Kennedy Half Dollar

[Tim]

Here is a Kennedy that folks may not have seen before. Back From Dr. Wiles awhile ago, sorry for the poor pictures. Feel free to guess which variety number it is ....

[Tim]

Nobody want to take a guess? The die scratch heading SE from the O in GOD should give it away.

[Tim]

Another clue, this is only a DDO, the double on the reverse did not get listed as a seperate DDR (why is beyond me).

[jcuve]

It would seem to be DDO-015 (nice find) and it seems Wiles has drawn a line between what he feels is and is not listable.

[Tim]

Correct, it is the DDO-015. When looking at the coin as a whole, the reverse catches your attention first but the obverse is what got listed. I have found another one that once it gets graded will be making the trip to Dr. Wiles to confirm it is a DDO-015 and I will ask him to reconsider the reverse for a listing.

Sometimes I wonder why CONECA doesn't have a review procedure, sort-of like an appeals process, where a “panel” of experts could deliberate and if necessary overrule the single arbitrator as to what makes the “cut” for inclusion in the CONECA files for varieties. I haven't considered the ups or downs of doing this or even if it would work or help the hobby and club (just thinking out loud so to speak).

[jcuve]

...Sometimes I wonder why CONECA doesn't have a review procedure, sort-of like an appeals process, where a “panel” of experts could deliberate and if necessary overrule the single arbitrator as to what makes the “cut” for inclusion in the CONECA files for varieties...

I would venture to guess that the attribution fees would have to be much higher for something like what you have outlined to be at all practical, not to mention the extra shipping fees to have a few other experts look at the coin.

[Tim]

I would venture to guess that the attribution fees would have to be much higher for something like what you have outlined to be at all practical, not to mention the extra shipping fees to have a few other experts look at the coin.

I agree that there would have to be a fee associated with the “appeals process” and the logistics would have to be worked out.

First, the Board of Directors would have to recognize and decide if there was a need for the service. If no need is determined then the whole issue is moot.

My son and I collect Kennedy half dollars but the principal would apply to all denomination and series that CONECA maintains records for. We have a couple of what we consider nice “double dies” that Dr. Wiles determined were “too minor to list”. We are still going to keep these “too minor to list” varieties but they are almost like orphans to our set without a CONECA number assigned.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, when we started collecting varieties we researched the different individuals and organizations and felt that CONECA was the leader in this endeavor. Some of the other attributing service(s) will catalog a “flea on a tick” as a variety even though the coin has no other substantial doubling.

Now, considering that Dr. Wiles does an outstanding job for CONECA and the collectors participating in this side of the hobby, should there be a “checks and balances” or should the single arbitrator have the absolute non reviewable decision making process on what is listed in the CONECA files?

Suggestion, if the Board of Directors would entertain the idea of a “checks and balances”, this review process could be limited to once per year or once every few years to be completed during the annual ERRAROMA so the panel of experts could examine the coin(s) in question and discuss the merits or lack of, each coin and make the determination if said coin should be listed in the CONECA files.

Again, just thinking out loud.

[atrox001]

How about and appeals process back to the attributor and have them explain why, in some detail why the coin is "too minor", or why a "borderline" shouldn't be listed.

Larry Nienaber

[Tim]

How about and appeals process back to the attributor and have them explain why, in some detail why the coin is "too minor", or why a "borderline" shouldn't be listed.

Larry Nienaber

I would have no problem if the process started with the attribution examiner having the first chance to address the issue, and if the submitter still disagreed then the reviewing panel of experts would have a reference of what the attributor was considering when his decision was made.

As a submitter, I understand that we may be bias about the coin being “listable” and in all probability the panel of experts may side with the attributor but would having a “checks and balances” in place be a bad thing?

I also understand that all coin can not be attributed, no matter how good the examiner is. A late die state or well worn coin may be hard if not impossible to diagnose.

Again, please don’t take my comments wrong, I’m not criticizing Dr. Wiles for we firmly believe that he is the best out there for our series of choice and we wouldn’t want to see CONECA lower their “standards” on what makes the cut. We have had our share of coins come back as “too minor to list” and the education paid for has been worth it (examining the coins after they came back, most of the time we could see and agree that they were too minor).

But we also have a few coins that were returned as “too minor to list” that we disagree with, one variety we set three examples in over a time period and Dr. Wiles is consistent for each time they came back “too minor to list”. The coin is question is very similar to the 1967 DDO-004 but the spread is a little narrower but deeper; and in our opinion stronger then some of the other DDOs that have been listed. This is one die variety that we would utilize an appeal process on if it was available.

[19Lyds]

How about and appeals process back to the attributor and have them explain why, in some detail why the coin is "too minor", or why a "borderline" shouldn't be listed.

Larry Nienaber

I'm of the opinion that if it's too difficult to define the doubling class due to the die state that the variety is deemed too minor to list.

I've seen my fair share of "too minor to list" results in the past to come to any other conclusion.

Having said that, I must say that I'm fairly impressed with the doubling on the reverse of the Tim's piece. I'd have submitted it and wanted an explanation since there are definite splits which seem to indicate tripling.