Die States vs. Die Varieties

Contenuto dell'articolo

From njraywms@optonline.net Tue Feb 27 08:47:20 2007
Return-Path: <njraywms@optonline.net>
X-Sender: njraywms@optonline.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 83062 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2007 16:47:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.70)
by m26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2007 16:47:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net) (167.206.4.197)
by mta12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2007 16:47:20 -0000
Received: from DIANEJ33YVI95P (ool-4354a75d.dyn.optonline.net [67.84.167.93])
by mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net
(Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006))
with SMTP id <0JE400C06RUNU430@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for
colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:44:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:48:00 -0500
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-id: <04e001c75a8f$0c677b40$f2fea8c0@DIANEJ33YVI95P>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_BKfyQ7iv7bNnewbgCyenEA)"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <003001c75a85$d737b150$6401a8c0@Downstairs>
X-Originating-IP: 167.206.4.197
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0
From: Ray Williams <njraywms@optonline.net>
Subject: Die States vs. Die Varieties
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=78843690; y=sUUDZj8_w8jVx8pbNy6sn-nfub2rXK0w_aWSDvbWExFk
X-Yahoo-Profile: njray2

--Boundary_(ID_BKfyQ7iv7bNnewbgCyenEA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

All,
How much "repair" or reengraving to a die would make it a new die variety vs. a new die state? This is a gray (grey) area to me and I really don't know what to think. I'd like to hear the opinions of others. Bill Anton was big on the idea of making the NJ "c" reverse paired with the 44 obverse a different die variety than all the other NJ "c" reverses. There was much discussion about this at the first NJ Symposium (4/20/91) and as the novice I was, I stayed a spectator in that debate. Obviously, we still think the two different "c" reverse die states are the same die variety. Please share some thoughts here...

Ray

----- Original Message -----
From: Clement V. Schettino
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Colonial Numismatics] Noe 8.5-Roger's comments

Roger, Dodger, Roger,

Yes, let's just say you misinterpreted what I said and leave it at that until I see you again; there is no reason to be sorry.

Mike was the one who told me you called him about 8.5 so maybe not the last time you spoke but he mentioned you had called to ask recently. I have noticed he and many others perpetuate the confusion in this series by calling these re-engravings of the dies "die states", if we don't call them different varieties, as I think we would if the were say NJ's or other state coinage then maybe "sub-varieties" would work?

I believe we should at least say away from a term already taken and well know in all the rest of numismatics, die states, as that term means something completely different. Presently that term is used for natural deterioration or accidental damages to the dies, not intentional reworking and changes.

For example check out the area above the 'W' on the reverse of my 8.5 (attached), see that cud, THAT indicates a die state; no cud early die state, with cud later die state.

For an example of an EDS reverse N.9 which uses the same reverse die as my 8.5 BUT IN A DIFFERENT DIE STATE see Ford lot 30 (the die edge above 'W' is rarely exposed), which also happens to be a rare broad planchet type. The first time I noticed the term "rare broad planchet" for N.9 was Hain lot 33 where N.9 with broad planchet is called an R7, but that's a different story. The real reason I mention Hain L33, Hain L33 also sports the cud on the reverse.

BTW, I brought the coin to Long Beach but didn't see you; do you plan to attend the upcoming Baltimore convention?

Oh, Ed, yes I did have a chance to show the coin to Dick August yesterday. He showed great interest by virtue of the fact that he examined it for quite some time against images of N.9 that I had with me. He didn't seem to know or care much about the fractional "die states" and also referred to them as "die states"? He did tell me he determined the lettering on my piece is different in thickness and therefore placement and plans to check his N.8 and N.9 (which are of course the SAME VARIETIES TOO, simply more re-cutting of those dies.

To sum up five Mass Silver people have seen this specimen and none called it N.9.

To be honest with you I think the reworking of the die at this stage between 8 and 9 was minor; the difference in the reworking from 8 to 9 is much more dramatic and therefore more visible. I am just saying it is what it is and that in Picker's work it is called N.8.5. Maybe 8.5 as well as 8 or 9 should be dropped or combined the same way we dropped and combined M.77, 771/2 and 78-dd in the NJ series? But then again those WERE actual die states and not intentional reworking, I think I'd better stop here?

