Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

General discussion board about VAMs, but no buy/sell offers
Post Reply
User avatar
LorenAlbert
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 11:19 am
Contact:

Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

Post by LorenAlbert » Sun May 03, 2020 6:22 am

I recently consulted the wiki Attribution 101 topic page and noted the wording for the definition of the "g" in the subheading table of explanations.
The "g" of C3g is currently defined as the "Identification number for a specific die." Shouldn't this definition be changed to "Identification letter for a classification of die(s)?
My proposed change addresses the difference between die identification and die classification. As I understand it, C3g is a classification of dies; not an identification for a specific die.

User avatar
messydesk
Site Admin
Posts: 2462
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 1:57 am

Re: Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

Post by messydesk » Sun May 03, 2020 7:23 pm

Well, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It would probably be best to say that the letter (or number for the obverse die) counts the cataloged variations of the reverse die. You'd have to define what a variation is, but then you'd also have to define what a classification is.

If the VAM catalog counted specific dies, then the current die nomenclature would actually be useful as a sort of shorthand describing the die. For example, if 1905-S VAM 20 used obverse die 10, reverse die B, you could then say Obv 10 is a III2 7, and Rev B is a C3a. This would make the current die names purely descriptive, rather than enumerative, and permit proper enumeration of the dies without breaking the descriptive shorthand already in place. JohnR did this in his 78-CC book.
Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.

User avatar
LorenAlbert
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 11:19 am
Contact:

Re: Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

Post by LorenAlbert » Sun May 03, 2020 7:55 pm

Thank you for commenting. I must broaden my knowledge base. To my current expertise, there is not a shade of gray regarding the g definition. I will take some time to digest what you have written. Thanks. Loren

Mhomei
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 7:23 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

Post by Mhomei » Sun May 03, 2020 8:57 pm

Since g is not a number it makes no sense
Should read as " the nomenclature C3g "
Refers to the reverse die class and multiple pairs may exist within it

User avatar
messydesk
Site Admin
Posts: 2462
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 1:57 am

Re: Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

Post by messydesk » Mon May 04, 2020 1:59 am

I've updated the text to make more sense.
Welcome to the VAMWorld 2.0 discussion boards. R.I.P. old VAMWorld.

User avatar
LorenAlbert
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 11:19 am
Contact:

Re: Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

Post by LorenAlbert » Sat May 09, 2020 8:42 pm

Thank you. The definition for the g of C3g on the Attribution 101 subheading topic now reads.
"Identification letter for a specific variation of the reverse hub."
Hub, not die? I still am not appreciating why the phrase "specific variation" is not replaced by "classification." I know that, over the years, on this board, the use of the word "classification" has been intentionally avoided. It has been stated (VWMB1.0) that Van Allen never used the word "classification."
From page VI of the preface for The Fourth Edition of Morgan and Peace Dollars.
"In october 1964, Van Allen submitted a new manuscript on the 1878 Morgan varieties to Slade. He then suggested a DIE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM was needed and that Sheldon's Penny Whimsy should be studied."
Although there is ambiguity in Van Allen's writing, it is fairly clear that it was Slade, not Van Allen, that advocated a classification system prior to publishing Van Allen's manuscript. Did Van Allen comply? Are VAM's defined by a classification taxonomy (mulitiple die pairs may exist)?
Last edited by LorenAlbert on Sun May 10, 2020 2:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LateDateMorganGuy
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:11 am

Re: Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

Post by LateDateMorganGuy » Sat May 09, 2020 10:30 pm

I have said in the past that if folks are looking for a "scientific" and very black and white system in this hobby, they will be disappointed. This very subject has run off some very good people and VAMmers in the past. Live with it that way it is. I don't mean this in a mean way, just stating what I have learned and I have learned to live with it.

User avatar
LorenAlbert
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 11:19 am
Contact:

Re: Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

Post by LorenAlbert » Sun May 10, 2020 1:36 am

Thank you for the advice. I have "learned to live with it" for years. My inquiry was whether the earlier definition for the g of C3g accurately reflected the "way it is." I neglected to include the next sentence after Slade suggested a "DIE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM." Van Allen wrote about Slade's advocacy for classification.
"Taking his suggestion, Van Allen rewrote the 1878 dollar manuscript and resubmitted it to him late in November 1964."

"This very subject" has not run me off. I don't see identification and classification as mutually exclusive. The difference has, however, caused me to splinter away from attribution as my primary intent for study. Not out of frustration or polemics; I am comfortable, for better or worse, with my understanding of classification.

My interests are more so aligned with the individual student in a class than with the aggregate of the class. Photography drives my interest. Thus, it is natural for me to prefer die identification. Nonetheless, I deeply appreciate the academics of die classification and attribution.

User avatar
LorenAlbert
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 11:19 am
Contact:

Re: Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

Post by LorenAlbert » Sun May 10, 2020 3:20 pm

I reread page 139 of the 4th Edition for what seems like the hundredth time. It seems that, in 1991, LVA defined the "g" of C3g as the "Working Die Varieties" (for the reverse). Note that "Varieties" is pleural. Further this is the tertiary qualification of a taxonomy labeled "Die Classification System." I am not intending to be polemical. Or to promote anything other than consistency. But as someone who sometimes fields questions from neophytes, I have never been able to reconcile the "g" definition as previously defined for the g of C3g on the Attribution 101 subheading topic page.

User avatar
raynat3
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 1:44 am

Re: Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

Post by raynat3 » Sun May 10, 2020 4:25 pm

Loren,

The ship sailed a long time ago. I believe that a system was created the best it could be with the knowledge of those who made the decision at the time it was created. It is not exact. After years of folks sending one particular coin in for Leroy to determine, rather than doing some homework on their own, to provide proof to Leroy the coin is warranted a new VAM or a duplicate, how is he going to be exact?

Think about all the things that were not listed or listed at one time and have changed.

Slanted, Set Left, Set right, High … all subjective when close to an imaginary or even drawn line.

We all learn with new information, well some..

Look at the 83-O VAM 10 and VAM-31.

10 was C3a and 31 was C3g. Now both are 31 and 31A and C3g. Should they have been C3a? Why? Does it really matter?

For a system to be exact you have to know all the unknowns before you create the system. Chew on the "Knowing the Unknowns" for a bit.

The best we can do as a community is try to kill Duplicates and to do your homework before sending coins in. No instant gratification here.

User avatar
LorenAlbert
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 11:19 am
Contact:

Re: Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

Post by LorenAlbert » Sat May 16, 2020 1:29 pm

Thank you for the helpful comments.
Last edited by LorenAlbert on Sat May 16, 2020 7:52 pm, edited 7 times in total.

morganman
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:02 am

Re: Attribution 101 Subheading Definition Table

Post by morganman » Sat May 16, 2020 1:51 pm

WOW- Seems typical issue of retired old men with way to much time on hands LOL
Shit pot full of gobbly gook IMHO

AND i HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT LOL

Stay safe and be happy & thanks for knowing about this crazy
whatever stuff

Me; Im out playing and enjoying
:|

Post Reply