Unclear terms in the USA Franklin half dollar coin

The article

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2835.html

in distribution by dates presents terms:

- "Bugs Bunny" variety
- Type 1 reverse
- Type 2 reverse

They are not described in the article. It is difficult to suppose that they are so well known, that the reader obliges to know them in advance.

Is it possible to organize the correct comment about them?

I guess if you're collecting varieties then you would know about it, if you're not then it doesn't really matter.

There are several coins in the catalog with varieties not explained, "large date", "thin rim", etc. may be well known for who is fammiliar with certain coins, but for who just own 1 coin, like a type collector as I am, it feels not so natural just to throw the coin in any of the variation fields (or none).

At least Sjoelund is doing an extremely useful contribution adding pictures with variations in several coins, for example: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3816.html

Most people I guess feel comfortable adding the coin in any variation, I just think a better explanation should be mandatory.

There are definitely some examples where the description could be better. I came across one yesterday:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces977.html

The 1963 1 Agorah has the following 3 "varieties":

KM# 24.1 תשכ״ג (medal alignment)
KM# 24.1 תשכ״ג (coin alignment)
KM# 24.3 תשכ״ג (different)

I for one have no idea how the KM #24.3 i "different".

Quote: "cyprusalexander"​The article
​
​https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2835.html
​
​in distribution by dates presents terms:
​
​- "Bugs Bunny" variety
​- Type 1 reverse
​- Type 2 reverse
​
​They are not described in the article. It is difficult to suppose that they are so well known, that the reader obliges to know them in advance.
​
​Is it possible to organize the correct comment about them?"

I agree, I added information on the Bugs Bunny variety:



And I removed the references to Type 1/2; there are only two dates which have both types that are circulation strike coins. Instead, I added the missing reference to proofs (but I couldn't add them all; maybe an administrator can help).​

Excellent!

Now we have the explanation for Bugs Bunny. At least now it is clear that it is not variety at all. It is just a curios result of weariness of Obv. die. But we have to agree with the point of view of the American coins market to omit the nature of varieties: in this way more coins can be sold to the same customer including die clashes, edge position etc.


Now just two more terms in the same article left:

​- Type 1 reverse
​- Type 2 reverse

Quote: "cyprusalexander"​Excellent!
​
​Now we have the explanation for Bugs Bunny. At least now it is clear that it is not variety at all. It is just a curios result of weariness of Obv. die. But we have to agree with the point of view of the American coins market to omit the nature of varieties: in this way more coins can be sold to the same customer including die clashes, edge position etc.
​
​
​Now just two more terms in the same article left:
​
​​- Type 1 reverse
​​- Type 2 reverse

​1) The Bugs Bunny is a valid variety and is not the result of a worn die (go see the 1922 no "D" cent if you want to see a variety based on die wear).
2) I recommended the removal of "Type 1" and "Type 2" references in favor of "Proof" but for some reason those changes were not approved; I'll try again.

I should have checked my catalogue change requests, there are still a large number pending:

Of course it is valid. It is a curious demonstration of the spoilage of die, in other words of its decay, or as it was mentions already, in general, of its weariness.
But not every difference is a variety. For example, the position of the edge is valid. The USA catalogs themselves write that it is meaningless and at the same time pick up money for the attribution of the USA coins on the position.

To be variety, apart of other features, human will should be involved. No die clash can pass this test.
But the difference is still valid.

Quote: "cyprusalexander"​Of course it is valid. It is a curious demonstration of the spoilage of die, in other words of its decay, or as it was mentions already, in general, of its weariness.
​But not every difference is a variety. For example, the position of the edge is valid. The USA catalogs themselves write that it is meaningless and at the same time pick up money for the attribution of the USA coins on the position.
​
​To be variety, apart of other features, human will should be involved. No die clash can pass this test.
​But the difference is still valid.
​
​

​A die clash is caused by the two dies hitting each other, when a planchet doesn't feed properly, and a transfer of some of the obverse design to the reverse or vice versa occurs. It has nothing to do with the amount of wear or condition of the die. For that type of variety, go see the 1922 no "D" US cent, where the mint mark was accidentally polished off the die.

If by "human will" you mean intent was involved, I would say that is the rare exception for varieties. Most varieties were caused by die clashes, die cracks, and different die parings (back when many of the features were added to the dies by hand).

This example, from my collection, shows a 1926 Standing Liberty Quarter with a die clash (an "E" and an inverted "M" which are part of the reverse design are easily seen). While the coin is well worn, the die clash is still very strong, which indicates it was made when the dies were still in very good condition.

Following the definition
​A die clash is caused by the two dies hitting each other, when a planchet doesn't feed properly, and a transfer of some of the obverse design to the reverse or vice versa occurs.

, we have to conclude that the die clash is the result of usage of dies. It means, that it is demonstration of the spoilage of die(s), in other words of its/their decay, or as it was mentions already, in general, of its/their weariness.

There is nothing left for the variety in the clash. And it is good that this difference was explained in proper way and the explanation permit thinking people keep this very famous difference away from varieties. There are many other, who are ready to pay, just inform them that a coin in coinshop is interesting in a special, does not matter which, way.