A Quest for Reason - using "Issue Variety" in lieu of "Variety"

[coppercoins]

For many years there has been a certain level of confusion over the terminology used in our rather strange little niche of numismatics. For many of you who do know me (or know of me) you will already be aware that I am a stickler for terminology. In this and any other scientific field, terminology is of paramount importance. It specifies one thing to be very different from something else that is - on the surface - similar in appearance only (like doubled die versus machine doubling).

I have had what could be deemed an "epiphany" this afternoon (I'm sure it wasn't just constipation, Chris) that one of our terms is lacking the clarity it needs to be seen as obviously different from another rather similar term. That term is "variety."

We use "variety" commonly to describe the fact that there is more than one design or mintmark used in a particular issue, hence the "large date" and "small date" varieties for given years...or the MMS-009 and MMS-010 differences used on 1974-S cents. These, folks, are precisely what the term "variety" was dedicated to by the late-great Alan Herbert back in the early 70s.

I, however, see incompleteness in the term. "Variety" is too vague to describe a design change in an issue when in fact a "die variety" is a completely different animal...and, to add, many people collect "varieties" and "die varieties" almost as if they belonged together.

So, with this to wit, I ask and challenge all those who read this post to henceforth refer to all those small dates, serif mintmarks, and "with berries or without berries" coins we once referred to as "varieties" with the newly coined term, "Issue Varieties".

This means that "varieties" - as collected - could contain both "issue varieties" and "die varieties" yet be distinctly different from one another. This means that no longer will anything be given a very vague one-word term that "could" be misconstrued to be something different. It's either a "die variety" or it's an "issue variety", yet a person could say they collect "varieties" and be including both.

What say ye?

Let's do it this way...

My "thanked post" count is rather low. Actually it's at exactly "one". I think I thanked BobP for something a long time ago. I want to up that count, and for ANYONE who begins to use this newly coined term and I see their post, I will "thank" that post. How about that? Bragging rights that the most difficult poster on these boards actually thanked you for something. Eh?

[simonm]

I think your new term creates a good distinction. I'm sure I have interchanged the terms "die variety" and simply "variety" in the past without much of a second thought. This posts really got me thinking about how we use certain terms, and what they actually entail. I'll see if I can use the phrase "issue variety" correctly in the future.

[mikediamond]

For small date/large date changes in a single year, the folks at error-ref.com use the term "mid-year design modifications". We have placed mintmark variations under "die varieties", although I'm sure you would vehemently disagree at this decision. Folks interested in how we organize die variants can look at our checklist and our detailed entries: http://www.error-ref.com/Error_and_V...heck_List.html

When you get down to it, does it really matter what you call the overarching category? The only thing that matters is an accurate specific label and a thorough understanding of what it means.

[liveandievarieties]

My own personal feeling on the ever evolving nomenclature of our hobby is pretty pragmatic. I don't go as far as Ken intermixing the term error with variety, but I do have a perspective.

It seems that the more and more we complicate and dissect and micro-clarify, the greater chance we have of alienating novices who are interested.

When someone joins and sees that "it's not damage, we call it PMD" and then less than a year later, "it's not PMD, we call that PSD"... I don't see how any of this is relevant to encouraging others to learn.

Let's be honest- there are dozens, not hundreds or thousands of us who thoroughly understand all of the technical terms without having to look it up. So, if most people have to consult a glossary before they feel they can even convey something in a post, I just don't think there's a strong chance of getting everyone on board.

Terminology is important for clarification purposes, but if I understand what someone is trying to say, I don't think I need to correct them. In my own humble opinion, it's the spirit, not the letter that's important.

[1jackel1]

For many years there has been a certain level of confusion over the terminology used in our rather strange little niche of numismatics. For many of you who do know me (or know of me) you will already be aware that I am a stickler for terminology. In this and any other scientific field, terminology is of paramount importance. It specifies one thing to be very different from something else that is - on the surface - similar in appearance only (like doubled die versus machine doubling).

I have had what could be deemed an "epiphany" this afternoon (I'm sure it wasn't just constipation, Chris) that one of our terms is lacking the clarity it needs to be seen as obviously different from another rather similar term. That term is "variety."

We use "variety" commonly to describe the fact that there is more than one design or mintmark used in a particular issue, hence the "large date" and "small date" varieties for given years...or the MMS-009 and MMS-010 differences used on 1974-S cents. These, folks, are precisely what the term "variety" was dedicated to by the late-great Alan Herbert back in the early 70s.

I, however, see incompleteness in the term. "Variety" is too vague to describe a design change in an issue when in fact a "die variety" is a completely different animal...and, to add, many people collect "varieties" and "die varieties" almost as if they belonged together.

So, with this to wit, I ask and challenge all those who read this post to henceforth refer to all those small dates, serif mintmarks, and "with berries or without berries" coins we once referred to as "varieties" with the newly coined term, "Issue Varieties".

This means that "varieties" - as collected - could contain both "issue varieties" and "die varieties" yet be distinctly different from one another. This means that no longer will anything be given a very vague one-word term that "could" be misconstrued to be something different. It's either a "die variety" or it's an "issue variety", yet a person could say they collect "varieties" and be including both.

What say ye?

Let's do it this way...

My "thanked post" count is rather low. Actually it's at exactly "one". I think I thanked BobP for something a long time ago. I want to up that count, and for ANYONE who begins to use this newly coined term and I see their post, I will "thank" that post. How about that? Bragging rights that the most difficult poster on these boards actually thanked you for something. Eh?

Excellent well said Charles and thanks for the info. it is always good to read something important and worth while.

