How much do you need to know?

A collector posed that question to me the other day.  Not in those exact words, but when boiled down, that was the essence of the question.  If I look at any old Canadian coin catalog or Trends, I can find lists of coins by date with the occasional variety tossed in.  For instance 1894 and then the fat 4, 1896 and the far 6, 1859 and the 9/8, you get the idea. Is this sufficient?  Perhaps so, for the more casual collector that isn’t concentrating on the series but has a wider interest across a broader field of collecting.

But what about other varieties, those that are not published in the major catalogs?  Take for instance content you find on discussion boards or specialty web sites.  People post their findings as they look at their coins.  Lots of varieties are brought to light by collectors taking just a bit more time and looking at the detail on the coin.  If you are starting to specialize any series, you probably pay attention to those finds and add them to your list.  The 1876 full serif T, the 1881 micro D or spike leg N, how about the 1899 9/9’s.  Ah the list.  Here it is again but now a bit longer as I add mine and others findings to it. 

Charlton has been publishing variety sections in the back of their catalog for the past few years now.  The current years catalog, 2011, 65^th Edition, has published over 80 different Victoria large cent varieties complete with photographs illustrating the variety and an index with comments regarding cross references to Griffin, Zoell, Turner and Gravestone numbers, scarcity and demand.   We are now beyond just a list and are working from a photo guide with references back to older published works and specialty items still in the pipeline.

But is that enough? For many this is the cats meow. Up until 2007, lists ruled.  In 2007 however Turner published his ground breaking epic, “The 1858 Cents of Provincial Canada”.  If you have not picked this up, it is well worth the read.  Turner takes a page from the U.S. variety researchers play book and goes right to the die level, matching obverse and reverse die pairs and stringing out the hierarchy.  In his follow up with Vol. II in 2009, he expands to the 1859 W9/8 as well.  Now we have die pairs and die families.  You really start to get a feel for the “why” some things you see on certain coins are the way that they are.

Perhaps the question is really are you a casual collector or do you specialize?  Specializing requires a deep dive, deeper understanding and a look across relating series.  For instance, can you study Provincial Cents of 1858 and 9 without understanding what was going on at the Royal Mint, and the changes in planchet alloy, die steel, the coining equipment etc.

Seems to me there is a gradient here.  You will find yourself somewhere on the curve, from the most casual of collectors to the researcher.  Your knowledge needs will be different and you will be able to answer the question as it pertains to you.  For me, it’s the deep dive.

How do you like your reference material?

By looking at my desk on any given day, one would have to conclude that I prefer my reference material in the form of books.  I no longer even attempt to put some of them back in the bookcase.  Some of them lay open to the last topic I was researching or just generally reading about.  One on top of the other, both to the right and left of my work space.  Yes I like books.  I also use various web sites for shorter reads, discussion insights, new stuff (until it’s published in books) and the like.  I have a few books in pdf format that I use on my screen.   As easy and simple as that is, I just don’t use them all that much.  Time and time again I reach for the physical book and not the electronic one.  How about you?  Let me know your preference.

Majors and Minors (how do you determine what to collect?)

I got an email the other day from my friend Bill. He is also collaborating on the project I’m working on. He has a take on what makes a major variety that is similar to that of Hans Zoell from back in the 1960’s. Generally speaking, if a planchet is struck with good dies, from a press that is in good working order, yet there are differences from one set of dies to another, then that is a major variety. He goes on to talk about progressive damage to dies as being minor. Think here about die cracks and die chips as an example. These are the little unintended markers that show up on the coins that researches used to figure out die pairs, early die states and the like. Progressive is out, intended is in. I’m OK with that.

You can also classify punch damage in a progressive nature. I’m thinking here of broken vines, stems, letters, etc. Unintended damage that leaves a permanent output on the working dies. This progressive failure is “punch across the working dies” rather than the “working die across the planchet”. It’s the same thing but applied to a different part of the process. I’m OK with that too.

So we know what’s out, but what exactly is in? This continues to remain hard to say. A reengraving of letter or number that leaves small tell tale signs is not really a major issue. A reengraving of a letter or number that leaves us all wondering if the die was a “Monday” effort is something else. I think this goes back to something easily seen and not having to use more than a 10x glass to find. That puts reengraving and repuching, provided you can easily see it, into our field of play.

I realize that what passes as a variety is quite an individual thing. If you are a “Type” collector, you certainly are not considered a variety collector by the coin community at large but you may well see yourself as nothing but a variety collector. You collectables are defined by design change. Is a date collector a variety collector? Probably not, but you could argue that each date is a different variety. How about collecting by obverse? Here I would need two of the following years 1882, 1884, 1886 & 1891, then three for 1892. This is starting to look like a variety collection to me. Also if you pay attention to your 1859’s and have a narrow 9, a 9/8, a DP#1, DP#2 etc. you collect varieties. How about 1891 LLLD, LLSD, SLSD? Yep again you pass the test. Where do you draw the line. What is a major variety and what is a minor one? What do you intend to focus on? Do you have a favorite date? Hmm… Lots of questions for sure.

Thinking about Victoria and her Varieties

So I'm up early today thinking about Victorian large cents and what constitutes a major variety. I'm collaborating on a project with a couple of other people on varieties, and part of the question we are attempting to answer is "what actually is a major variety?". It's sometimes easier to decide what something is not, rather than what it actually is. I know that the nondescript bird I saw on the way into work today was not a hawk, sea gull or robin. But I really didn't get a good enough look at it to decide what it was.

Ah, my first clue. A major variety needs to be readily discernible without minute or microscopic examination. I should be able to pick up the coin, look at it with perhaps a 5 or 10x glass, and be able to see the features that would allow me to determine what it is. That's a good start. It also makes sense that the variety should be repeatable. Someone else should also be able to recognize it from a description or photograph, so there can be more than one. There must be more than one, otherwise it is unique in nature. That would seem to rule out things like planchet specific issues, errors and mutilations. The feature must come from the dies.

Lots of things come from the dies. Cracks are an example but that results from a failing die. The feature is unintended so I guess that generally rules them out as major varieties. They are great diagnostic measures however, and can give insight into the life and times of a die if you study crack progression. Great diagnostic tool but not a major variety. A clash mark also come from dies. Again unintended, again we learn something about what happened during the life of the dies but not really a variety I don't think. The variation must then have to have been intended.

Design transfer from Matrix to Punch to Working Die to coin. OK that is starting to flesh out now. Three opportunities for variation. Design elements on the matrix, design elements on the punch and then any touch up design elements on the working dies. What could happen to cause major variation in intended design? Perhaps I'll get up early tomorrow and think about that!