When should numismatists discard outdated information...

[RWB]

... in favor of new, more accurate material?

 

When does a numismatist or authentication company acknowledge that old information was erroneous, and move forward to accept new and better information?

 

For example, if an authentication is based on something Wally Breen published, but newer research shows that Breen was wrong, how soon and under what circumstances should that be changed. Obviously, some changes are word choice, or slightly better understanding, but others can have a major effect on a coin type or variety.

 

Think of recent discussions about 1914/13 nickels. If a document were discovered that showed the mint knew it made 1914/13 dies, when and how should that be accepted. Also consider the opposite...What if some major variety was demonstrated to be incorrect or unsupported by facts...?

[DaveG]

Well, if one's money or ego is at stake, one should hold onto the outdated information until one turns blue in the face.

 

On the other hand, if one is only interested in having correct information, then one should discard the outdated information as soon as better information is available.

[messydesk]

If the new information proves that the old is incorrect (stands up to peer review), and isn't simply a "because I said so" assertion, the wrong information should be flagged as such in references containing it, so that the new information won't be missed and the correction history is retained.

 

If a Breen authentication were shown to be incorrect based on new information, there is nothing to be gained by presenting the superseded information without the correct information, if even at all.

 

If there is documentation supporting the 1914/3 nickels, then I would accept that over current wisdom (which is itself conflicting). In the other direction, when the 1869/8 Indian cent was shown to be a repunched date, it took very little time for the overdate to be eliminated. Some lower-profile examples include the 1884-"O/CC" and 1896/4 Morgan dollars, which I think were both Breen's brainchildren. The 84-O VAM 10 is still sometimes called the "so-called O/CC".

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

I would say old numismatic information should be discarded upon second or third unbiased and uninfluenced verification.

[cpm9ball]

... in favor of new, more accurate material?

 

When does a numismatist or authentication company acknowledge that old information was erroneous, and move forward to accept new and better information?

 

For example, if an authentication is based on something Wally Breen published, but newer research shows that Breen was wrong, how soon and under what circumstances should that be changed. Obviously, some changes are word choice, or slightly better understanding, but others can have a major effect on a coin type or variety.

 

Think of recent discussions about 1914/13 nickels. If a document were discovered that showed the mint knew it made 1914/13 dies, when and how should that be accepted. Also consider the opposite...What if some major variety was demonstrated to be incorrect or unsupported by facts...?

 

What did you find, Roger? Tell us, please!

 

Chris

[physics-fan3.14]

Once new information is published, and it is based on solid research and sources, then the old information should be discarded immediately. Obviously, there can't be an immediate saturation of the information, it will take some time to disseminate. However, it would seem to be the responsibility of the leading organizations (TPGs, Auction Houses, the ANA), to keep up-to-date on new research, and implement that very quickly.

 

In other words, I find there to be no excuse for a place like a big auction catalog to perpetuate numis-myth if documented evidence to the contrary has been published.

[RWB]

"What did you find, Roger? Tell us, please!"

 

It's just a conceptual question - but one tainted by the potential for monetary loss by owners of repudiated varieties. It's difficult to know just where the change-over line occurs -- kind of like the one between snow, sleet and freezing rain.

[AcesKings]

Monetary loss? Heck with the new info!!!

[coinman_23885]

Immediately. In the example provided, I am also generally very reluctant to trust Walter Breen's word on anything given many of his so called "specimens" that seem like nothing extraordinary to me.

[cpm9ball]

"What did you find, Roger? Tell us, please!"

 

It's just a conceptual question - but one tainted by the potential for monetary loss by owners of repudiated varieties. It's difficult to know just where the change-over line occurs -- kind of like the one between snow, sleet and freezing rain.

 

Oh, slush! I thought I was on to something.

 

Chris

[RWB]

Yep! "Snow, sleet and freezing rain" can all produce slush.

 

 

[leeg]

At once.

 

The ANA is all about education. They should take the lead and make all major auction houses, TPG's, and Numismatic magazines aware of the changes.

 

 

[cpm9ball]

At once.

 

The ANA is all about education. They should take the lead and make all major auction houses, TPG's, and Numismatic magazines aware of the changes.

 

 

Not just those you mentioned, Lee, but all of the websites dedicated to numismatics as well.

 

Chris

[leeg]

At once.

 

The ANA is all about education. They should take the lead and make all major auction houses, TPG's, and Numismatic magazines aware of the changes.

 

 

Not just those you mentioned, Lee, but all of the websites dedicated to numismatics as well.

 

Chris

For sure.

 

My thought is that NGC and PCGS would send a mass email to all in their dealer networks.

 

 

[okbustchaser]

At once.

 

The ANA is all about education. They should take the lead and make all major auction houses, TPG's, and Numismatic magazines aware of the changes.

 

 

Not just those you mentioned, Lee, but all of the websites dedicated to numismatics as well.

 

Chris

For sure.

 

My thought is that NGC and PCGS would send a mass email to all in their dealer networks.

 

 

They probably should do so immediately, but don't. For example, was fairly conclusively shown back in 2004 that the 1807 50/20 half is actually a 5 over an inverted 5 not a 2.

[RWB]

...but it's still authenticated at "1807 50/20" ?

...what about 1809/6 which is really an inverted "9" ?

...or "proofs" that lack all documentation and look like circulation pieces?

[jpcienkus]

I don't know if I would discard the out dated information, rather just move it to the archives. It might be nice to go back and see previously believed information.

[messydesk]

...what about 1809/6 which is really an inverted "9" ?

If a 6 is really an inverted 9, isn't saying 9/6 the same as saying 9/inverted 9? Perhaps a 9 is an inverted 6, in which case it should be 180inverted6/6.

 

[okbustchaser]

Collectors in general have a problem letting go of "what they've always known to be true".

 

Such as the idea that prudes in the American public forced the mint to cover up Liberty's boob on the Type 1 SLQ.

[Conder101]

Such as the idea that prudes in the American public forced the mint to cover up Liberty's boob on the Type 1 SLQ

There's some outdated info right there you can discard

 

It wasn't the prudes in the American public. There was no commentary that I know of about it one way or the other. The changes were in the works before the coins even had much of a distribution. And it wasn't the mint it was the designer that did it. The mint never asked for that change to be made. McNeil probably did it when he was doing the redesign because the chain mail bodice made more sense for the allegorical preparation for war than did a bare breast.

[RWB]

See "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" for details and photos.