George

[jallengomez]

I'm with Chris. While I savor the technical aspects and understand the need for precise terminology, there are only so many of us who are ever going to commit to the study required to even understand the esoteric nuances. This reminds me of a story the great physicist Richard Feynman once told.

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.

[coppercoins]

My own personal feeling on the ever evolving nomenclature of our hobby is pretty pragmatic. I don't go as far as Ken intermixing the term error with variety, but I do have a perspective.

It seems that the more and more we complicate and dissect and micro-clarify, the greater chance we have of alienating novices who are interested.

When someone joins and sees that "it's not damage, we call it PMD" and then less than a year later, "it's not PMD, we call that PSD"... I don't see how any of this is relevant to encouraging others to learn.

Let's be honest- there are dozens, not hundreds or thousands of us who thoroughly understand all of the technical terms without having to look it up. So, if most people have to consult a glossary before they feel they can even convey something in a post, I just don't think there's a strong chance of getting everyone on board.

Terminology is important for clarification purposes, but if I understand what someone is trying to say, I don't think I need to correct them. In my own humble opinion, it's the spirit, not the letter that's important.

I am attempting here to clear up a vague term that is NOT understood by many people as is evidenced by the number of people on this forum who don't know there is a difference between a 'variety' and a 'die variety'. I think adding 'issue' in front of 'variety' is a well-needed "edit" that will assist people in understanding that the old 'variety' refers to intended changes in an issue.

The reason why I don't subscribe to "mid-year design modification" is that, first of all, the term is long and clumsy. Second, it describes something that may or may not be true.

While the wide-AM and close-AM differences are 'varieties' - they did not happen mid-year. There were not supposed to be any interchanged reverses - these are transitional varieties that were really not supposed to happen, but were likely let go on because nobody at the mint considered it 'important enough' to pull them and not circulate them.

I accept the tern "variety" as it was intended, because it is clear to me (after having used it for over 30 years). But to the new people coming aboard, I think adding the word "issue" in front of it is a very helpful change.

This isn't a matter of trying to dissect and over 'term' collecting. It's a simple, small change to ONE existing term that could make a big difference in some peoples' collecting experience.

[liveandievarieties]

Of course, I've got no more problem with numismatic terminology than I do Webster's Dictionary. My comments are in relation to expecting everyone to use finite terminology. I don't think it's necessary for all people in the hobby to be wrong if they don't use the right word.

As for the individual researchers who decide the direction of the hobby, how it will evolve, I have great respect for each. Without people like Wexler, Wiles, Potter, Taylor, Chuck and a dozen others, we wouldn't have much of a hobby. But that still doesn't mean little league should play only by MLB rules....

[mikediamond]

While the wide-AM and close-AM differences are 'varieties' - they did not happen mid-year. There were not supposed to be any interchanged reverses - these are transitional varieties that were really not supposed to happen, but were likely let go on because nobody at the mint considered it 'important enough' to pull them and not circulate them.

WAMs and CAMs are not listed under "mid-year design modifications". They are placed in Part III: Die Installation Errors and, depending on the mismatch, are listed under two different lower-order categories, Transitional Reverse Dies (minor temporal mismatches or "mini-mules") and Mismatched Business/Proof dies.

But agree with Chris that the higher-level terms are not particularly important. There is, and never will be, a consensus within the hobby as to what constitutes a "die variety". Guys like Ken Potter and the VAMmers include any and all die imperfections in that category while guys like James Wiles (and you) have a much more restrictive concept. To each his own, I say. As long as the nature of the defect or variant is well-understood and appropriately labeled, it doesn't much matter what broader category they're deposited in.

[Maineman750]

I'm on board with Chris and Chuck in that I believe terminology is important and it is good for those who wish to take it to another level,but I don't believe we should correct others if they only use variety or error in their descriptions...unless they ask

[coppercoins]

Precisely. The term will spread with use by those who choose to do so. It's not my idea to have this term immediately replace the other making the other 'incorrect' - it merely adds value to the original term to place the descriptor before it.

"variety" sounds incomplete. "Issue variety" sounds like it describes something more specific.

[hasfam]

The way I see it, is the rising frustration of watching some people who are kindly being taught the correct terminology calmly, politely but repeatedly, again and again, yet they will still insist on ignoring it and continue to conveniently and lazily create their own list of terminologies. If there is a pyramid of numismatic terms, then I probably know and use the bottom 2 rows, the fundamental terms, while my familiarity with the top layers of terms are still being learned and slowly integrated into my everyday vocabulary.
I totally agree with what Chris said on this, but for example, if your going to hang out on this forum for a year or 2 and start to feel like you're one of the "experts" in that you are eager to jump in and answer questions, then you should have already learned and are correctly using the proper terminology, at least on the basic fundamental level. And if you don't, then don't get your panties in a knot when corrected.

[liveandievarieties]

Rock raises an important point. I think that anyone wanting to COMMUNICATE in our hobby absolutely has to know what they're saying. You can't join an Italian forum and refuse to speak their language.

[jallengomez]

I think the problem Rock brings up goes beyond the laziness of refusing to learn terminology. It's a laziness towards learning in general. The people who continuously use incorrect terminology are the very same ones who continuously post the same MD and PMD over and over and over. Much of the terminology references the minting process itself, and given their refusal to understand the processes involved and the distinctions, it's no wonder they can't get the terminology down.

[coppercoins]

I understand everything being said, but I am looking to actually clear up an ambiguous term that a LOT of people have a problem with. I'm not complaining about people NOT using the proper terms here, I'm saying that one of the proper terms is too ambiguous in context and should be changed - amended - so that it makes better sense. Heck, I thought it was a slam dunk...but it appears that I am the only one.