1861 gold dollar….guess the error

johnny010

Seems I’ve discovered an error on my 1861.

Photos posted to see if you can find/ guess the error.

may

Nice clashing.
Even though it’s pretty common for the date, it’s still cool and adds character.

johnny010

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.
Even though it’s pretty common for the date, it’s still cool and adds character.

Nice guess, but that’s not it. There’s a pretty large error on this coin.

RobertScotLover

I assume it is on the rev because that is the larger of the 2 pics. All I can see definitely is Longacre shelf doubling on the leaves, which unfortunately isn't an error. So I guess that I must be missing it

FredWeinberg

180 degrees rotated reverse

jmlanzaf

Guess my answer.

RobertScotLover

@FredWeinberg said:
180 degrees rotated reverse

I didn't know that they came with a medallic coin turn reverse, learn something new every day, thank you Mr Weinberg

johnny010

Here’s what I’m seeing

BERTY from Liberty. Wish I could get better photos but in hand it’s very clear.

johnny010

johnny010

@FredWeinberg said:
180 degrees rotated reverse

There is also slight die rotation, which I see one in twenty has this issue.

davewesen

@FredWeinberg said:
180 degrees rotated reverse

maybe 5-10%

how about heavy die clash reverse similar to this one?

dcarr

Heavily-clashed dies, but not a 180-degree rotated die.

PerryHall

@dcarr said:
Heavily-clashed dies, but not a 180-degree rotated die.

Agree. I think Fred meant a 360-degree rotation. Very neat coin and a very cool first year of the Civil War date. .

thebeav

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.

I think the first poster nailed this one.......

jmlanzaf

@johnny010 said:

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.
Even though it’s pretty common for the date, it’s still cool and adds character.

Nice guess, but that’s not it. There’s a pretty large error on this coin.

Why did you reject the clash?

johnny010

@jmlanzaf said:

@johnny010 said:

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.
Even though it’s pretty common for the date, it’s still cool and adds character.

Nice guess, but that’s not it. There’s a pretty large error on this coin.

Why did you reject the clash?

In hindsight I should have. I “assumed” @Ownerofawheatiehorde was referencing the standard “usual” clash marks and not the pronounced floating clash of the word LIBERTY.

Fair point.

johnny010

@thebeav said:

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.

I think the first poster nailed this one.......

Yes he did although I’d love to know if he noticed the letters. Either way, agree it’s all part of clashing.

CaptHenway

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.
Even though it’s pretty common for the date, it’s still cool and adds character.

You got it in one. I have no idea what the OP is talking about.

johnny010

@CaptHenway said:

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.
Even though it’s pretty common for the date, it’s still cool and adds character.

You got it in one. I have no idea what the OP is talking about.

See above.

I would suggest some clashes to be more desirable and valuable than others. Had this just been the standard clash lines known on these coins I wouldn’t be talking about it. To also have the letters BERTY visible is a different kind of clash which I feel was worth specifically calling out.

jmlanzaf

@johnny010 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.
Even though it’s pretty common for the date, it’s still cool and adds character.

You got it in one. I have no idea what the OP is talking about.

See above.

I would suggest some clashes to be more desirable and valuable than others. Had this just been the standard clash lines known on these coins I wouldn’t be talking about it. To also have the letters BERTY visible is a different kind of clash which I feel was worth specifically calling out.

It's still a clash. Clashes transfer design elements.

CaptHenway

@johnny010 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.
Even though it’s pretty common for the date, it’s still cool and adds character.

You got it in one. I have no idea what the OP is talking about.

See above.

I would suggest some clashes to be more desirable and valuable than others. Had this just been the standard clash lines known on these coins I wouldn’t be talking about it. To also have the letters BERTY visible is a different kind of clash which I feel was worth specifically calling out.

He correctly identified the error, and you said that wasn't it. It was.
If you wish to discuss the magnitude of the error that's another matter, but he did correctly identify the error.

PeakRarities

When I first opened this thread yesterday, thought I saw something odd above the bow, but I was struggling with those pics. I meant to ask you for close ups, and then I got distracted.

jmlanzaf

@DeplorableDan said:
When I first opened this thread yesterday, thought I saw something odd above the bow, but I was struggling with those pics. I meant to ask you for close ups, and then I got distracted.

Guessing games are more fun with blurry pictures

johnny010

@CaptHenway said:

@johnny010 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.
Even though it’s pretty common for the date, it’s still cool and adds character.

You got it in one. I have no idea what the OP is talking about.

See above.

I would suggest some clashes to be more desirable and valuable than others. Had this just been the standard clash lines known on these coins I wouldn’t be talking about it. To also have the letters BERTY visible is a different kind of clash which I feel was worth specifically calling out.

He correctly identified the error, and you said that wasn't it. It was.
If you wish to discuss the magnitude of the error that's another matter, but he did correctly identify the error.

