question about a statement in a book

[Guest]

hi

im reading a book called "the official price guide to mint errors" by alan herbert.

and here is a quoit from the book
"coin dealers and collectors share the blame for several other cases of mislabeling,such as the so-called "small" date 1970 cent which is actually the same size"

can anybody answer that one .is this guy a "expert" ? is what he is saying true.
i don't understand that statement if he is talking about the 1970 s "small date" this is probably the most confusing hobby i have ever been in. you get so many different opnions on stuff who do you really believe.i say this because this has happened to me several times on here and other forums that i have posted stuff . one coin i was told by a "expert" that has books out that what i have was a die clash and other "experts" said that it was a die chip
im confused!!

so please guide me i really want to learn but it gets a little confusing when you hear and read this stuff.

sorry but really getting confused on who to listen to

thanks
colleen

[mustbebob]

Hang in there Colleen. Yes...This guy is an expert, and has been for many decades. The 1970 he is referring to was thought by some to be a small date just like some of the 1970S. THe 1970 example was a large date, and no small dates have been found except for the S mint 1970.

[shameless]

ok thank you bob for that it was not really clear in that statement and i have bought quit a few 70s rolls looking for that "small date" and was just thinking wow there really are not small dates ha ha

thanks
co

[ericodapro]

The quote about the "small" date is strange and hard to put in context without reading the entire paragraph, also I think the forums such as LCR shouldnt be expected to correctly attribute a coin every time, mostly because photographs are not always adequate, but more of a "educated guess". Im sure if any one of the forum moderators could examine a coin "in hand" they could easily determine it "spot on". I think if you keep asking questions here in the forums you will be amazed how much you can learn about this sometimes, frustrating, hobby.

[shameless]

thank you for that and i have learned alot here and on other forums but the one coin i was talking about was not guess
quote"
How about neither.It's a die clash remnant that was not removed."

so again thanks for that but again im not dealing with " guesses" just conflicting input from "experts" and the pics of the coin posted was most of the back of the coin not real close up shots . i understand when somebody say's it looks like this or that but from the quote above i would say its a die clash
anyways thank you ill keep on rolling
co

[jcuve]

I am a little confused about the quote and its context. I do not have the book to read it so I am not sure what he is talking about. Maybe as Bob stated, it is about the 1970P mistakenly thought of as having small dates too.

I supposed though that if you really look at it, while the dates are different on the '70 San Francisco Lincolns (either from having been engraved differently or from coming from two galvanos), calling them small and large dates may not be the most accurate label. Clearly the '60 P & Ds and '82 P & Ds differ in size and the label fits, but the '74 P, D & Ss and '70S are more about subtle style differences and location changes. I would have to shoot my two 1970Ss to know for sure, but maybe the 7 and the 9 are a little smaller on the 1970S small date, but it isn't as dramatic as the changes in the '60 or '82 Lincolns which are naked eye obvious.

On another note: Colleen which post about the die clash are you refering to? Can you post a link?

[shameless]

i will see if i can find it on here it's not that big a deal i just got a little confused when one say's it's for sure and then i get a other saying something else .

and as far as the statement that is the whole sentance and what the author was talking about before that statement was the wis quarter high and low leaf varity

thanks
co

[trails]

As to Alan Herbert; the man is considered one of the back bones of the E/V community. I have had the pleasure of meeting him and also conversing with him over a three day period at the last FUN show. The amount of knoweldge that I gained from this meeting was immense.

As to his book "The Official Guide to Mint Errors",; it should be in everyone's library for it does contain the basics that should be known, Yes, there maybe a few arguable points, however, the information contained in the book is of sound nature.

As to the 1970 LD? / SD?. This was a misconception caused by the low 7 digit (the common one) appearing smaller than the even 7 digit in the date. There is no such thing as a small date / large date 1970 Lincoln cent date.

BJ Neff

[shameless]

so there is no 70 s small date or just all of the 1970 p,d are large but the 70s has a small date ?

[jcuve]

There are two known obverses for the 1970S: the common one ODV-025 (also on the P and D issues); and the rarer ODV-026 (called small date) which has a noticeable change in the 9 and 7 digits as well as a weak LIBERTY.

[AgCollector]

so there is no 70 s small date or just all of the 1970 p,d are large but the 70s has a small date ?

There is a 1970-S small date, both business strike and proof (there is also large date), but there isn't a small date 1970-P or D, only large date.

However, I'm confused by BJ's statement:

As to the 1970 LD? / SD?. This was a misconception caused by the low 7 digit (the common one) appearing smaller than the even 7 digit in the date. There is no such thing as a small date / large date 1970 Lincoln cent date.

BJ Neff

By "LD? / SD?" do you mean large date over small date? Or just that they both exist?

Also, isn't the low 7 digit considered the larger date, not the smaller one?

Does your last statement refer to P minted cents having small dates, or an overdate?

[mousey70]

Thank you also , jcuve. And I thought I knew what I looking for. I can always use mnore info like yours. Thanks.

[trails]

Maybe it is me, however, I do not see a large or small date in the 1970 Lincoln cent. What I do see is a different font 7 and 9 digit in the the two different dates used. Yes the low 7 digit is considered the "large date".

One only has to look at the 1970-S Lincoln cent doubled die that used both different working hubs, the low 7 and the high 7 to make a working die to see that there is no difference in the size of the two different dates. Yes, everyone does make the distinction between a large and a small date that occurred on the 1970-S Lincoln cents; I just feel that it is a misnomer.

BJ Neff

[AgCollector]

Maybe it is me, however, I do not see a large or small date in the 1970 Lincoln cent. What I do see is a different font 7 and 9 digit in the the two different dates used. Yes the low 7 digit is considered the "large date".

One only has to look at the 1970-S Lincoln cent doubled die that used both different working hubs, the low 7 and the high 7 to make a working die to see that there is no difference in the size of the two different dates. Yes, everyone does make the distinction between a large and a small date that occurred on the 1970-S Lincoln cents; I just feel that it is a misnomer.

BJ Neff

That makes more sense- you do agree that there are two different obverse die varieties, (at least for S-minted 1970 cents) but just don't like the given names.

Personally, I do feel that the 0 in 1970 is somewhat smaller on the 1970-S small date, but that the difference is minimal. While we're trying to re-brand the 1988 RDV-006 as 1988 reverse of '89, why not shift the 1970-S to "low 7" and "level (or high or even) 7"?!

[1sgret]

Why not leave them as they are as there are too many references printed that refer to the varieties by there known names.

I am sure you are not going to change the attributers files to reflect another name for the versions of those varieties in question.

If you call it what you want and make yourself understood with-in the collectors's society that is all that matters.