Posted 01/24/2026 12:58 pm
Hi. Thanks for your question.
You stated a couple key words or phrases in your question/response, "infomally" and "small group".
One of the aims of these 'new' studies is too formalize the process of tracking dies for all denominations, not just Vicky cents. the first article I posted describes the system I've opted to use. The system is free to use by anyone for any purpose to describe the coin they have. For example a DC95-7 designates a very specific 1895 Canadian large cent. There is no ambiguity.
By releasing these studies, a 'small group' colllaborating becomes hopefully a large group. It is problematic for a small group, let alone one person, to achieve the best statistically sound solution, especially if the quantity of dies used was high. One study I reviewed had some omissions because the sample size was too small. For example, when I release the 1893 Large Cent study I won't have identified all dies supposedly used. I'll only have the 75% solution. There will be reliance on other collectors to reveal any new discoveries and as conduit the die study will be updated to reflect the latest known information. Over time the 75% solution will become the 90% solution. It's a puzzle patiently being assembled.
I'm sure I will unknowingly duplicate some past efforts by researchers but the key point is the Substack will offer a central location where these studies can reside and be easily accessible using a standardized designation system.
Although die studies will comprise a majority of the content, there will be other very enlightening content. Referring to the Edward/George study (which I've heard of but never seen) I wonder if it covers definitively the issue of what year of 0.925 50 cents were melted down in early 1920 when devaluation to 0.800 Ag content occurred and the excess stock of 0.925 coins were melted. Coin references state those melted are 'believed to be 1919' - not a decisive statement for sure at all. Through the research conducted, I know via reasonable statistical probability they were in fact not only 1919. In fact few, if any, were 1919. I'll be publishing the study that deals with this as well.
Anyway I have no doubt those who read the content, even those that have many years of collecting/research experience, will be enlightened on a few things. The work I've done has been an eye opener to me for sure and cleared up many misconceptions.
You stated a couple key words or phrases in your question/response, "infomally" and "small group".
One of the aims of these 'new' studies is too formalize the process of tracking dies for all denominations, not just Vicky cents. the first article I posted describes the system I've opted to use. The system is free to use by anyone for any purpose to describe the coin they have. For example a DC95-7 designates a very specific 1895 Canadian large cent. There is no ambiguity.
By releasing these studies, a 'small group' colllaborating becomes hopefully a large group. It is problematic for a small group, let alone one person, to achieve the best statistically sound solution, especially if the quantity of dies used was high. One study I reviewed had some omissions because the sample size was too small. For example, when I release the 1893 Large Cent study I won't have identified all dies supposedly used. I'll only have the 75% solution. There will be reliance on other collectors to reveal any new discoveries and as conduit the die study will be updated to reflect the latest known information. Over time the 75% solution will become the 90% solution. It's a puzzle patiently being assembled.
I'm sure I will unknowingly duplicate some past efforts by researchers but the key point is the Substack will offer a central location where these studies can reside and be easily accessible using a standardized designation system.
Although die studies will comprise a majority of the content, there will be other very enlightening content. Referring to the Edward/George study (which I've heard of but never seen) I wonder if it covers definitively the issue of what year of 0.925 50 cents were melted down in early 1920 when devaluation to 0.800 Ag content occurred and the excess stock of 0.925 coins were melted. Coin references state those melted are 'believed to be 1919' - not a decisive statement for sure at all. Through the research conducted, I know via reasonable statistical probability they were in fact not only 1919. In fact few, if any, were 1919. I'll be publishing the study that deals with this as well.
Anyway I have no doubt those who read the content, even those that have many years of collecting/research experience, will be enlightened on a few things. The work I've done has been an eye opener to me for sure and cleared up many misconceptions.
to the Community!
