It's a problem, since in reality you have only small & large letters (2 variants) over the different mints, but of course you're right, if we add them for each mint the number is 6. I counted 2 for no mint and 2 for C+D = 4.
It's a problem, since in reality you have only small & large letters (2 variants) over the different mints, but of course you're right, if we add them for each mint the number is 6. I counted 2 for no mint and 2 for C+D = 4.
2 for no mint mark
2 for C
2 for D
I don't mind to make it 6, if you “insist”?
I thought about it more and maybe 4 makes more sense since the C&D's are the same variant. If you count C&D separately then maybe you also have to add in the single O one too for 7? In times like this maybe it's just best to reword. Leave out the “4” and just let the reader count any way they want.
Looks OK, except there are many more year lines, I just saw that the 1850C & D each has 2 lines with normal and weak mint marks (other years as well) but in UsaC…. nothing is mentioned, but in pcgs it is!. Shall I try to make graphics?
Looks OK, except there are many more year lines, I just saw that the 1850C & D each has 2 lines with normal and weak mint marks (other years as well) but in UsaC…. nothing is mentioned, but in pcgs it is!. Shall I try to make graphics?
?? Do you think we should take the others as well?? After all it might just be a die problem!
I know about the 1850C/D Weak C/D year lines. There's also the same for 1854. I couldn't find anything on PCGS or USACoinBook so decided not to pursue. Since the year lines were already there I didn't want to delete them. I see you found something I missed in PCGS so definitely we should add that graphic. Can you do one for 1854?
PCGS also has “variants” not found elsewhere. I'll send you my excel file with the breakdown.
