Old Griffin 1859 Added Info Data And Photos.....

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

Author	Replies: 8 / Views: 1,649
DEVLEC Pillar of the Community Canada 3234 Posts	Posted 01/07/2018 11:28 am Here are a few pages of older Griffin notes from Okiecoiner that should be held onto for added reference purposes.. Okiecoiner asked for these to be added for the 1859 large cent collectors .. I always appreciate more info..so thanks Okie..!! Staff edit - removed COPYRIGHTED images Report this Post to the Staff

fourmack Pillar of the Community New Zealand 1679 Posts	Posted 01/07/2018 1:45 pm Thank you okiecoiner Cheers Don Vickies cents and GB Farthings nut. "Old" is a figure of speech and nothing more Report this Post to the Staff
okiecoiner Pillar of the Community Canada 5589 Posts	Posted 01/07/2018 2:20 pm Woah, Woah, woah! I found these pages from the CNJ yesterday in my files, but they were too small to read. DO NOT USE THESE AS A REFERENCE.... it was a mistake to post them here!! These appear to have been published about the same time that Charlton & Bill CRoss put out the Monograph 1 which was, supposedly, a reprint of Jack's original 1992 work. But Charlton made some errors and the photos/descriptions in this thread are WRONG!! As I hope that most of you know, Monograph 1 was a problem because Charlton matched Jack's original descriptions with the wrong photos taken much later. But it was (and still remains) a very important work on Vicky varieties. However, DO NOT use these CNJ references for your coins.... some of these 1992 descriptions are matched/paired with the wrong photos and some are descriptions that match no known 1859. From my notes from 2010 when we did the Charlton work, GR-14a has the wrong Obv for the Rev. We were not sure about 14c & 14d. Here are the rest from the articles: 15 is DP#1, 15a is DP#4, 16 is DP#2, 16a is Charlton p283, 16b is DP#3, 16c is TP#1. From 16d to 17f, disregard all the photos with the description shown in the Griffin # match. For example, the 17c photo matches the description for 17m, which is what we named DP#5 and Charlton now lists it that way. Ideally, Devlec, just delete the whole post. If I could have read it before I sent it to you to post, I would have never let you post this info. Sorry about that guys .. I was trying to do some good and I was unable to read what I sent Devlec to post here. Edited by okiecoiner 01/07/2018 4:37 pm Report this Post to the Staff
viper Pillar of the Community Canada 638 Posts	Posted 01/07/2018 2:36 pm Just looking at the photos is just fine with me! The more the merrier. Thanks okiecoiner. MG Report this Post to the Staff
okiecoiner Pillar of the Community Canada 5589 Posts	Posted 01/07/2018 3:01 pm Viper ... Yes, you can use the photos and translate them into your own minds, either by Zoell numbers, Turner #'s, Haxby numbers or Charlton numbers. But everyone has to realize that the descriptions that Jack wrote for his formal 1992 publication of "Some Die Varieties of the Large Cents of British North America and Canada" are all still valid. What is wrong, is that Charlton matched the wrong photos with Jack's 1992 descriptions. And also remember that you can not use Monograph 1 as a valid reference. It was not just the 1859's that they got wrong with the photos. All you guys using the Haxby numbers should realize that I still use the old Zoell numbers for many of my collection. I still refer to a DP#5 as an R2b and page 285 as a Zoell R2c.... you guys use alien Haxby numbers to me. Thank heavens that the CCF staff removed the photos. Devlec must have been delayed removing them himself. Sorry that I had him post them. Edited by okiecoiner 01/07/2018 4:30 pm Report this Post to the Staff
DEVLEC Pillar of the Community Canada 3234 Posts	Posted 01/07/2018 4:42 pm I wasn't delayed.. A few hours back I asked a moderator to pull "all of this off".. ..but there are some responses and my feeling is that this thread is now redundant..and should be removed in its entirety. Report this Post to the Staff
SPP-Ottawa Moderator Canada 10459 Posts	Posted 01/07/2018 7:25 pm Just to clarify here: That CN Journal article contains photographs and catalogue numbers (right or wrong) made by Jack Griffin, for which Charlton Press (formerly owned by Bill Cross) owns the copyright for. However, since Bill Cross published those images with his note in the CN Journal in July August 2009, they are available online, for free, to any RCNA member. https://www.rcna.ca/cnjournal.php The wrongdoing here is that DEVLEC reproduced CN Journal material without permission from the RCNA. This thread will remain, locked, as a reminder and example to others that it is simply not cool to place copyrighted material on a public internet forum, without the permission of the author(s) or publisher (whomever holds the copyright). "Discovery follows discovery, each both raising and answering questions, each ending a long search, and each providing the new instruments for a new search." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer Content of this post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses...0/deed.en_US My eBay store Report this Post to the Staff
