| Author |
 Replies: 26 / Views: 2,564 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
975 Posts |
@silviosi no game I was just saying I believe the context in Dr Wiles book meant that it was changed, which it was. I actually am not wanting anything I merely asked a question because I am curious about the lines. Nothing to gain and want nothing so not sure what you mean. But not arguing over a question and was not trying to offend. Thanks for your response anyway.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
449 Posts |
@gsp193 What @silviosi is saying is that the word "transitional" in coin collecting is generally understood to mean something in the design that crosses over years. However, when I looked at the Coin Community glossary itself (this site), it appears to support what you are saying: Quote:transitional issue A coin struck after a series ends, such as the 1866 No Motto issues. A coin struck before a series starts, such as the 1865 Motto issues. A coin struck with either the obverse or the reverse of a discontinued series, an example being the 1860 Half Dime With Stars. A coin struck with the obverse or reverse of a yet-to-be-issued series, an example being the 1859 Stars Half Dime with the Legend-type reverse. I also learned of this type of 1964 proof Kennedy as being a "transitional variety" when I first discovered it probably 20 years ago or so. However, I understand @silviosi's point that "transitional" normally refers to designs that cross years. Maybe it doesn't have to cross years? Or just was meant for another year? If RDV-001 was used in 1965 then I guess it does fit in with crossing years. Kind of confusing, but it is an interesting discussion! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
975 Posts |
Thanks for the info @Cointree, it is confusing. I do get what Silviosi is saying as well. I was just trying to show that transition just meant change, was not trying to start a cointalk rumble haha. In this instance I think calling it transitional makes sense, since it went from ODV-001 RDV-001 to ODV-002 RDV-001 to ODV-002 RDV-002. So being in the middle makes sense to me being called a transitional variety since the next change was the permanent one for the year. I don't think RDV-001 was used again, not sure though. I am thinking about these lathe lines in the sense of a Morgan/Peace Dollar Vam- Fingerprint of the reverse die on certain Kennedy halves. It just interested me that they showed up on the devices of the AHK's so I thought I would start looking and ask. I appreciate your response! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
Quote:
However, I understand @silviosi's point that "transitional" normally refers to designs that cross years. Maybe it doesn't have to cross years? No, it doesn't have to cross years. There is a Barber obverse quarter type that only exists in 1900. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
The transitional coins cross the years. On the same year we say varieties, and those varieties designs can be crossing many years. What kbbpll mention it is an year variety and use after. I will give some examples: Quarters: 1965 Designs: three kinds who go Type C 1965 till 1967, second Type D 1965 till 1968-D, Type E 1965 till 1968-S Proof. Not to say that 1967 have also Type F. those are Design Varieties and not Transitional Design coins.. Here a very good description of old US coins considered transitional. Quote:A History of Transitional Coinage Since the United States Mint began operations in 1792, the designs and compositions of coins have been in constant flux. There have been regular adjustments to the aesthetic and physical properties of our coinage, resulting in a fascinating category known as transitional issues. Put simply, transitional coins were intermediate steps between two major designs or formats. While the Mint tried to cleanly end production of one coin design before starting the new one, there are instances of holdovers, overlapping years and coins that share elements from both versions. This article will highlight some of the most interesting, valuable and collectible examples of this phenomenon. In the mid-1850s, the US Mint decided to reevaluate its two copper denominations: the Half Cent and the cent. The former was in the process of being discontinued, as inflation had rendered the Half Cent unnecessary for day-to-day commerce. By contrast the one cent piece remained a vitally necessary coin, but the decision was made to reduce its copper content (and size). Thus, in both 1856 and 1857, the United States Mint produced both a "large cent" and a "small cent." The large cent, produced since 1793, was between the quarter and half dollar in diameter. It derived its size from the copper tokens that circulated in America in the 18th century. By the 1850s this was deemed to be an excessive amount of metal, so the "penny" was eventually shrunk to its current size. Rather than completely discontinue the large cent before rolling out the smaller version, both formats were released in 1856 and 1857, making for an interesting and highly collectible set of transitional coins. In other cases, multiple designs were produced in the same year. Examples include the Liberty and Buffalo