Stuntman Posted December 8, 2019 Posted December 8, 2019 I'm struggling to join the dots. Can anyone give me a synopsis of this ellipsis hypothesis... ? 1 Quote
blakeyboy Posted December 8, 2019 Posted December 8, 2019 ooh...new one on me- picture? Unknown but not unloved.... 1 Quote
RLC35 Posted December 8, 2019 Posted December 8, 2019 2 hours ago, DaveG38 said: My 1967 dot on trident penny is feeling quite left out and unloved. OK Dave, If we are doing Dots on the trident...here is my 1922 "Dot on Trident" 1 Quote
blakeyboy Posted December 8, 2019 Posted December 8, 2019 5 hours ago, Stuntman said: I'm struggling to join the dots. Can anyone give me a synopsis of this ellipsis hypothesis... ? ...Moses supposes erroneously..... Quote
Peckris 2 Posted December 8, 2019 Posted December 8, 2019 The 1946 have never been a 'dot' but more like an apostrophe. Quote
RLC35 Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 18 hours ago, Peckris 2 said: The 1946 have never been a 'dot' but more like an apostrophe. Wrong on that one Peck. I have a 1946 with a definite "Dot"...see my earlier pic. I also have one with the apostrophe. Quote
blakeyboy Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 Luxury. We used to DREAM of an apostrophe...... 2 Quote
Diaconis Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 4 hours ago, blakeyboy said: Luxury. We used to DREAM of an apostrophe...... But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'. 1 Quote
Peckris 2 Posted December 9, 2019 Posted December 9, 2019 5 hours ago, RLC35 said: Wrong on that one Peck. I have a 1946 with a definite "Dot"...see my earlier pic. I also have one with the apostrophe. I hadn't seen your picture (I often reply to a topic without noticing there are more pages, unread). That dot is somewhat elliptical though not the apostrophe it clearly is on other examples. Two hypotheses: 1. It started as an ellipse which 'grew' a tail due to deformation. 2. It started as an 'apostrophe' but the tail - being rather thin and fine - got filled in. 1 Quote
RLC35 Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 55 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said: I hadn't seen your picture (I often reply to a topic without noticing there are more pages, unread). That dot is somewhat elliptical though not the apostrophe it clearly is on other examples. Two hypotheses: 1. It started as an ellipse which 'grew' a tail due to deformation. 2. It started as an 'apostrophe' but the tail - being rather thin and fine - got filled in. Good explanation, but still off the mark. The picture was taken through a slab and some shadowing may make it seem elliptical, but it is not, it is round. It is also far away (different location) from any part of the apostrophe on the coin that has a apostrophe. They are two different varieties. All the Best, Bob Quote
Peckris 2 Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 22 hours ago, RLC35 said: Good explanation, but still off the mark. The picture was taken through a slab and some shadowing may make it seem elliptical, but it is not, it is round. It is also far away (different location) from any part of the apostrophe on the coin that has a apostrophe. They are two different varieties. All the Best, Bob That will teach me not only to go back and look at a missed picture, but read the rest of the page as well! That makes your example possibly unique? And therefore sadly undesirable as a collectable though a very interesting curio. 1 Quote
1949threepence Posted December 10, 2019 Posted December 10, 2019 51 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said: That will teach me not only to go back and look at a missed picture, but read the rest of the page as well! That makes your example possibly unique? And therefore sadly undesirable as a collectable though a very interesting curio. There's a strange irony about that. The very rare and the extremely rare are prized. But the one off otherwise unknown variety, is not. It isn't "collectable by collectors" as only one person can ever own it. I say "otherwise unknown" because if an 1863 die No 1 or 6 were to appear, it would be a one off, but part of a known family - so the same rules don't apply (as it were). 3 Quote
secret santa Posted December 11, 2019 Posted December 11, 2019 9 hours ago, 1949threepence said: "collectable by collectors" Collectable is an interesting word. Does it mean "capable of collection", in which case anything could be regarded as collectable, or "worthy of collecting" which could very much apply to a unique item ? In the case of a unique coin, there is probably a fascinating story behind it, which may or may never be told but would be interesting to discover. 1 Quote
Rob Posted December 11, 2019 Posted December 11, 2019 Even with a unique item there will be plenty of competition from those who collect the series. It isn't so much a case of the demand not being there, rather a case of the elevated price reducing the number of people willing to fork out. I think a lot of people will view the rarities as an expendable luxury when the funds required would pay for a lot more of the pieces they want. Other than a lack of funds, there is no reason to exclude the rarities, as all contribute to the overall story. 2 Quote