As an endnote.yes, this series needs much clarification, probably just a few new terms would help quite a bit?

Your friend ;-o=

Clem

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com [mailto:colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Siboni
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10:32 PM
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Noe 8.5-Roger's comments

Clem, Clam, Clem,

I have been out of town for a few days on some
business, and just returned to find your posting.

Let me start with the fact that the article in the
Newsletter was about the evolution of die designations
for Mass Silver not weather you had a Noe 8.5 or not.
Your post was an excellent catalysts for this
discussion. Next, I only recently saw an image of your
Noe 8.5 and have not yet studied it. I certainly did
not see it at the time of writing the article.
For what it is worth, I got the impression from one of
your postings (January 15 I believe) that you were not
sure you had a Noe 8.5 yourself. Hence, the apparently
mistaken "not being so" phrase in the Newsletter.

As to the New Jersey book Jack Howes and I are working
on, we will do our best to meet your and everyone
else's best expectations.

Finally, as to Mike Hodder, we speak regularly. The
last time we spoke, it was to discuss weather Clarke's
coins went to Boyd and then New Netherlands or was it
New Netherlands and then Boyd. To my best
recollection, your Noe 8.5 was not a part of our
conversation.

I hope you indeed have a Noe 8.5. if I misinterpreted
your prior post, I am truly sorry.

Your Friend ;-).

Roger

--- "Clement V. Schettino" <copperclem@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Hey Roger,
>
>
>
> I received and read some of this quarters C4
> newsletter today and saw on
> page 8 you mentioned my Noe Oak Tree Shilling 8.5 as
> "not being so".
>
>
>
> Would you explain that comment to me? Was it you who
> decided it is not or
> did someone tell you it was not? You certainly
> didn't contact me to see what
> I heard from a few experts. I have showed the coin
> and or images to
> Massachusetts silver specialists and both told me it
> was N 8.5. I showed the
> coin itself to Chris Stevens and images to Ed
> Sarrafian and both agreed it
> was N 8.5. I have attached the images Ed saw here.
>
>
>
> I don't know what you said to Mike Hodder but when I
> asked him for his
> comments he said you had already contacted him about
> it, felt there was some
> controversy (?) and felt he should demur and
> withhold comment.
>
>
>
> I mean Picker well delineated 8.5 and since this
> piece matches 8.5.well if
> it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
>
>
>
> Even though what 8.5 means is not what I'm
> addressing here, although I
> believe it was simply Pickers attempt to draw
> attention and interest to some
> dramatic die states of Mass Sliver and not the
> darker implications you've
> drawn, I certainly hope the treatment I believe
> you're planning for the die
> states of New Jersey's Coppers is not considered and
> met with the same
> diabolical intentions ;-) as I myself greatly enjoy
> studying and collecting
> the more dramatic and interesting die states of the
> NJ's, since like many
> others I cannot indulge myself in the intricacies of
> the Massachusetts
> Silver.
>
>
>
> So I have attached the obverse here and will send
> the reverse separately.
> Maybe someone else would like to comment?
>
>
>
>
>
> Clem
>
>

--Boundary_(ID_BKfyQ7iv7bNnewbgCyenEA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.=
w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1586" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>All,</DIV>
<DIV> How much "repair" or re=
engraving=20
to a die would make it a new die variety vs. a new die state? This is=
a=20
gray (grey) area to me and I really don't know what to think. I'd lik=
e to=20
hear the opinions of others. Bill Anton was big on the idea of making=
the=20
NJ "c" reverse paired with the 44 obverse a different die variety than all =
the=20
other NJ "c" reverses. There was much discussion about this at the fi=
rst=20
NJ Symposium (4/20/91) and as the novice I was, I stayed a spectator in tha=
t=20
debate. Obviously, we still think the two different "c" reverse die s=
tates=20
are the same die variety. Please share some thoughts here...</=
DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ray</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">Fro=
m:=20
<A title=3Dcopperclem@comcast.net href=3D"mailto:copperclem@comcast.net">=
Clement=20
V. Schettino</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">To: <A=20
title=3Dcolonial-coins@yahoogroups.com=20
href=3D"mailto:colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com">colonial-coins@yahoogroups=
.com</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1=
0:42=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">Subject: RE: [Colonial Numismatics=
] Noe=20
8.5-Roger's comments</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV id=3Dygrp-text>

