Options
Mankiller Quarter Error—what type of error is this?
P0CKETCHANGE
Posts: 2,259 ✭✭✭✭✭
Someone on Reddit posted a photo of this quarter, which appears to have a mint error that impacted the metal flow during striking as you can see the weakness in strike around the rims on both sides. What kind of error is this, and any guesses as to ballpark value?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
5
Comments
Possibly a retained cud. The reduced strike pressure on the reverse points to this. Better photos are needed to confirm.
MK got it right – it’s a major and dramatic retained cud – I believe a few have been sold on eBay.
I think the last one brought over $300 but you should check it out
Darn nice find!
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
because of the image i was thinking MAYBE also it could be a delamination but there is corresponding weakness at k6 reverse in-line with retained cud. heck of a find!
value will be directly correlated to how many come to light but new finds will always garner interest and excitement.
if it were me, i'd keep an eye out to see how many others pop up. likely some will and probably not sell right away unless someone made an offer i couldn't refuse.
wow, very nice find.
What a cool ultra modern error coin.
Very nice.
FWIW I thought it was a retained cud as well.
I wonder how long the die failure continued before being caught and if a full cud exists.
Looks like it got worse from the photos in this ebay listing—there is a major die crack on the reverse on it.
Thanks to @MarkKelley for the diagnosis and @FredWeinberg for confirming. I'll let the user who posted this on Reddit know they have something special.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
You rarely see retained cuds with that much vertical spread. I wonder if it ever progressed to a full die break (cud). On modern coins, large cuds are extremely rare.
Agree it’s super cool! But I thought cuds were varieties and not errors?
I like to think of cuds as errors too but it was explained to me that errors are when something happens to the planchet/coin per striking while varieties are when something happens to the die and multiple strikings.
It is an error. The die broke. The mint did not intend to strike this coin this way.
Many but not all varieties are also error coins.
That’s good reasoning, and one I’ve used myself before, but I don’t think the TPGs see it that way. Are die failures given “Mint Error” standing at TPGs?
I am positive that that coin would receive a mint error designation by the TPG's if paid for.
It would be great to find one, because people have been telling me this for a while. Do you know of one?
I don't know what is or is not an error. However, there are retained cuds that are straight graded and part of a variety or similar.
Note: the error reference will list many things as errors that are routinely seen as just part of a coin. So from this source there are many errors floating around (millions) that nobody will pay to have graded as an error. And then as noted above will the TPG grade them as such if paid for.
https://www.error-ref.com
If you look on this 'page' about die errors you will see many common items (clash, rust, wear, breaks, die cracks...)
https://www.error-ref.com/part_iv__die_errors/
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
I just found two on the bay!
Now I know how to get some examples when I'm told die breaks are varieties and not errors
This one looks like like it's legitimately cataloged as a Mint Error by our hosts.
This one looks like the left coin may have been cataloged as an Error as it is associated with the right coin in a multi-coin holder.
Nice example @ErrorsOnCoins!
I found the discussion on this thread which I just replied to. Feel free to reply as well
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13293811/#Comment_13293811
Even die cracks are (minor) errors and will labeled as such if you want to pay for it ...
Good to know!
Please post in other thread to support!
There was/is a semi-recent thread where someone had a ASE (as I recall) with a clash mark (large clash) and graded as an error. Errors are perhaps the most common of numismatic items if going by the reference.
https://www.error-ref.com
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
Found one (ASE clash error graded) at GC (previously sold)
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/994513/Mint-Error-2016-1-American-Silver-Eagle-Clashed-Dies-NGC-MS-69
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
@Zoins
There are competing definitions for what is an "error" and there are often inconsistencies. If you call a die break an error, you could just as easily call a doubled die an error, and yet the TPGs do not designate doubled dies as errors (as far as I'm aware).
It's true there are competing definitions, but PCGS does label die cracks as Mint Errors. In addition to the PCGS 1997-P Kennedy posted above by @ErrorsOnCoins posted, here's a 2006-S quarter, also posted by @ErrorsOnCoins:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12421292/#Comment_12421292
The other thing is that error expert John A. Wexler of "Wexler's Die Varieties" does designate doubled dies as errors.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13293811/#Comment_13293811
Has anyone sent in a three legged buffalo nickel and paid for the error designation "Over Polished Dies"
I wouldn't be surprised if they had. This speaks to my point, as well. It would be nice to have a tight definition of "error" that did not overlap/conflict with die varieties. Further, to have a definition along the lines of, "an error is A, B, and C, except for X, Y and Z" is needlessly complicated and confusing.
It's by no means fatal to the hobby - people will continue to collect neat coins because they are neat, regardless of whether they are an error or a die variety - nevertheless, it would be nice to have definitions that are consistent.
Now that is a dramatic retained cud. Would love to find one like that. I am not an error collector, but I will keep one's I find. Cheers, RickO
here is a complete label fail .....
Wow the one in that link is very dramatic, and with a major bisecting die crack on the reverse!
That is a coin I can get into.
Collector, occasional seller
That quarter should be known as the Wilma Diekiller.
Coincidentally, an article popped up yesterday about more of these retained cud errors being found by a YN roll hunting in Florida. Keep an eye out, folks!
https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/ten-year-old-finds-cud-error-mankiller-quarters
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Now that a few months have passed, how common are these?
I found the following two articles on this:
The Paul Gilkes article indicates that the coins were found by Clark Davis, a YN from Florida. Is Clark the author of the "My best coin find ever" blog article?
A quick search on eBay shows at least five examples currently for sale. They seem to be selling (actual sold listings) in the $300-$500 range.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I found this WM quarter roll hunting
MAN! Those are sure some KILLER errors on the Mankiller Quarter
Pete
Isn't "Over Polished Dies" also on the die, and not per-coin, so not an error?
It will be interesting to see if this one sells.