1949threepence Posted December 11, 2019 Posted December 11, 2019 I think what I mean is that a coin exhibiting, say, a single dot, such as the 1946 penny possessed by Bob, with no other known examples, is never going to be collectable by a group of competing collectors, as a) there is only one, and b) it isn't going to spark that much interest. 1 Quote
Rob Posted December 11, 2019 Posted December 11, 2019 1 minute ago, 1949threepence said: I think what I mean is that a coin exhibiting, say, a single dot, such as the 1946 penny possessed by Bob, with no other known examples, is never going to be collectable by a group of competing collectors, as a) there is only one, and b) it isn't going to spark that much interest. Put anything into a reference volume and everybody wants one. There is a huge number of box tickers in the hobby. 1 Quote
jelida Posted December 11, 2019 Posted December 11, 2019 10 hours ago, 1949threepence said: There's a strange irony about that. The very rare and the extremely rare are prized. But the one off otherwise unknown variety, is not. It isn't "collectable by collectors" as only one person can ever own it. I say "otherwise unknown" because if an 1863 die No 1 or 6 were to appear, it would be a one off, but part of a known family - so the same rules don't apply (as it were). I think that a genuine new variety, a new die, or number or letter overstrike would have no difficulty attracting a massive premium. But I am inclined to agree regarding the dots and die flaws, at least until published. Jerry 2 Quote
1949threepence Posted December 11, 2019 Posted December 11, 2019 2 hours ago, jelida said: I think that a genuine new variety, a new die, or number or letter overstrike would have no difficulty attracting a massive premium. But I am inclined to agree regarding the dots and die flaws, at least until published. Jerry 100% agreed. Quote
RLC35 Posted December 11, 2019 Posted December 11, 2019 1 hour ago, 1949threepence said: 100% agreed. This has been a interesting discussion about Dots, Apostrophe's, etc. I agree with Mike and Jerry, that once a variety is "published" it will be more of a accepted Variety, regardless of the number available to collectors. 1 Quote
1949threepence Posted December 11, 2019 Posted December 11, 2019 3 hours ago, RLC35 said: This has been a interesting discussion about Dots, Apostrophe's, etc. I agree with Mike and Jerry, that once a variety is "published" it will be more of a accepted Variety, regardless of the number available to collectors. There you go then, Bob. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to get that 1946 dot penny published as a variety. 1 Quote
Peckris 2 Posted December 11, 2019 Posted December 11, 2019 12 hours ago, 1949threepence said: I think what I mean is that a coin exhibiting, say, a single dot, such as the 1946 penny possessed by Bob, with no other known examples, is never going to be collectable by a group of competing collectors, as a) there is only one, and b) it isn't going to spark that much interest. Agreed. It's not "one in a series". Like my 1964 filled die sixpence with the I of GRATIA missing - unless others turn up and it gets recorded, I'm not going to make a fortune from it. 2 Quote
RLC35 Posted December 12, 2019 Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said: Agreed. It's not "one in a series". Like my 1964 filled die sixpence with the I of GRATIA missing - unless others turn up and it gets recorded, I'm not going to make a fortune from it. You guys are going to love this! The "Dot" variety is a published variety by CGS, it is a 1946 Raised Dot, CGS Variety 03. ... Edited December 12, 2019 by RLC35 1 Quote
Rob Posted December 12, 2019 Posted December 12, 2019 So, if this dot among several dots is in a CGS slab then how are the masses supposed to differentiate between dots A, B C etc given you have to be a member to look at their site which means you have to cough up a fee to get the information. As a result of the limited access, this variety (and others) will effectively remain 'unrecorded' to the majority through lack of information and a ballpark price will be similarly elusive. Varieties need to be published in a printed volume to gain any traction. 1 Quote
JLS Posted December 12, 2019 Posted December 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Rob said: Varieties need to be published in a printed volume to gain any traction. Totally agreed - CGS might have been slapping numbers on minor Victorian and George IV farthing varieties for years, but the market hasn't noticed... Quote
1949threepence Posted December 12, 2019 Posted December 12, 2019 8 hours ago, RLC35 said: You guys are going to love this! The "Dot" variety is a published variety by CGS, it is a 1946 Raised Dot, CGS Variety 03. ... Thanks Bob. New discovery as far as most of us are concerned. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.