| Author |
 Replies: 160 / Views: 13,435 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5638 Posts |
That's the Zee I know, trust me, I know you will let me know, LOL......PS, A crutch for people who have a problem is what they are made for, ooooooo, Now I did it!!
"When you get too snooty or forward Mike, (trust me), I'll let you know..."
Thats just not going to happen, I thought you knew me better!!!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Actually, I have number of crutches that I use to get me through the rigors of daily life Mike.... some I flaunt, some I am not too proud of..... one more wouldn't make much difference...  |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
 I like it Doucet.... that is probably about as precise as it could get, but the problem is that the LVA's drawn image is the standard, the law.... and that is what must be followed, precise or not, ambiguous or not.... I was just acting out (as I often do) when I feel things could or should be better. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
709 Posts |
This is a fascinating discussion. This minute ambiguity is one of the reasons, common dates such as 1900-O, 1901-O have yet to be researched. I believe Alan Scott encountered this issue in his research of 1902-O and 1904-O attribution guides. I will e-mail him and ask how he dealt with the issue.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
I have to admit I like your Idea Zee, but the continuing 1878 example is the worst example to use as the date was in the hub... all the other years are not....I would like to see the same ideas put in ink as shown above. for the later years.. say 79 and any year to 1904, as I do not have many 1921's to look at to see if this also applies..and there were many years between 04 and 1921....lets explore these ideas with the 1879 to 1904 and see how it adds up or how it differs...Ther reason I suggest it is due to the many slant dates high low numbers that are found within Morgan series...I can't draw the lines but obviously you all can so lets see some examples!
ALSO I would like to see......the lines drawn into the interior of the date placements, not STOP at the detiles......as the "KNOWN "example does.....lets start from there and seek what we will find....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
The hub thing that I was referring to was not about the date Gene..... it was about the relationship of the neck V to the denticles..... I do not know off hand which is which, but I think that you will find that all coins common to a certain major hub will display the neck V pointing at the space between the denticles, while another major hub design will have its neck V pointing directly at a particular denticle..... I know what you are saying, but that is not really what I was saying, although what you are saying is very true.... now that I have completely confused myself about what I was saying and about what you were saying, do you understand what I was saying?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
I most CERTAINLY DO.. my Bestest buddy....That is why I said....do not include 1878 into this evaluation.. its a different monster...it has its own rules...as you well know...they went under many modifications that year...
My idea is to combine your thoughts of this template to those following years so they can be evaluated...BY USING A TEMPLATE...
Like Mike. with the years and hours spent looking ....small variences, do not detour me from knowing the "point of reference" to determine if a coins date is near or far ECT... but this thread is about "dancing the JIG" a template to allow a no non-sence approach to figure out just what date placement we would be looking at, and be unmistakingly
confident ....and with this template to test it against the many years of production to determine its accuracy....OR point out the years where there are variances.....I think this is most important
POINT and within the lines of your post....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
It will work on any year, any hub buddy..... the denticles may move around on the hubs, the dates can move, so can the peripheral lettering, and it can change size..... the constant is the neck V..... it does not change..... align your template's neck V with the neck V on your coin, and you cannot go wrong... ever.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
so let us see the template  |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
There is no such thing.... sadly, I am just a mere dreamer, not a craftsperson.... I can imagine it, as a round piece of clear rigid plastic, the same size as the coin, with the thin red lines (and only those red lines) drawn on the plastic like this:  If you could imagine it too, maybe you could make it? It would have to be made to the exact scale of a Morgan dollar, and I don't even own a Morgan dollar. |
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Well, it is late at night, and it looks like it is just the two of us again Gene.... or is it just the one of me? How many times has this happened to us (or me)? I'm going to toddle off... Later Gene...  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
often I wonder why I post, when it will be days for others to respond...
Good night my friend...
I'm still waiting for this template. that answers all....
|
|
Valued Member
United States
220 Posts |
Not sure why there is all this "science" is being promoted for something that is less than scientific.
The date and m/m placement is highly subjective. It was in it's origin, and it remains that way. By subjective, I mean "qualitative". If you want a quantitative answer to a qualitative attribute, you will get frustrated. Seems that is what is happeneing here.
I know of at least one Vammer, who was very good by the way, who ran himself out of the hobby over this very issue. If you want a classic example, look at the last page of Appendix C of the 1904-O Attribution Guide that was put together recently.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Riddles do not become you Vfm..... your words make very little sense (if any)..... you are the last person that I would imagine saying stuff like that..... What you refer to as 'science' is merely common sense to you and I both. Yes, it remains subjective, and that is what is frustrating.... no doubt about that..... it shouldn't be.... it never should have been.... it is like ten different people attempting to define a particular shade of blue.... in my opinion, you've got it backwards..... I want a qualitative answer to a quantitative attribute, and so do you.... I have never seen this book to which you refer.... seems like an appendix might be a strange place to list examples of frustration levels though...... and who is promoting what?... edited because I forgot to add the smiley faces. Edited by zeewool
02/10/2011 09:47 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5638 Posts |
 VFM, I am looking at the last page in the 1904-O Attribution Guide,C.5-THE CONCLUSION. I believe you are referring to another Qualitative factor, the page explains the factor in relation to the placement of the Mint Mark, NOT the placement of the date........It does make mention of the die wear factor that Mr Van Allen mentions he had found in his research, I might be taking this topic off course in my understanding of your reference, if so, I apologize.  |
| |
Replies: 160 / Views: 13,435 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 02/09/2011 11:04 pm
