dollars (1796-1838) - Browning
Half Dollars (1794-1836) : Overton
Capped Bust Reeded Edge Half Dollars (1836 – 1839) : rude person Graham (GR)
Liberty Seated Half Dollars : Wiley-Bugert (WB)
Dollars (1794-1804) : Bolender and Bowers/Borckardt
Gold Quarter Eagles, Half Eagles and Eagles (1795-1834) : Bass/Dannreuther

[PetesPockets55]

Mark, you've gone and done it again. (How am I ever going to finish my Lincoln cent collection knowing about all these others as well? hugeeyes )
:yourock:

:thumbsup:

:winnah:

[ave13co]

Back in 1905 there was a group of people who had a similar quandry... They formed a society and standardized all so it was common for all of them. They are now known as the Society of Automotive Engineers or SAE.. Today, their standards are accepted in not only Automotive but also farm implements and aerospace too. Buy a wrench at Sears and take it anywhere in the USA and it will be used on all types of equipment. Before the society, manufacturers made up their own sizes for nuts and bolts. More info can be found on SAE here...

https://www.sae.org/about/history

I think coin collecting is still evolving. And I see a need for something like this

[Paul]

:trophy: Mark :yourock:

[ave13co]

As I remember, Daniel made a video about computerized grading-attribution. Wouldn't this be a good place to start since grading and attribution are so subjective? Has that idea gone any further?

[Daniel]

I agree, it needs to be fixed.

[mhonzell]

Currently, PCGS was the last to own the patent on a computer grading system. US5224176. (Patent has been held since 1991. Allowed to expire in 2011.)

If you read through it, it does not use AI, but shows all the testing that was done to develop the algorithms in grading Morgan Dollars as a human would grade the coin. The interesting thing is, it was grading more consistently than humans, and yet, not accepted.

The testing showed that humans grade as much as 1.5 grades high OR low in the MS-60 to MS-70 range. The computer was 1 grade high OR low.
That should answer some questions about there being such diversity within a grade on current coins.

There have been eight other systems patented since 1964 for grading coins, with the last filed in 2013. Grading is a generic term. Some mean determining if coins are counterfeit (not a numismatic grading system.)
Computer Grading

[PetesPockets55]

As I remember, Daniel made a video about computerized grading-attribution. Wouldn't this be a good place to start since grading and attribution are so subjective? Has that idea gone any further?

If it has no company has admitted to it. It seems like it might be a great idea, to be able to rely on a consistent grade. The technology required might be prohibitive.

[Daniel]

Here's the video. A better version needs to created on this subject https://youtu.be/VixFtxxiZvQ

[PetesPockets55]

Currently, PCGS ....... The interesting thing is, it was grading more consistently than humans, and yet, not accepted.

The testing showed that humans grade as much as 1.5 grades high OR low in the MS-60 to MS-70 range. The computer was 1 grade high OR low.
That should answer some questions about there being such diversity within a grade on current coins
............Computer Grading

Thank you Mark.
Not as much $ to be made if people aren't happy with the grade. They stop spending the bucks (or go to a competitor) and that's not good for a business model!

Sounds like this might be technology that the Green/Gold Secure label could use to maximize their accuracy and minimize time spent per coin.