Bill, I'm not too disappointed at not being able to use the 'Turner system'. My system can be used for any denomination not just large cents. I initially used it when I was studying Victorian 50c minted in the 1870s. As you know, each die group has unique physical attributes common to all dies within that group that could or arguably should be included in any identifier. I do include die groups identifiers in my cent designations, just not the way Turner does to avoid controversy. For example, an 1892 C4 Turner designated O2AA-A1/R1S-A1 is designated using my system as O92CA-1/R92CS-1 (Overall coin marriage designation DC92C-1/1). So the two systems are somewhat compatible. I won't mind anyone using my system to describe coins in a publication they may want to monetize, or perhaps when they sell their coins. One thing is certain, if die studies are going to be published, the system used should hopefully be collectively accepted by the numismatic community, perhaps reaching consensus by some type of expert review process. After the system has been settled upon, it is free to use by anyone at any time for any purpose. This forum undoubtedly has numerous experts with decades of collector/research experience so why shouldn't the conversation start here. If anyone has ideas on a system that can be collectively used by all, please submit your proposal.
One proposed system is as follows;
SyyDmG-xxx, where,
S - Side. (O-obverse, R-reverse). For a year that has known different obverse effigy types, as designated by Charlton, the type of obverse effigy is described in the attributes for each unique die. Earlier obverse effigy designs would be amongst the early die numbered designations, however such a die may have been brought out of retirement and may have been used in a particular mintage year after a newer die design. The 1896 and 1898 10c have that situation. Was the Obverse 5 die(s) used before or after the Obverse 6 die(s) ? It probably doesn't matter since the Obverse 5 die was probably sunk before the Obverse 6 die and remained unused for whatever reason.
yy - last two digits of the mintage year
D – Denomination (C-1c, F-5c, T -10c, Q-25c, H-50c)
m – Mint (b - Heaton Mint in Birmingham. Royal Mint coins are undesignated)
G – die group (if applicable). This is most applicable on reverse dies where the dates vary according to their matrix/sub-punch origin.
x or x00 – die number. Determined by the originator or discoverer. If there are no definitive markers but there is marriage to a side with unique die differentiating markers the die number for the side in question is designated x00. It may or may not be unique but cannot be proven yet. Later die states with unique markers may eventually be found at which point the die number is designated just x.
Universal Die Numbering System
Re: Universal Die Numbering System
We have to start some where and your system looks like a good start to me. Does anyone have a better suggestion?
-
Bill in Burl
- Posts: 1508
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:41 am
- Location: Golden Horseshoe, ONT
Re: Universal Die Numbering System
I had my own numbering/ID program when I started early on the 1859's, as an example for Coneca but gave up on it, as too hard to accurately place some of the weird varieties and overstrikes. Me, I like Rob's system because I'm used to it. I'm not ready to delve into a different syste. I don't even use the Haxby system and use Griffin or Zoell numbers as well because that's where I started. I guess it's all how the mind works. Good luck on your system, but count me out with anything further.
Bill in Burl
Re: Universal Die Numbering System
The advantage of a universal system is it can be used for any denomination. I like Rob's system too, but it is tailored for the Victorian Large Cent. Attached is a sample of a rudimentary reverse die study I conducted on the 1871 10c which hopefully most will be able to open if they have the necessary software. I've conducted similar studies on numerous other denominations and/or years.
.
.
Re: Universal Die Numbering System
It may be hard to come up with any universal system that would satisfy the requirements of all the different catalogers of every denomination or even all the years of a single denomination. Every cataloger approaches their area of expertise a little differently, and even different years of a single denomination don't always fit into the same mold.
Like Bill, my main area of interest is Victoria Large cents. In that area, we have several good catalogs already available. Turner has cataloged 1858, 1859/8, 1890-H, 1891, and 1892. Haxby has cataloged the 1859 N9. As was mentioned there are catalogs well along for 1876-H, 1881-H and 1882-H not yet published. Each cataloger uses a different method, based on their research, to identify the dies and die pairs. I expect that will continue to be the case as new catalogs are developed and published.
To me, it is not a problem that there is no universal numbering system. I just ID the coins in my collections with whatever numbering system the cataloger has determined worked best for them. We are actually recognizing all the long hours of their hard work when we do that.
Like Bill, my main area of interest is Victoria Large cents. In that area, we have several good catalogs already available. Turner has cataloged 1858, 1859/8, 1890-H, 1891, and 1892. Haxby has cataloged the 1859 N9. As was mentioned there are catalogs well along for 1876-H, 1881-H and 1882-H not yet published. Each cataloger uses a different method, based on their research, to identify the dies and die pairs. I expect that will continue to be the case as new catalogs are developed and published.
To me, it is not a problem that there is no universal numbering system. I just ID the coins in my collections with whatever numbering system the cataloger has determined worked best for them. We are actually recognizing all the long hours of their hard work when we do that.
Re: Universal Die Numbering System
But what if the originator of a system, no matter how good it may be for a particular denomination, would prefer you didn't use that system to catalogue and publish information for other years? What do you do then? If you are forced to develop another system, that may or may not be accepted as readily, competing systems arise. I would argue that the free use system will prevail. In ‘Dies and Diadems’, Turner states; “It is my sincere hope that other researchers follow suit and catalog the remaining Victorian years using the numbering system proposed in this book”. I have catalogued a vast majority of dies (probably about 70%, based on Royal Mint Report die count data) from 1892 C4 - 1901. Obviously there is no Mint die data for 1898H and 1900H which makes those studies particularly interesting. I sent Rob a copy of the 1898H Study (random sample size 386) but he didn't want it published using his system. It is difficult to have a hope realized if said system cannot be used to actually publish data. The 1892 C4 is actually an addendum to Rob's work which modifies his work slightly and allows for differentiation of all 1892 C4s. The 99 designation no longer exists. Currently the addendum is comprised of both numbering systems, in recognition of Rob's work. But if I was inclined to publish my work one day, I would have to delete his system from the document. BTW, the random sample size for the addendum was 357, verses Rob's original work of 56 (+33 non random which were Bill's I believe). Statistically, I have extremely high confidence in the data and information contained within the addendum due to the relatively large sample size. In fact all my studies have statistically significant and random sample sizes.