To be clear I’ve already agreed with this point once. Thanks for pointing it out again. I still agree he got it right even if it’s unlikely he saw the only part of the coin worth discussing.

These nit pick conversations do get tiring.

JBK

@johnny010 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@johnny010 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.
Even though it’s pretty common for the date, it’s still cool and adds character.

You got it in one. I have no idea what the OP is talking about.

See above.

I would suggest some clashes to be more desirable and valuable than others. Had this just been the standard clash lines known on these coins I wouldn’t be talking about it. To also have the letters BERTY visible is a different kind of clash which I feel was worth specifically calling out.

He correctly identified the error, and you said that wasn't it. It was.
If you wish to discuss the magnitude of the error that's another matter, but he did correctly identify the error.

To be clear I’ve already agreed with this point once. Thanks for pointing it out again. I still agree he got it right even if it’s unlikely he saw the only part of the coin worth discussing.

Very possible considering that the photos in the OP were out of focus moonshots.

I sort of feel the thread was a bit of a set-up. But, no harm done. It is a nice clash despite things having gotten off track.

jmlanzaf

@JBK said:

@johnny010 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@johnny010 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.
Even though it’s pretty common for the date, it’s still cool and adds character.

You got it in one. I have no idea what the OP is talking about.

See above.

I would suggest some clashes to be more desirable and valuable than others. Had this just been the standard clash lines known on these coins I wouldn’t be talking about it. To also have the letters BERTY visible is a different kind of clash which I feel was worth specifically calling out.

He correctly identified the error, and you said that wasn't it. It was.
If you wish to discuss the magnitude of the error that's another matter, but he did correctly identify the error.

To be clear I’ve already agreed with this point once. Thanks for pointing it out again. I still agree he got it right even if it’s unlikely he saw the only part of the coin worth discussing.

Very possible considering that the photos in the OP were out of focus moonshots.

I sort of feel the thread was a bit of a set-up. But, no harm done. It is a nice clash despite things having gotten off track.

You mean you wouldn't have started with out of focus shots at a distance when you had close up shots available?

I think @Ownerofawheatiehorde should have gotten bonus points for saying clash rather than demerits for possibly not seeing the entire clash.

jmlanzaf

@johnny010 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@johnny010 said:

@CaptHenway said:

@Ownerofawheatiehorde said:
Nice clashing.
Even though it’s pretty common for the date, it’s still cool and adds character.

You got it in one. I have no idea what the OP is talking about.

See above.

I would suggest some clashes to be more desirable and valuable than others. Had this just been the standard clash lines known on these coins I wouldn’t be talking about it. To also have the letters BERTY visible is a different kind of clash which I feel was worth specifically calling out.

He correctly identified the error, and you said that wasn't it. It was.
If you wish to discuss the magnitude of the error that's another matter, but he did correctly identify the error.

To be clear I’ve already agreed with this point once. Thanks for pointing it out again. I still agree he got it right even if it’s unlikely he saw the only part of the coin worth discussing.

These nit pick conversations do get tiring.

Ummm... aren't you the one nit-picking? You said "no" because you thought maybe he didn't see the entire clash...

may

I admit, I did not see the “BERTY” in the first set of photos, but even still I identified the clashing, which was the error.

Here is the original set of photos from the OP that I rotated and flipped so that “BERTY” should be readable.

See anything?

may

In the future, try to crop your photos as it makes the images higher quality.

These two pictures are the same photo, one is cropped and the other is not.

jwitten

@johnny010 said:

@FredWeinberg said:
180 degrees rotated reverse

There is also slight die rotation, which I see one in twenty has this issue.

This is a common misconception with these. Most third party graders actually just put them in the holder slightly crooked. The bust on the front looks like it is supposed to line up like they put it, but if you look at the text left and right of the bust, they almost always mount it slightly crooked, which makes it look like a slight rotated reverse.

CaptHenway

@jwitten said:

@johnny010 said:

@FredWeinberg said:
180 degrees rotated reverse

There is also slight die rotation, which I see one in twenty has this issue.

This is a common misconception with these. Most third party graders actually just put them in the holder slightly crooked. The bust on the front looks like it is supposed to line up like they put it, but if you look at the text left and right of the bust, they almost always mount it slightly crooked, which makes it look like a slight rotated reverse.

You are absolutely correct. Davewesen’s obverse is illustrated correctly.

Rexford

Clashes aren’t errors

PerryHall

@Rexford said:
Clashes aren’t errors

Of course, they're errors unless you think the mint intentionally clashed their dies. They don't usually add any value to the coin unless they are extreme and are on a coin that doesn't normally have die clashes. Die clashes on gold dollars are very common so there is no added value in the case of the OP's coin.

Rexford

@PerryHall said:

@Rexford said:
Clashes aren’t errors

Of course, they're errors unless you think the mint intentionally clashed their dies. They don't usually add any value to the coin unless they are extreme and are on a coin that doesn't normally have die clashes. Die clashes on gold dollars are very common so there is no added value in the case of the OP's coin.

