Commems Collection Classic: Quick Bits #93 - New Way Of Looking At "Small Date" Varieties

I've posted before that, in terms of my classic-era silver commemorative coin set, I've assembled a 55-piece Type and Major Varieties Set. I include the 1921 Alabama Statehood Centennial Plain and 2x2 varieties, the 1921 Missouri Statehood Centennial Plain and 2*4 varieties, the 1992 Grant Birth Centenary with and without Star varieties and the "Small Date" 1921 Pilgrim Landing Tercentenary and 1935 Daniel Boone Birth Bicentennial Half Dollar with small "1934". I have long considered the variety of each of these types to be significant enough that I would not feel that my Type Set was "complete" without all of them.

But, upon further reflection, I've come to consider that there is a fundamental difference between the two coins regarding the use of their additional "Small Date" and it's made me wonder it maybe my Set should be a 54-Piece Set vs. 55-Piece.

The 1935/34 Boone Birth Bicentennial half dollars incorporate the small "1934" (on reverse) as a way to remain connected to Daniel Boone's birth year of 1734 as the coin's standard date changed each year (1934-38) to indicate its year of minting. (You can read the details here: 1935 Boone Birth Bicentennial - Sm Date.) The "1934" is thus ornamental in nature and is actually a supplemental commemorative design element.

1935/34 Daniel Boone Birth Bicentennial, Small Date Variety


In contrast, the small "1921" on the Pilgrim Landing Tercentenary Half Dollar is administrative in nature. It was added to specify the year of striking of the coin vs. being a commemorative date. (I have presented, however, a case for the unintentional commemorative links to 1921 on the coin; read it here: 1920-21 Pilgrim Tercentenary - Connecting History To The 1921 "Small Date".

1921 Pilgrim Tercentenary Half Dollar


So, "ornamental" vs. "administrative" - very different purposes. I don't collect the administrative date changes on the other multi-year coin issues (e.g., the Oregon Trail Memorial coins), as I view them all as one Type and one is "good enough" for me. So, using the same collecting guidelines, maybe I shouldn't collect the 1921 Pilgrim as a valid variety?

The jury is still out for me, and I don't plan on eliminating the 1921 Pilgrim from my varieties list just yet, but I did enjoy thinking about the commemorative coin "small dates" from a new perspective.