1983P-1DO-008 change

[coppercoins]

The coin listed on the site as 1983P-1DO-008 with the die break inside the 8 of the date is actually 1983P-1DO-003 and has been moved.

A new die has been listed under the vacant 1983P-1DO-008 number.

[justafarmer]

This sees to be a good place for me to make a little rant on an issue – as it seems this is a practice followed by all the major attributers. I would prefer that vacated catalog numbers not be recycled and re-issued to newly discovered varieties at a later date. If at sometime in the future a listing is determined to be a duplicate or even debunked that it remain in the files retaining its catalog number and qualified with a cross reference and/or statement explaining the issues associated with the listing. I think this would be less confusing to the general collecting public. Plus, take 1956D-1OM-002 as an example, sometimes the different organizations don’t agree when one changes their opinion.

[Bob P]

I appreciate your input in this, but I must respectfully disagree with your rationale. In this case, the coin was put back in it's rightful place, and another was put in the vacated number. I would rather see that than a hole in the listing, or a bunch of extraneous data added to the die pointing to a cross reference. That forces people to have to look at two separate listings, when one will do. The purpose of this section is to fix problems that come up like this. When you have almost 2300 varieties listed for a single denomination, mistakes will happen. This change log enables everyone who uses the coppercoins numbering system to know immediately that a change has been made. It should take no time to look at your files/coins and make the necessary numbering changes.
As far as your reference to 1956D-1OM-002, that is a subject that will probably never be agreed upon by all the attribution services. We have our reasons for either listing or debunking it. Occasionally, we will all get together and agree to debunk it (like the 1980 D/S). When you have different people dealing with the same subject matter, there are bound to be disagreements.
Thank you very much for your input!

[eagames]

Maybe the issue is that if someone had a slabbed coin with the old number on a slab then it gets confusing.

2 ideas....

Maybe in the new listing there can be a note on the side on the sites listing (this would work on coppercoins where the markers are mentioned). The note could say "this listing replaced the old listing which was changed to 1DO-00X".

Maybe on the new listing it could be called 1DO-00X-R which would mean it replaced an existing listing.

[Dick]

Ed, thgat mkes sense. And it mkes the expense one has gone thru, still a valid expense. It would be very easy to cross-reference the change made.
Dick

[coppercoins]

In this particular case a duplicate listing was eliminated, then a new die assigned. The new die took the next vacant number. End of story - that's how it works. Anything else would cause more confusion than it would clear.