Options
What's the procedure for naming a new, earliest die stage?
errormaven
Posts: 1,168 ✭✭✭
I've been collecting a series of 2000-P Virginia error quarters that fall into eight die stages (A-H). I've just discovered another error quarter struck by the same die pair that represents a die stage earlier than Stage A. What convention is typically used to designate a die stage that precedes what was previously the earliest known die stage? Do I call it Die Stage A-1? That sounds more like a brand of steak sauce.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
0
Comments
Maybe Die Stage Prime?
That may do the trick. But I was hoping that someone would already have created a system for accommodating more than one die stage that precedes the previous earliest one. Perhaps spelling it out, like A minus 1, A minus 2. Of course, if you find a die stage that fits in between A and A minus 1, that presents its own problem.
"Prime" is commonly used for the earliest known die state.
Lance.
Any way you do it, essentially this a "patch", and someday if the die states stablize,
you may want to renumber / reletter.
In Liberty Seated Half Dimes, I use no letter for the earliest die state,
and then letters a b c, etc. for later die states.
This might work for you.
For example:
1840 V-6 vertical crack only
1840 V-6a with one horizontal crack
1840 V-6b with two horizontal cracks
Someday, if examples are found with no vertical crack, then they would be renumbered to
V-6 no cracks
V-6a vertical crack
V-6b one horizontal crack
V-6c two horizontal cracks
Categorizing die states can be tricky, because the differences can be very small.
So it may be helpful to limit the number of categories to "major" die states (admittedly a value judgement)
to prevent frequent renumbering.
When I have done it, like on the 1838 V-10, I tried to have a substantial count in each category.
In Allan S. Gifford's Ultimate Guide to US Three Cent Nickels,
he had a separate page for an unclashed die state for every die marriage,
even though in many cases, no unclashed coins had ever been observed for the die marriage.
It created a lot of pages which are essentially theoretical place holders.
Interesting thread.
Thanks, this is helpful.
Can prime change? Prior to this discovery, Prime = "A", now it's "A-1" and eventually could be "A-2"...
I suppose that, philosophically -- the fundamental nature of knowledge, "prime" never changes. Only its example changes.
But I'm a little over my head here.
Lance.
Prime rib prime number prime real estate prime die state
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Not to hijack the thread, but this is a book I was unaware of...is it still in print?
The book was printed in 2003 and is not in print.
However, you can read it at the Newman Numismatic Portal:
https://archive.org/details/guideusthreecent2003gifford/mode/2up
If you are interested in this series, a few years ago, I studied die cracks
and other markers for 1866,
using online photos from auction sites and PCGS CoinFacts.
Gifford identified about 19 die pairs (a couple of these are general groups).
I identified about 52 die pairs with at least 2 example coins for each,
or 81 die pairs with 1 or more example coins each.
Gifford's emphasis was on RPDs, MPDs, DDOs, DDRs,
but I looked mainly at die cracks, which are plentiful and easy to see in photos.
For early half dollars, if a die stage is identified that is earlier than listed with Overton numbers, such as 1806 O.123 without rev crack - than it becomes 1806 O.123 Prime, or more simply 1806 O.123'. Usually the prime die stage is "perfect" from the first strike until something on the die is identified as the next die stage.
Using that system, the 2000-P Virginia quarter is die stage A Prime, identified as A' .
Eventually, the next author will have a new numbering system as Steve Tompkins did with 1794-1807 half dollars (1807-1836 CBH is in work).
The Tompkins die stage numbering is the best method I have seen, as it accounts for die stages on both the obverse and reverse dies. Tompkins uses "die stages" as opposed to "die states" as die deterioration can be a continuum with multiple interim stages. Die Stage 1 is always "Die perfect" for a new die, which could have a question mark if a perfect die stage is not yet identified on a coin. If one of the dies in a DM was previously used, then the last die stage of the previous DM becomes DS-1 in the next usage of that die. Tompkins has up to 6 die stages for a single die.
The 1806 O.123 that I mentioned above is now coincidentally 1806 T-23 (Overton got lucky on that emission placement) with the die stage listed in Tompkins as:
Obv
DS-1 Die perfect
Rev
DS-1 Die perfect
DS-2 Die crack TED through STATES
With Tompkins, 1806 T-23 now can either be DS-1/1 or DS-1/2.
easy, huh?
For half dimes, I like using names like
Obv 1.3
Rev C.2
to designate different die IDs and "major" die states ( ID.state ).
Along with V-number[letter] for the pairing.
I continue the die state sequence number across multiple pairings, instead of resetting it to 1.
Here's a complicated example (1839-o).
Obverse dies and die states in the rows, reverse dies and die states in the columns.
Dannreuther in his early gold book also continues die state sequence numbers across multiple die marriages, as yosclimber illustrated. There are some advantages to both methods, but either method works well.
The only disadvantage I can see with identifying many die stages on obverse and reverse dies is that it can become overly complex. With Overton, it is fairly simple with usually one or two major die states in a DM - although for a specialist that is not enough definition. Not that it matters to most die nuts, but the PCGS Registry will most likely always use Overton numbers for early half dollars by die state, as Tompkins die stages have too many possible combinations for some years.