SPP-Ottawa Moderator Canada 10459 Posts	Posted 01/08/2018 10:29 pm Some discussion offline has prompted me to clarify this further... but I have to state a caveat: I am well versed with Canadian copyright law, so there may be variances with US copyright law. Copyright law protects a variety of creations, including such diverse items as books, photography, art, computer programs, databases, sculptures, songs, films, even a drawing scribbled on the back of an envelope. It gives copyright owners—usually authors or publishers—the sole right to copy or to authorize someone else to copy their works. Moreover, copyright law is international. If a work is protected in any one of over 100 countries participating in the Berne Convention, it's protected by copyright here. Sigh, if only the Chinese counterfeit producers understood this!! There are, however, a number of important legal exceptions to this right of creators to control the reproduction of their own works. One important exception is called "Fair Dealing". Fair dealing balances the rights of copyright owners with the needs of users, such as researchers, who require access to copyright material to pursue their research. Fair dealing with a work does not require the permission of the copyright owner or the payment of royalties. Although well-recognized in Canada and abroad, fair dealing has never been clearly defined in Canadian legislation, and the courts have tried to interpret what it means. As a result, while "fair dealing" exists, there is a lot of disagreement over what it includes. In deciding whether copying is fair dealing, the courts have determined that the relevant factors to be considered include the length of the excerpts used, the relative importance and quality of the excerpts used, and whether a copy is made for academic (educational) or commercial purposes. Fair dealing usually involves copying only a reasonable portion of a work. Fair dealing applies to photocopying as well as other methods of reproduction—including the making of electronic or scanned copies. Now, this is where it gets tricky: Universities typically acquire signed licences with a collective now known as Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (formerly CANCOPY). For example, professors can make multiple copies of a periodical article, enough for every student in the class. Librarians can make multiple copies of a work to put on reserve. Copies can be made for administrative purposes. And multiple copies can be produced by the university bookstore for inclusion in student course packs. There are still limits to the proportion of a work that can be copied with that license. For example, the licence generally limits copying to either 10 percent of a work for personal use (or 15 percent if the copies are to be sold), or the whole of a chapter which is 20 percent or less of a book, a short story, poem, or journal article from a book or periodical issue containing other works, or a newspaper article, whichever is greater. Obviously, CCF, while could be argued as an educational site, does not have a copyright licence. So where does that leave us with copyright and the internet? Much of the material on the Internet is protected by copyright. This includes postings to news groups, e-mail messages, images, photographs, music, video clips and computer software. The general rule is that you must get permission from the owner (usually the person or organization (like the RCNA) that created the material) to use text, graphics, images, sound and video that have been created by others. There are some things that are not usually protected by copyright, for example, facts, information, titles, ideas, plots, and short word combinations; neither are works in the public domain. The use of copyright materials from the Internet is an area of law that is currently under study in Canada and around the world, and possible changes to the law are under active consideration. You might notice that I have a Creative Commons copyright link in my signature tag for every post I make here on CCF. That is a basically copyright licence that allows anyone to use the material I post here, as long as credit is given to the original source. Click on the link in my signature tag for more information on this. Generally... this how putting portions of published material online should be approached: "Discovery follows discovery, each both raising and answering questions, each ending a long search, and each providing the new instruments for a new search." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer Content of this post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses...0/deed.en_US My eBay store Report this Post to the Staff
SPP-Ottawa Moderator Canada 10459 Posts	Posted 01/08/2018 10:34 pm To bring this to closure, the images DEVLEC posted earlier, _could_ be posted here, but those three pages constitute almost the whole article. so following the flowchart would mean that one could argue it is in the public domain, permission from the RCNA (who holds the copyright of the CN Journal) would have to be obtained. However, one or two figures could be posted from that article, without permission, but credit would have to be given to the author (Bill Cross) and the source would have to be properly cited... Clear as mud? "Discovery follows discovery, each both raising and answering questions, each ending a long search, and each providing the new instruments for a new search." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer Content of this post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses...0/deed.en_US My eBay store Report this Post to the Staff
	Replies: 8 / Views: 1,649

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.

All Forums Category: Canadian Coins and Currency Forums Forum: Canadian Variety and Error Coins

Silver Gold Bull US is the United States leading bullion dealer. We deliver gold coins, gold bars, silver coins, silver bars and precious metals to your door. Order today!

The First Dollar, your premier source for bullion and rare coins. See our bullion list on the site and the coin inventory on ebay.

View Last 100 New Topics

Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum

It took 0.38 seconds to rattle this change.