nickels, which were both struck in 1913. There is one major difference between the two: a 1913 Buffalo nickel is a common coin (readily available for under $100) while the 1913 Liberty version is one of the most valuable and prized numismatic rarities. Only five specimens are known—some have traded for multiple millions. Perhaps a more affordable example of multiple designs struck in the same year would be the 1909 Indian and Lincoln cents, the 1916 Barber and Mercury dimes, the 1916 Barber and Walking Liberty half dollars, and the 1921 Morgan and Peace dollars. Not all transitional issues have major design changes—some have very subtle differences. In 1853 and 1873, for example, the weights of the dime, quarter and half dollar were adjusted slightly due to spikes in the market price of silver. The Mint felt it was important to disclose these changes but did not want to drastically modify the coins' designs. Instead very minor design elements were added. The post-adjustment 1853 coins show rays around the eagle on the reverse, while the modified 1873 issues display arrows on both sides of the date. These With/No Rays and With/No Arrows transitional coins have become extremely popular. Whether they are multi-million dollar rarities or inexpensive items, transitional coins are highly desirable and collectible issues. Due to their interesting backstories, they are among the most popular of United States coins. I love 'it this post and topic because not only educate but open a really debate on making a point. Me I do not believe in what say this priest Wiles who took an title of Dr Who do not exist in theology. Then also VV is full of errors but still be a good reference. This it is my opinion, Edited by silviosi
09/04/2023 11:24 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
What you are defining as "transitional" are major, in most cases completely different, design changes. I, and many others I suspect, use "transition" in regards to a perhaps minor change of a design type on a master hub or master die, that presents itself across many working dies, and often including multiple mints. It has persistence beyond a "variety", like an RPD or DDO which is restricted to a single die. Such changes most often continue from one year to the next and beyond, and are widely recognized as "types", and considered transitional in their first year. For an example most familiar to me, the addition of an extra fold in the right ribbon on the reverse of Barber dimes occurred in mid-1901 and is documented as a separate type in all guidebooks. Both the earlier and thick ribbon types occurred in 1901, and in subsequent years the thick ribbon was the standard type through the end of the series. However, both types were still minted in San Francisco through 1905. I consider all of those SF anomalies to be transition varieties, and what makes them collectible/interesting is that they're not the expected type. You may be misinterpreting my Barber quarter example, because it is not really known outside of subscribers to the BCCS journal. Yes, obverse and reverse design changes occurred in 1900 that are currently documented as obverse 1 and 2, and reverse 2 and 3, respectively, and those new types continued on from 1900 forward to the end of the Barber quarter series. I assume this is what you mean by a "year variety and use after." However, there is an intermediate obverse type involving the letters of In God We Trust, recently discovered (by me), that only existed in 1900. That's what I was referring to as a transition type occurring within a single year. I believe this hub/master type produced working dies only between May and October 1900, and I estimate over 5 million coins used it across all three mints. The type is not found in 1901 - thus a transition within a single year. I'm not sure exactly how this relates to the SMS discussion, but I think how one defines type, transition, variety, etc, is influenced by how interesting it is to a particular collector. For example, 1916 was a transition year for dimes, but I don't think of either the 1916 Barber or 1916 Mercury as "transitional" from the standpoint of interesting or collectible. It's odd to have two completely different designs in a single year, but the coins themselves aren't anomalies or uncommon. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
975 Posts |
Thanks! @kbbpll, @Cointree and @silviosi. I really appreciate your input and information!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
Thanks @gsp193 to bring this topic, because I think is need more discussions about in order to be clear.
Thanks, @kbbpll, @Cointree for the points of views.
This it is a topic which was never finish to the last point. I know and agree that some collector like the word "transitional" from the point of view of price. But what it is the reality?
I will give an example: The Quarters:
In 1964 for the following years (1964 to 1967) they made the Type C (RDV-003) No problem with. That year was the harder year for the Mint so the Congress pass the Bill in which give the permission for next 3 years to strike coins with previous year date.. In that time only the old Phil and Denver strike coins, San Francisco was close and reopen in 1966.
