Wexler listings cross reference updates

[centMD]

I would like to thank John Wexler for allowing me to post the following updates. Each of these updates was double-checked and approved by him and added to his website. Please make note of these changes for your master listings. As further updates get added I will update this thread.

John Wexler's website can be found at http://www.doubleddie.com




Dan

1910-S WRPM-003 is 1MM-003
1915-D WDDO-001 is DDO #1(1-O-VIII) and 1DO-001
1920-S WRPM-001 is RPM #1
1921-S WDDR-001 is DDR #1(1-R-VI)
1925-D WRPM-001 is 1MM-001
1926 WDDO-001 is DDO #1(1-O-IV) and 1DO-001
1928-D WRPM-002 is 1MM-001
1929-D WRPM-001 is 1MM-001
1930 WDDR-001 is DDR #1(1-R-VI) and 1DR-001
1934 WDDO-001, WDDR-002 is1DO-001, 1DR-001
1934 WDDO-006 is DDO #4 (4-O-I+IV),1DO-002
1934 WDDR-001 is DDR #4(4-R-VI) not DDR #1 (1-R-VI)
1934 WDDR-003 is DDR #1(1-R-VI), 1DR-002
1934 WDDR-005 is DDR #3 (3-R-II+VI),1DR-003
1934 WDDR-006 is DDR #5(5-R-IV)
1934-D WDDO-001 is also DDO#1
1935 WDDO-002 is DDO #2 (2-O-V)and 1DO-005
1935 WDDO-004 is DDO #3(3-O-VI)
1935 WDDR-001 is DDR #4
1935 WDDR-005 is DDR #1 (1-R-II+VI)
1935-D WDDR-001 is 1DR-001
1935-S WDDR-001 is 1DR-001
1936 WDDO-010 is 1DO-007
1936 WDDO-015 is DDO #9(9-O-IV), 1DO-012
1936 WDDO-016, WDDR-012 isDDO #5 (5-O-IV), DDR #6 (6-R-II+VI)
1936-D WRPM-005 is RPM #3
1937 WDDR-006 is 1DR-005
1937-S WDDO-001 is 1DO-001
1938-D WRPM-008 is RPM #7
1940-S WRPM-009 is 1MM-009
1943 WDDO-013 is DDO #23 (23-O-V)
1943 WDDO-034 is DDO #22 (22-O-I)
1943 WDDO-044, WDDR-015 isDDO #12 (12-O-IV), DDR #13 (13-R-II+VI)
1943 WDDR-008 is DDR #9 (9-R-II+VI)
1943-S WDDO-007 is DDO #3 (3-O-V)
1946-S WRPM-026 is not RPM#26 or 1MM-026
1955-S WDDO-001 is DDO #1(1-O-IV)
1956 WDDO-008 WDDR-003 isDDO #1 (1-O-II-C), DDR #8 (8-R-VI)
1960 WDDO-008 is 1DO-009
1960 WDDO-009 is 1DO-010
1960 WDDO-011 is DDO #7 (PR-7-O-II+V)not DDO #9 (Unassigned)
1960 WDDO-021 is DDO #13 (PR-13-O-IV+VIII)
1960 WDDR-001 is 1DR-002not 1DR-001
1962 WDDR-008 is DDR #14 (PR-14-R-V)
1965 WDDO-002 is DDO #2
1965 WDDO-004 is DDO #3
1967 WDDO-001 is DDO #1
1969 WDDO-3 is 1DO-1
1969-D WDDO-001 is not 1DO-001
1969-S WDDO-002 is 1DO-3
1970 WDDO-001 is DDO #1 (1-O-I-CW), 1DO-003
1970 WDDO-004 is DDO #10 (10-O-V-CW)
1970 WDDO-005 is 1DO-005
1970 WDDO-007 is 1DO-006
1970 WDDO-010 is DDO #4 (4-O-V-CW)
1970 WDDO-015 is DDO #7 (7-O-V-CCW)
1970 WDDO-019 is DDO #2 (2-O-V-CW)
1970-D WDDO-001 is DDO #1 (1-O-V-CW)
1970-D WDDO-006 is DDO #4 (4-O-V-CW)
1970-D WDDO-010 is 1DO-003
1970-D WDDO-012 is 1DO-002
1970-D WDDO-018 is 1DO-009
1970-D WDDO-024 is 1DO-006
1971-D WDDO-001 is 1DO-001
1971-S WDDO-003 is DDO #7
1972 WDDO-005 is 1DO-014
1972 WDDO-017 is 1DO-018
1972-D WDDO-005 is 1DO-006
1972-D WDDR-001 is DDR #1
1974-D WDDO-001 is DDO #1
1975 WDDO-001 is DDO #2
1975 WDDO-004 is DDO #1
1978-D WDDO-001 is 1DO-001
1984-D WDDO-002 is 1DO-005
1984-D WDDR-001 is DDR #1 and 1DR-001
1986-D WDDR-001 is 1DR-001
1990 WDDR-008 is not CDDR-002
1990 WDDR-011 is DDR #1
1994 WDDR-003 is DDR #2
1995 WDDR-005 is DDR #1
1995 WDDR-006 is DDR #2
1995 WDDR-009 is DDR #3
1995-D WDDO-005 is DDO #4
1995-D WDDO-007 is DDO #2
2003 WDDO-001 is 1DO-002
2003 WDDO-002 is DDO #2 (2-O-VIII), 1DO-001
2004 WDDO-002 is DDO #3 (3-O-VIII)
2005 WDDR-040 is 1DR-009
2006-D WDDR-001 is DDR #6 (6-R-VIII), 1DR-006
2006-D WDDR-003 is DDR #2 (2-R-VIII)
2006-D WDDR-004 is DDR #3 (3-R-VIII)
2006-D WDDR-006 is DDR #5 (5-R-VIII)
2007 WDDO-003 is DDO #1 (1-O-VI)
2008-D WDDR-006 is DDR #1 (1-R-VIII)
2009 FY WDDO-007 is DDO #7 (7-O-VI), 1DO-007
2009 FY WDDO-009 is 1DO-009, CDDO-010
2009 FY WDDO-013 is 1DO-013
2009 FY WDDR-033 is 1DR-038
2009 FY WDDR-039 is 1DR-066
2009 FY WDDR-040 is 1DR-093
2009 FY WDDR-044 is 1DR-091
2009 FY WDDR-052, WDDO-004 is 1DR-101, 1DO-016
2009 FY WDDR-066 is 1DR-100
2009 FY WDDR-071 is 1DR-075
2012 WDDO-005 is 1DO-006

