I would like to request that we have Position A and Position B added to the list of coins for many of the new president coins from 2007 on. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1491.html Things like this for example. It would be much easier for us to know which type we have instead of having to write down Position A or B on our own comments. It can also help when trading as some may be looking for both positions in that coin.
"You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."
it has been decided to stop that, since many collectors don't bother to check if it's A or B and thus in 50% of the cases enter their coins in the wrong line! Furthermore those coins are 50% A and 50% B, so what's the fun in collecting them? Anyway go on with A and B in YOUR collection, but don't expect ALL collectors to do the same.
We have to be attentive with terms. The position is not variant. It is technical difference: the edge should have lettering and it must be on a coin anyway.
At the same time we have a situation in the USA market, which looks strange at the beginning. That fact that the position difference has nothing to do with variety is clearly emphasized by NGC from the USA. There are many places, where it is declared, see for example https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/presidential-dollars-2007-date-pscid-89/2007-p-john-adams-dbl.edg.let.-overlapped-1-ms-coinid-20655
Together with this statement grading companies from the USA are happy to certify for anybody the position of course. The answer to this riddle is simple: if this pushes customer to buy extra services and coins, let permit him to do it. It is just market.
When we know the origin we apply correct terms. As the result the catalog may publish varieties, but it must avoid publishing technical differences, defects and so on.
It's probably counter to sound numismatic principles to exclude what is a clear and easily seen variety because we dislike the cynical motives behind it. Especially as we already accept German and Swiss varieties where the legend on the rim begins at a different point. But really I don't care. I'd rather sacrifice a little consistency in the interests of dissuading mints from their opportunistic exploitation of collectors.
**** A and ****B !
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
It is a good note about the Swiss coinage. As far as I read the discussion, this note nether contradicts nor produces inconsistency.
In the previous post it was already described completely. Let me re-write this part again:
''
It is technical difference: the edge should have lettering and it must be on a coin anyway.
''
--
Sometimes mints do not care and they produce this technical difference. Sometimes mints care (and the last examples are of the case) and it means that there is no this technical difference. In the last case when 2 coins have different mutual positions of all 3 sides, they become candidates to varieties, and the person, who reports about these coins, is on the way to get respect of the community as the discoverer.
Hello.
It's amazing how this topic is periodically updated again and again. However, I will remind that this issue has already been closed, and there is no point in discussing it again. All the "varieties" of the edges ( A / B ) were combined and should not appear in the future.
