Creating A New Canadian Variety Reference?

I see no problem with ebay sellers "making up varieties", if they can clearly show the variety in the photograph.
As a buyer, I will determine what "variety" I will buy. I dont care what the seller labels it as.
It is up to the buyer to educate themselves on what they're buying before they spend their money.

The problem is when that so called "variety" is in an ICCS flip, and the seller refuses to show a close-up photograph.
What does a ICCS 1859 Repunched 85 mean? or repunched 5? This is where I can see young collectors getting disillusioned.

I certainly went through this process, and to this day, every ICCS variety I buy is cut out of its flip on arrival and sent elsewhere for
attribution/certifying.

How many ICCS 1859 DP9 No.2 have I bought, that were DP9 No.3, No.4, No.5, various minor DP9s or even TP9s?

William, I heartily aggree that ICCS mis-attributions of varieties have muddied the waters, as has sellers' blind acceptance of them in their offerings. Hopefully, a variety catalog with good illustrations will help reduce that. There's another neat thing about an online reference -- the photos can be set to show up magnified on a computer screen and become even larger when one clicks on them. Try that with a paper book.

Well, I DO have a problem with sellers making up varieties or variety names. Not every buyer that goes to the ebay site or to a coin show has the depth of knowledge that some of the posters here have. Most newbies would consider a well-mannered vendor to be a source of knowledge and that you could believe what he said. But you have ebay vendors trumpeting "single serif 1876" or "Closed C 1891's" or "full-footed 1892's(when both are Obv 3)" or "1882 H/H" large cents as being rare or scarce or hard to find. You see them every day, in multiples, on ebay and all of them are just normal coins struck the way that they were supposed to be and avilable by the bucketful in VF-20 for less than $10 (less than $4 for some).

The same goes for 50X photo blowups that point out minor "coloring outside the lines". For the early Vicky cents, you were just at the start of the Industrial age and the minting process/machinery wasn't what it was now. Coins were utilitarian everyday articles just like nails, or buckets or matches. They were never intended to be perfect; they were intended to be mass-produced and there was a huge allowance for tolerances in ANYTHING manufactured. You will find small anomolies on EVERY early Vicky cent .. that's the norm, not the tiny die crack or slight repunch. On the old CCRS site 10-15 years ago I offered $100 to anyone who could show an 1859 WITHOUT a repunched letter, digit, leaf stem, or Die crack. There were guys on the site that each had well over 1000 1859's and no one could find a "perfect" one, but I would imagine that well over 10,000 were looked at by members with no takers.

Yet you have vendors (and some TPG's) heralding to the world about minor imperfections that warrant the words "scarce, or rare or seldom seen" Their idea of a variety is something that doesn't look exactly like something that came out of a Xerox machine. Well, I'm done huffing and puffing for a while, but I will reiterate that no vendor or TPG should be able to invent varieties or dream up new names for 60-70 year old discoveries. I don't think that it's good for the hobby. As has been said, good reliable accurate variety information is sometimes hard to find, so you don't need to have the water muddied by allowing snake-oil salesmen to lead people astray.

Jim: I couldn't have said it better and you used a lot fewer words than I would have. Thanks. It's not the headaches that bother me so much as it is the bruises on my forehead.

Now here's an interesting question- Who's to say what varieties SHOULD be collected or SHOULD be valuable? Should it be the reference books that exist now? Should it be ICCS? Should it be PCGS who only recognizes a fraction of the ones ICCS does?

I personally think the market will end up making these decisions itself but that many of the more minor varieties are not going to have the same premium in the not-too-distant future

I fully agree James.

Ultimately, the market decides what varieties are "accepted" and what they're worth. More guides of all types are needed.
Your 1859 catalog, was very much needed, and many would have said putting it together was "impossible. It is a true wonder.
A "highlights of 1859s" guide as part of a bigger guide, is also needed.

Take the Charlton Standard Guide. The market and collectors have fully rejected many varieties that are continually being included in the guide, year after year.
1. 5c 1858 Large Date RP1, 2, 3
2. 20c 1858 Re-engraved 5
3. 20c 1858 I/I DEI - after looking at thousands of 20c, and finding a dozen each of I/I Victoria and I/I Gratia, I'm convinced this variety DOESN'T EXIST.
4. 5c 1885 - there are 4 types of 5s, 2 of them constantly ignored by Charlton.
5. 25c 1872 7/7
6. 50c 1871H C/C in Victoria

These are just a few examples of Charlton varieties that either "dont exist" or were soundly rejected by the market and collectors.
Yet the Charlton guide is completely DEAF to the market and to collectors.

That's why in order for the field to advance, ICCS and Charlton will need to be left behind or forcefully removed from it.

I've done my part by rescuing thousands of varieties from ICCS flips and ebay dealers.

The 1859 doubling challenge example given by J makes an excellent point. Just because it's an abnormality, it doesn't always make it valuable (or even interesting to some). There is no consistent criteria today as to what constitutes a variety in the context of coins and frankly I don't think defining it to the nth degree would ever be possible. The only point I may agree on with CV is that ICCS is considered to be an expert in the field and considered a trusted source of opinion. Especially to novice collectors who tend to depend on their expertise. I agree there has been some lack of consistency over time with respect accurately depicting varieties, and more so which ones. I think ANY reference material that educates collectors in coin abnormalities and/or variances and includes reasons for such is a good thing. Aanyone willing to spend the time doing it should be commended. Pushing values of those varieties however, might be a topic of contention. On the subject of ebay. There will always be "salesmen" for any product. Be it coins, cars or anything else. We live in a world of sales and marketing. The issue is when the sales pitch crosses the line into bending the truth and ultimately misrepresentation of the facts and finally outright fraud. We are faced with it daily in all aspects of commerce.