[jfines69]

You are doing one heck of a job... You will be bald soon Thanks for the update!!!

[stoneman227]

Great work , it's much appreciated !

John

[centMD]

1956-D WDDO-059 is a duplicate listing of WDDO-053 and will be deleted at the next website update.

[Justafarmer]

Maybe it shouldn't but the practice of attributers deleting listings irritates me. I wish they would retain the listings and qualify them with a cross reference to each other or a statement it has been debunked as a variety. Once the listing is deleted there could be hundreds of certified coins referencing an invalid variety. Once an attributer re-assigns this number to a newly discovered variety these coins will be referencing the wrong variety altogether. I guess it is the accountant in me. I void a check it is retained in my records as a voided check. And I certainly do not recycle that voided check number and assign it to a different check written at a future date. I have complained about this practice before and probably will again.

[centMD]

Maybe it shouldn't but the practice of attributers deleting listings irritates me. I wish they would retain the listings and qualify them with a cross reference to each other or a statement it has been debunked as a variety. Once the listing is deleted there could be hundreds of certified coins referencing an invalid variety. Once an attributer re-assigns this number to a newly discovered variety these coins will be referencing the wrong variety altogether. I guess it is the accountant in me. I void a check it is retained in my records as a voided check. And I certainly do not recycle that voided check number and assign it to a different check written at a future date. I have complained about this practice before and probably will again.

In my opinion there should be a unique identifier for each coin variety. Call it UVI for Unique Variety Identifier or UDI for Unique Die Identifier. Each variety is assigned one. Say coin A has UVI of 2345 and coin B has UVI of 3333. The listing for coin B is added to coin A as it was a duplicate. Now coin A has both 2345 and 3333 as UVI. Now anyone who attributed the coin as 3333 knows it is actually variety A. It would also work for deleted listings because you could simply say "Hey my coin is not this variety anymore because the UVI is different. It is not another variety either for the year. I guess it is delisted."

I think CONECA has something of a unique identifier but I believe it follows the CONECA number and not the coin itself.

[mustbebob]

I have complained about this practice before and probably will again.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion. You state that it is a practice by the attributors, but this is a far smaller problem than you seem to think it is. You wanting statements for removed dies is indeed being done by some attributors already. I point you to a couple of dies on coppercoins where the die number still resides although the variety/anomaly has been debunked.

http://coppercoins.com/lincoln/diest...&die_state=lds

http://coppercoins.com/lincoln/diest...&die_state=lds

1960D-1MM-167 ended up being a duplicate but the number still remains.

There are many other instances of dies being removed for some reason or another.

