Finalization Of Haxby 1859 N9 Cent Catalog Numbers

At the time of its introduction over two years ago it was stated that my online 1859 Canada cent die catalog was a work in progress and that the numbering of dies and die pairs was provisional and subject to change. At some point, of course, the numbers must be made permanent so collectors have a reliably constant basis for reference. The report in the thread before last of an 1859 cent with Obv. 37 and what appears to be a new reverse is a case in point. The reverses associated with Obv. 37 are mostly in the E38 series (E38 to E38f). It looks like the new reverse precedes all those in the existing E38 series. So, in the old nomenclature system, the new die would take the name E38 and all the previous E38s would increase by one letter (E38 becomes E38a, E38a becomes E38b, etc.).

Coincidentally, for some months I have been intending to freeze the numbering for my 1859 catalog. In fact that is going to occur this coming September 1. If the reverse just reported with Obv. 37 does prove to be a previously unrecorded die, how would it be numbered in the new system? It would simply be given the designation E38A and the other reverses would be left as they were. In other words, existing die names will be left as is and new discoveries will be added using capital letter suffixes.

The question was raised in the previous thread re: how many new die combinations are turning up and are we deliberately not reporting them. The fact is that since my catalog went online only a small number of new dies or die pairs has been reported. That's probably because I was collecting these things for 50 years before I wrote the catalog. More new things will gradually turn up, but it seems unlikely that it will only be a trickle. There are a couple of new discoveries that have not been added to the catalog, but that is only because my webmaster, Ed, is currently in the process of moving. We'll catch up soon. I don't know of anyone who is deliberately withholding new information, but it's theoretically possible of course.

So far we've been talking only about the die numbers. Of course, there are two sets of numbers in the catalog: the individual die numbers and the catalog numbers (referring to the die combinations). While it's clear that the current die numbers should remain as they are, retaining the catalog numbers might be a more open question. This is an area where I'd appreciate some input from those who use my catalog regularly.

My impression is that the catalog numbers are used less than the die numbers and they have been a source of confusion for some people. Accordingly, I've devised a simplified system of catalog numbers to potentially replace the existing system. The table below shows two runs of obverse-reverse die pairs and two possible sets of corresponding catalog numbers (Alternatives A & B).


Die Pair......Alternative A....Alternative B
(O + R).....(Existing System).........

25 + E27........PC59-251........PC59-56
25 + E27a.......PC59-252........PC59-57
25 + F1.........PC59-253........PC59-58
25 + E27b.......PC59-254........PC59-59
25 + E27c.......PC59-255........PC59-60
25 + E27d.......PC59-256........PC59-61
25 + E27e.......PC59-257........PC59-62
25 + G1.........PC59-258........PC59-63
25 + E27f.......PC59-259........PC59-64


32 + E33........PC59-321........PC59-90
32 + G3.........PC59-322........PC59-91
32a + G3........PC59-32a1.......PC59-92
32b + G3........PC59-32b1.......PC59-93
32b + E34.......PC59-32b2.......PC59-94
32b + E34a......PC59-32b3.......PC59-95


Alternative A is the system currently being used. The suffix (after the PC59-) consists of a two-part number. The first part is the obverse die number and the second part refers to the placement of the reverse die in the series of reverses coupled with that obverse. Alternative B is much more simple, though in some ways less intuitive. Each die pair receives a numeric designation from 1 to the highest number seen and never has a letter, except for new discoveries. The catalog number for a new die pair between PC59-90 and PC59-91 would be PC59-90A.

Which of the two alternative systems for the catalog numbering becomes permanent on Sept. 1 depends at least partly on the responses I receive from fellow 59ers in the meantime. I encourage all interested parties to cast their vote for System A or System B by posting to this thread. You can simply indicate the letter A or B or you can include additional comments if you wish. I think it's somewhat unusual when an author gives his or her readers an opportunity to influence the course of a catalog.

In any case my final decision will be announced on Sept. 1. If the catalog number system changes to B, I'll of course include a conversion table on the 1859 site.