<DIV class=3DSection1>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Roger, Dodger,=
=20
Roger,<O></O>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Yes, let=92s j=
ust say=20
you misinterpreted what I said and leave it at that until I see you again=
;=20
there is no reason to be sorry. <O></O>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Mike was the o=
ne who=20
told me you called him about 8.5 so maybe not the last time you spoke but=
he=20
mentioned you had called to ask recently. I have noticed he and many othe=
rs=20
perpetuate the confusion in this series by calling these re-engravings of=
the=20
dies <SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Ar=
ial">=93die=20
states=94,<SPA=
N=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> if we don=92t=
call=20
them different varieties, as I think we would if the were say NJ=92s or o=
ther=20
state coinage then maybe =93sub-vari=
eties=94=20
would work?<O></O>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I believe we s=
hould=20
at least <SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red; FONT-FAMILY: Ari=
al">say=20
away from a term already taken and well know in all the rest of=20
numismatics<SP=
AN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">, die states, =
as that=20
term means something completely different. Presently that term is used fo=
r=20
natural deterioration or accidental damages to the dies, not intentional=
=20
reworking and changes.<O></O>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">For example ch=
eck out=20
the area above the =91W=92 on the reverse of my 8.5 (attached), see that =
cud, THAT=20
indicates a die state; no cud early die state, with cud later die=20
state.<O></O>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">For an example=
of an=20
EDS reverse N.9 which uses the same reverse die as my 8.5 BUT IN A DIFFER=
ENT=20
DIE STATE see Ford lot 30 (the die edge above =91W=92 is rarely exposed),=
which=20
also happens to be a rare broad planchet type. The first time I noticed t=
he=20
term =93rare broad planchet=94 for N.9 was Hain lot 33 where N.9 with bro=
ad=20
planchet is called an R7, but that=92s a different story. The real reason=
I=20
mention Hain L33, Hain L33 also sports the cud on the=20
reverse.<O></O>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">BTW, I brought=
the=20
coin to <ST1>Long Beach</ST1> but didn=92t see you; do you plan to attend=
the=20
upcoming <ST1><ST1>Baltimore</ST1></ST1> convention?<O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Oh, Ed, yes I =
did=20
have a chance to show the coin to Dick August yesterday. He showed great=
=20
interest by virtue of the fact that he examined it for quite some time ag=
ainst=20
images of N.9 that I had with me. He didn=92t seem to know or care much a=
bout=20
the fractional =93die states=94 and also referred to them as =93die state=
s=94? He did=20
tell me he determined the lettering on my piece is different in thickness=
and=20
therefore placement and plans to check his N.8 and N.9 (which are of cour=
se=20
the SAME VARIETIES TOO, simply more re-cutting of those=20
dies.<O></O>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">To sum up five=
Mass=20
Silver people have seen this specimen and none called it N.9.=20
<O></O>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">To be honest w=
ith you=20
I think the reworking of the die at this stage between 8 and 9 was minor;=
the=20
difference in the reworking from 8 to 9 is much more dramatic and therefo=
re=20
more visible. I am just saying it is what it is and that in Picker=92s wo=
rk it=20
is called N.8.5. Maybe 8.5 as well as 8 or 9 should be dropped or combine=
d the=20
same way we dropped and combined M.77, 771/2 and 78-dd in the NJ series? =
But=20
then again those WERE actual die states and not intentional reworking, I =
think=20
I=92d better stop here?<O></O>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">As an endnote=
=85yes,=20
this series needs much clarification, probably just a few new terms would=
help=20
quite a bit?<O></O>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Your friend=20
;-o=3D<O></O>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Clem<O></O></S=
PAN>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O></O>=

<DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=3Dcenter><FONT=
=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>
<HR tabIndex=3D-1 align=3Dcenter width=3D"100%" SIZE=3D2>
</DIV>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</=
SPAN><FONT=20
face=3DTahoma size=3D2>=20
<ST1>colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com</ST1>=20
[mailto:<ST1>colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com</ST1>] <SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">On Behalf Of Roger Siboni <S=
PAN=20
style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10=
:32=20
PM To:=20
<ST1>colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com</ST1> <SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics=
] Noe=20
8.5-Roger's comments<O></O></DIV>
<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O></O>
<DIV id=3Dygrp-mlmsg>
<DIV id=3Dygrp-msg>
<DIV id=3Dygrp-text>
Clem,=20
Clam, Clem, I have been out of town for a few days on some busi=
ness,=20
and just returned to find your posting. Let me start with the fact=
that=20
the article in the Newsletter was about the evolution of die=20
designations for Mass Silver not weather you had a Noe 8.5 or not. =
Your=20
post was an excellent catalysts for this discussion. Next, I only rece=
ntly=20
saw an image of your Noe 8.5 and have not yet studied it. I certainly=
=20
did not see it at the time of writing the article. For what it is=
=20
worth, I got the impression from one of your postings (January 15 I=20
believe) that you were not sure you had a Noe 8.5 yourself. Hence, the=
=20
apparently mistaken "not being so" phrase in the Newsletter. A=
s to=20
the <ST1><ST1>New Jersey</ST1></ST1> book Jack Howes and I are working<BR=
>on,=20
we will do our best to meet your and everyone else's best expectations=
.=20
 Finally, as to Mike Hodder, we speak regularly. The last time =
we=20
spoke, it was to discuss weather Clarke's coins went to Boyd and then =
New=20
Netherlands or was it New <ST1><ST1>Netherlands</ST1></ST1> and then B=
oyd.=20
To my best recollection, your Noe 8.5 was not a part of=20
our conversation. I hope you indeed have a Noe 8.5. if I=20
misinterpreted your prior post, I am truly sorry. Your Friend=
=20
;-). Roger --- "Clement V. Schettino" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:copperclem%40comcast.net">copperclem@comcast.net</A>&=
gt; wrote: >=20
Hey Roger, > > > > I received and read some of=
this=20
quarters C4 > newsletter today and saw on > page 8 you mentio=
ned=20
my Noe Oak Tree Shilling 8.5 as > "not being so". > >=
=20
 > > Would you explain that comment to me? Was it you who<BR=
>>=20
decided it is not or > did someone tell you it was not? You=20
certainly > didn't contact me to see what > I heard from a fe=
w=20
experts. I have showed the coin > and or images to >=20
<ST1><ST1>Massachusetts</ST1></ST1> silver specialists and both told me=20
it > was N 8.5. I showed the > coin itself to <ST1>Chris=20
Stevens</ST1> and images to Ed > Sarrafian and both agreed it &g=
t;=20
was N 8.5. I have attached the images Ed saw here. > > &=
gt;=20
 > I don't know what you said to Mike Hodder but when I > ask=
ed=20
him for his > comments he said you had already contacted him=20
about > it, felt there was some > controversy (?) and felt he=
=20
should demur and > withhold comment. > > > =
>=20
I mean Picker well delineated 8.5 and since this > piece matches=20
8.5.well if > it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. >=
=20
 > > > Even though what 8.5 means is not what I'm =
>=20
addressing here, although I > believe it was simply Pickers attempt=
to=20
draw > attention and interest to some > dramatic die states o=
f=20
Mass Sliver and not the > darker implications you've > drawn,=
I=20
certainly hope the treatment I believe > you're planning for the=20
die > states of <ST1><ST1>New Jersey</ST1></ST1>'s Coppers is not=20
considered and > met with the same > diabolical intentions ;-=
) as=20
I myself greatly enjoy > studying and collecting > the mo

URL di origine

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/colonial-coins/info

Data di pubblicazione

2007-02-27

Volume

Die States vs. Die Varieties Pubblico Deposited

Le relazioni

Autore NNP