I wish they would retain the listings and qualify them with a cross reference to each other or a statement it has been debunked as a variety.

This is what happens when you have different variety systems. Cross referencing is NOT required but is supplied as a courtesy by Wexler and Coppercoins. VV doesn't supply cross references at all. Each variety system is owned individually, therefore, the rules are made up by the owners.

Maintaining a file system can be difficult. Leaving erroneous information in the database is also an issue. Some times, it is easier to replace a variety rather than leaving a hole there. There are also problems that can arise when you perform searches.

I am afraid I have little to say about the possibility of slabs being out there with what might be incorrect information. That is a TPG and individual concern. Should I have to delete a listing in my files because it is incorrect, I will do that. Remember that even putting a statement in the files won't change that slab info. What is the possibility that a slab will be out there with a wrong variety number because the variety was changed? If there are, the numbers would be small and I don't know what, if anything, can be done to help that. There are plenty out there that list debunked numbers (such as the 1980 D/S) but at the time, that info was correct. There is nothing the attributors can do about that. Remember that you should always buy the coin, not the slab anyway. You may end up having to re-slab with a new listing if you run into one of these scenarios.

I can see how the accountant in you makes you irritated with this. However, please understand that our work on the sites encompasses thousands and thousands of hours and normally this is done without any cost to you. We will always try to put out a good product but there are always the unforeseen circumstances that can come up. I hate to see you irritated but I don't think you are being fair. I understand it is how you feel, and may not reflect the feeling of others. I also know from being on this end of it that there is not much we can do about it.

[eaxtellcoin]

Farmer,
Remember that every variety and every variety within a date has certain characteristics that make the coin(s) easy or very hard to identify. If all the attributers only listed coins with 2-3 pick up points (Location the variety is seen) it would be much easier to identify.
The problem we have is there are many coins within a date group that look pretty much the same. I.E. type or rotation / split serif / tilted that make these coins very hard to identify correctly. Let alone the die state of the coin and how the appearance changes through a die's life. There are Many many RPM's that follow this category and some double eye's and minor separations of IGWT to name a few.
You can collect what you want - pick an area and stick with it. If you collect the coins that are tough to I.D. then you mush be willing to accept a change of view on the coin. That all depends on the # of examples seen and weather the characteristics change.

Dan,
Keep up the good work. I can think of only a few people who would have taken up the challenge!!!

[Justafarmer]

Farmer,
Remember that every variety and every variety within a date has certain characteristics that make the coin(s) easy or very hard to identify. If all the attributers only listed coins with 2-3 pick up points (Location the variety is seen) it would be much easier to identify.
The problem we have is there are many coins within a date group that look pretty much the same. I.E. type or rotation / split serif / tilted that make these coins very hard to identify correctly. Let alone the die state of the coin and how the appearance changes through a die's life. There are Many many RPM's that follow this category and some double eye's and minor separations of IGWT to name a few.
You can collect what you want - pick an area and stick with it. If you collect the coins that are tough to I.D. then you mush be willing to accept a change of view on the coin. That all depends on the # of examples seen and weather the characteristics change.

Dan,
Keep up the good work. I can think of only a few people who would have taken up the challenge!!!

I accept that opinions on varieties will change, variety collecting is a dynamic niche. I am just of the opinion once a variety reference is cataloged and added to a reference that listing should remain part of of reference. If in the future it discovered to be a bad listing or duplicate listing - the listing should be qualified as such and retained as part of the listing. I am of the opinion this would make the reference stronger. A coin attributed and cataloged in an individuals collection to the listing WRPM-??? today will 10 years from now reference back to the most current information for that listing. Whether it has been subsequently du-bunked, discovered to be a duplicate listing for another variety, etc - is the information a collector would find in the reference for the variety at that time.

In my opinion the fact that a variety has been de-bunked, is a duplicate, etc is important information for collectors. Embrace it, recognize it and preserve it for future reference instead of removing all reference to it.

All I am providing is my opinion and why I hold this point of view. It certainly is not intended as a condemnation of anyone's work.

[mustbebob]

In my opinion the fact that a variety has been de-bunked, is a duplicate, etc is important information for collectors. Embrace it, recognize it and preserve it for future reference instead of removing all reference to it.

All I am providing is my opinion and why I hold this point of view. It certainly is not intended as a condemnation of anyone's work.

No one is condemning you for your opinion. Quite the opposite really. I gave you direct links to where what you suggest is actually being done, at least on one site. As I stated previously, each site is independently owned and the decision to do anything with their system is the owners call. I personally thank you for your input but as I stated earlier as well, there is not a lot that can be done at this point.