| 文章內容 |
- From taxi_steve929@yahoo.com Sun Jan 18 09:29:28 2004
Return-Path: <taxi_steve929@yahoo.com>
X-Sender: taxi_steve929@yahoo.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 4943 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2004 17:29:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166)
by m17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Jan 2004 17:29:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n35.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.103)
by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2004 17:29:17 -0000
Received: from [66.218.67.142] by n35.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Jan 2004 17:28:07 -0000
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:28:02 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <buefn2+lt7l@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040118171401.90212.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 2268
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.218.66.103
From: "Steve" <taxi_steve929@yahoo.com>
X-Originating-IP: 69.136.184.57
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] NJ 17-K overstruck on Connecticut
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=143463627
X-Yahoo-Profile: taxi_steve929
Mike,
As much as I value your opinion on other things, I disagree with your
last sentence here. I think the importance of rarity ratings
accuracy is dependant upon the number of collectors seeking the
varieties, which can make R4 v. R5 significant in what a collector is
willing to spend to attain that coin.
Steve
--- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, Mike Hodder
<mike468hodder@y...> wrote:
> Ray, Jeff, et al:
>
> When you're dealing with "rarities" like R-4 and R-5,
> I submit there's no way to be precise since those
> targets are broad and moving because no census exists
> that accounts for them all. I base my census estimates
> on the number of specimens I've seen or had reliably
> reported to me. Mileage may vary for others, of
> course. As for what I wrote in Ford I about 17-K and
> 73-aa, I'd seen 33 of the latter and called it an
> R-4+, 45 of the former and called it an R-4. In my
> opinion, neither are rare whatever you rate them at as
> there are enough to go around. Ditto for an R-5. I
> consider R-6 to be scarce. It's only when you get to
> R-6+ that you start talking about a rating that's
> really significant and whose census requires
> precision.
>
> -- Ray Williams <njraywms@o...> wrote:
> > Jeff,
> > There are a couple rarities given in Ford that I
> > may not be in total agreement with. Rarity is a
> > guess at how many exist. Until every NJ is
> > accounted for, rarity will not be a precise science.
> > Ray W
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rosaamltd@a...
> > To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 11:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] NJ 17-K
> > overstruck on Connecticut
> >
> > In a message dated 1/17/2004 11:38:27 AM Pacific
> > Standard Time, mantoloking2002@y... writes:
> > William,
> >
> > Both Taylor and Ford have it as an R-4, I see no
> > reason to disagree with that assessment. Anton has
> > an R-4 as 76-150. I think I have seen about 35 of
> > them.
> >
> > Roger
> > The fun part about rarity ratings though -- the
> > 73-aa, for instance, is also called an R-4 in Ford.
> > Which variety have you seen more of, 17-k or 73-aa??
>
>
> =====
> Regards
>
> Mike Hodder
> mike468hodder@y...
|
|---|
| 來源網址 |
|
|---|
| 發布日期 |
|
|---|
| 體積 |
|
|---|
