1942 Mercury dime, missing variety [решено]

First, I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum sub-section for this, or if it should be under "Numista coin catalogue" instead.  

I have a 1942 “Mercury Dime”, that doesn't seem to fit any varieties listed on the appropriate catalogue page:

N#51

The page lists 4 possible varieties for the 1942 year:

1. 1942, no mintmark, “overdate variety 42/41” (I see no indication of any overdate on my example)

2. 1942, no mintmark, “Proof” (I find it extremely hard to believe I stumbled across such a low mintage, 22, 329, at random like this)

3. 1942, “D” mintmark (there is no mintmark on my example)

4. 1942, “S” mintmark (there is no mintmark on my example)

So my conclusion is that either I miraculously found a rare proof coin (though it's not in particularly good condition any more), without even trying, OR, there is another variety missing from the catalogue page.  

Anyone know how to confirm one way or another, which is the case?

Hello 🤖

Without pictures, it will be very difficult for anyone to help you. Could you please post clear pictures of each side of your item?

Please note that this is an automatic message. Feel free to ignore if it is not relevant.

Images, as requested (sorry, I don't have a good camera for close up imaging)

I believe it's just indicating that there is a variety of the overdate out there. However, it should not just state that it is the variety. If I were you I would just use that and then put a public comment on it that it is just the regular 1942.

I don't believe that's the case, as there are other years of that same coin, on the same page, that list both the standard year/mintmark, as well as separate entries for unique varieties of the same year/mintmark. The first two examples I spotted are

1A. 1919, no mintmark, no variety info

1B. 1919, no mintmark, separate entry for “Double Die Reverse”

And:

2A. 1936, no mintmark, no variety info

2B. 1936, no mintmark, separate entry for “Double Die Obverse”

2C. 1936, no mintmark, “proof”

It seems to me that a “1942, no mintmark, no variety info” entry is missing from the page, based on entries for other years on the page.

The year line should be “overdate variety 42/41 exists, see comments” or a new year line should be added for the overdate variety.  The vast majority of the 205 million 1942 dimes minted in Philadelphia obviously weren't overdates.  The 1942D also has an overdate variety that isn't mentioned on the coin page.  

rsirian1

The year line should be “overdate variety 42/41 exists, see comments” or a new year line should be added for the overdate variety.  The vast majority of the 205 million 1942 dimes minted in Philadelphia obviously weren't overdates.  The 1942D also has an overdate variety that isn't mentioned on the coin page.  

That's what I thought too.  If that's the case, what's the method to correct the note, add the new year line, or the proper path to request that change?

Year lines are locked so post a request in the Numista coin catalogue forum for the new year line for the overdate. You can request modifying the existing yearline comment directly.  Concurrently PM the referee to let him know what you're doing.  For reference here's Redbook's listing:

I've posted in that forum:

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic129794.html

And sent a PM to the referee, as suggested.  

How do you split out the members having this year on the new year lines? 

Sjoelund

How do you split out the members having this year on the new year lines? 

If you're asking for my recommendation on how to handle that, I'd suggest defaulting them all to the more common of the two. I don't know if mass notification functions are available from a site moderator position, but if so, then I would also recommend a mass communication to affected users, so they could double check their affected coin entries.

But I suspect the comment was actually intended to dissuade me from pursuing the change further.  But the catalog is an ever changing thing already, so I feel that the likely inconveniences you're hinting at shouldn't trump accuracy. On the contrary, users should expect and accept that inconveniences will arise when corrections are needed to ensure clarity and accuracy, as standard practice on a site of this type.

I think the catalog is more accurate, if it includes all varieties as year lines. I actually collect by year and variety! The problem is more for the swaps and statistics. A type collector will just put his coin, be it for his collection or for swap, in any year line! I've had multiple swaps, where the variety (second, third or whatever year line) is not respected. You have no idea how the distribution of the varieties are, when they are not correctly entered by our members.

So we end up with a very precise CATALOG, but with no guaranty of the proper use. So don't try to make any kind of statistics per year and variety.

Sjoelund

I think the catalog is more accurate, if it includes all varieties as year lines. I actually collect by year and variety! The problem is more for the swaps and statistics. A type collector will just put his coin, be it for his collection or for swap, in any year line! I've had multiple swaps, where the variety (second, third or whatever year line) is not respected. You have no idea how the distribution of the varieties are, when they are not correctly entered by our members.

 

So we end up with a very precise CATALOG, but with no guaranty of the proper use. So don't try to make any kind of statistics per year and variety.

Users mis-using the catalog is a user problem, not a catalog problem.  Limiting options for those that would correctly use the more complete options will not resolve mis-use, but WILL increase accuracy overall, as those that DO use the catalog properly (to the best of their ability) continue to do so, with the more complete and accurate options available

If users misrepresent their coins for swap, that's also a user problem, not a catalog problem. Whether through ignorance or through malicious intent, swap issues will always be a concern. But limiting accuracy on the catalog only adds to the issue, by creating additional opportunity for unclear information on both sides of the swap.

I'm not sure what statistics you're referring to, specifically.  If you're referring to rarity among year, mintmark, variety, collection counts, etc., then incomplete options on the catalog forces users to lump different types and varieties in to a single statistical category which cannot possibly (statistically speaking) be worse than allowing the opportunity for users to properly separate out their coins appropriately. Statistics on a site like this, which relies entirely on crowd sourced information, are always going to be inherently inaccurate to some degree, due to the source of the information. But limiting options only compounds that issue, rather than helping it.  And adding a new year line will not have any negative impact on the statistics which are already inaccurate due to the missing line and user errors. But over time, the accuracy should increase as users correct their entries, and users add new entries to the available lines.

Let's not forget that the vast majority (close to all) that entered coins on the 1942 year line did so before the variety comment was added.  Adding the comment overdate variety 42/41 see comments instead of overdate variety 42/41 exists, see comments “broke” the catalog not users entering the wrong year line.  It needs to be corrected.

rsirian1

Let's not forget that the vast majority (close to all) that entered coins on the 1942 year line did so before the variety comment was added.  Adding the comment overdate variety 42/41 see comments instead of overdate variety 42/41 exists, see comments “broke” the catalog not users entering the wrong year line.  It needs to be corrected.

correct