So the Type C was use with date 1964 D which was strike in the begin of the 1965 in Denver. It is considered just an variety and not an Transitional. I was the first to discover I think over 25 years ago and I do not believed on my eye, so I showed to Herb which confirmed.
My point in the 1965 the Mint change the Design again to Type D (RDV-004) which it is common for all strikes. The Type C it is extremely Rare. Me I have just 1964D, 1965, 1966 SMS and 1967. The rest neve find. So if in 1965 the design change will be a transition? I think my 1964D (which it is extremely rare) could be but it is considerate just variety.
In this case why this Kennedy who it is mass production will be transitional? This type was because Jacky Kennedy want after 1 month of the first issue of the coins. (was strike 3 to 4 months Type 1)
I will like some back on. And I have another 25 KM to do and this Tim Horton close.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
I consider these kinds of things "transitional varieties", i.e. they're both a variety and a transition. More accurate would probably be to say transitional type. Variety generally defined as "different than", and transitional defined as "going from one to the next." RPD, DDO, DDR, etc are all varieties too, but they aren't transitioning from or to anything - they're only anomalies on a single working die. If the mint cleanly demarcates such a change at a new year's mintage, I don't consider either side of that line to be transitional. It's only when they're abnormal for a year or new during the middle of a year. So you (and everyone else perhaps) might call your 1964-D Type C example a variety, but I'd also consider it transitional. But it's hard to put strict definitions on these things. Returning to Barber dimes, there was a change from Obverse 1 to Obverse 2 in 1901. Everything published says there were no Obverse 1 coined in 1901 - they are all Obverse 2. A few years ago I discovered that indeed there is a 1901-O with the old obverse. Statistics gathered from examining hundreds of 1901-O images indicate that they were all produced from a single die, and the fact that they all have the same repunched second 1 in the date confirms it. So is this just a variety, or is it a transitional variety? If I stick to my definition above, it's a single die anomaly so it's just a variety. But it's the previous year's type, so..... |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
975 Posts |
@silviosi, thanks! Those are interesting articles! Those are interesting transitional errors. The Kennedy was not an error or off metal though, it only was transitioning to a different obverse and reverse with a middle stage.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
Two of the ones listed in the second link aren't transitional. The 1964 and 65 cents struck on dime planchets are just plain errors. Maybe the author made a mistake in listing them. There are a ton of other wrong planchet errors.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
975 Posts |
Yep @kbbpll and the Kennedy halves were just transitioning and not an transitional error. (I still think its interesting that only the AH and the SMS-according to pics on PCGS coinfacts if my eyes are correct and a few of the transitional Kennedy halves have those concentric lines on the reverse devices.) |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
We get into semantics about what is an error versus variety. The Kennedys were transitioning the composition so some on the old composition and some on the new wasn't really a "mistake" (error), or was it? The value listed indicates both of those are rare, so I guess it was an "error" with old or new planchets sneaking in. I think Canada has both 50% and 80% silver during 1968, so there's another example. I missed two of those other Kennedys listed on quarter planchets - those aren't transitional either, just wrong planchet errors.
Back to the lathe lines, are there enough known that these represented more than one die? If so I'm curious if those lines were the result of a problem pressing a master hub or master die, and then the lines got repeated on subsequent working dies.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
975 Posts |
@kbbpll, yes those minted on the wrong composition would def be a nice error and would love to find! But the RDV-001 rev with the RDV-002 obverse was just in transition to the RDV-002 RDV-002 and I imagine was used for a very short time, but I don't think in error. There seems to be very little information about the Kennedy lines on the AH, even when you look up the descriptors they are not listed- But they are there on them all as far as I know. I also was wondering about how many reverse dies came from the master. Since not on any others than AH, transitional and SMS I imagine a short run, but no idea how many. It seems they are not recognized or important but they just peaked my curiosity.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 26 / Views: 2,564 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 09/04/2023 5:44 pm