They’re a normal byproduct of the minting process. Die cracks and cuds aren’t intentional either, but they also aren’t errors. Even when they do add some value (like a flying eagle cent die clashed with a $20 die), they’ll be in a variety holder, not a mint error holder. In general, die-sided issues are varieties or die states, not mint errors. Errors are unique to individual coins and occur during the planchet production or striking process.

jmlanzaf

@Rexford said:

@PerryHall said:

@Rexford said:
Clashes aren’t errors

Of course, they're errors unless you think the mint intentionally clashed their dies. They don't usually add any value to the coin unless they are extreme and are on a coin that doesn't normally have die clashes. Die clashes on gold dollars are very common so there is no added value in the case of the OP's coin.

They’re a normal byproduct of the minting process. Die cracks and cuds aren’t intentional either, but they also aren’t errors. Even when they do add some value (like a flying eagle cent die clashed with a $20 die), they’ll be in a variety holder, not a mint error holder. In general, die-sided issues are varieties or die states, not mint errors. Errors are unique to individual coins and occur during the planchet production or striking process.

It is tricky. Some people might call them varieties rather than errors. I'm not sure too many people would put them in neither category.

Rexford

@jmlanzaf said:

@Rexford said:

@PerryHall said:

@Rexford said:
Clashes aren’t errors

Of course, they're errors unless you think the mint intentionally clashed their dies. They don't usually add any value to the coin unless they are extreme and are on a coin that doesn't normally have die clashes. Die clashes on gold dollars are very common so there is no added value in the case of the OP's coin.

They’re a normal byproduct of the minting process. Die cracks and cuds aren’t intentional either, but they also aren’t errors. Even when they do add some value (like a flying eagle cent die clashed with a $20 die), they’ll be in a variety holder, not a mint error holder. In general, die-sided issues are varieties or die states, not mint errors. Errors are unique to individual coins and occur during the planchet production or striking process.

It is tricky. Some people might call them varieties rather than errors. I'm not sure too many people would put them in neither category.

They can be considered varieties if they’re dramatic or unusual enough. But if not, they won’t be considered as either.

PerryHall

A mint error can also be a variety. The 1955 DDO is both an error and a variety.

jmlanzaf

@PerryHall said:
A mint error can also be a variety. The 1955 DDO is both an error and a variety.

Disagree. DD are native to the die. I wouldn't classify them as errors. But people are loose with the terminology.

jmlanzaf

@Rexford said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Rexford said:

@PerryHall said:

@Rexford said:
Clashes aren’t errors

Of course, they're errors unless you think the mint intentionally clashed their dies. They don't usually add any value to the coin unless they are extreme and are on a coin that doesn't normally have die clashes. Die clashes on gold dollars are very common so there is no added value in the case of the OP's coin.

They’re a normal byproduct of the minting process. Die cracks and cuds aren’t intentional either, but they also aren’t errors. Even when they do add some value (like a flying eagle cent die clashed with a $20 die), they’ll be in a variety holder, not a mint error holder. In general, die-sided issues are varieties or die states, not mint errors. Errors are unique to individual coins and occur during the planchet production or striking process.

It is tricky. Some people might call them varieties rather than errors. I'm not sure too many people would put them in neither category.

They can be considered varieties if they’re dramatic or unusual enough. But if not, they won’t be considered as either.

They are varieties even if not dramatic or unusual. Just depends on whether anyone bothered to catalog them, which is a different issue.

PerryHall

@jmlanzaf said:

@PerryHall said:
A mint error can also be a variety. The 1955 DDO is both an error and a variety.

Disagree. DD are native to the die. I wouldn't classify them as errors. But people are loose with the terminology.

An error can also be a variety and vice versa. One doesn't preclude the other. When the mint made the 1955 DDO, it was an unintentional mistake which means it was an error on the part of the mint. We'll have to disagree on this one.

JBK

As I recall, @FredWeinberg didn't deal in the 55DDO because he did not consider it to be an "error".

That aligns with my understanding of the distinction between "error" and "variety". Young collectors grow up in the hobby (as did I) hearing about the great 55DDO error, but that does not make it correct.

Rexford

@jmlanzaf said:

@Rexford said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Rexford said:

@PerryHall said:

@Rexford said:
Clashes aren’t errors

Of course, they're errors unless you think the mint intentionally clashed their dies. They don't usually add any value to the coin unless they are extreme and are on a coin that doesn't normally have die clashes. Die clashes on gold dollars are very common so there is no added value in the case of the OP's coin.

They’re a normal byproduct of the minting process. Die cracks and cuds aren’t intentional either, but they also aren’t errors. Even when they do add some value (like a flying eagle cent die clashed with a $20 die), they’ll be in a variety holder, not a mint error holder. In general, die-sided issues are varieties or die states, not mint errors. Errors are unique to individual coins and occur during the planchet production or striking process.

It is tricky. Some people might call them varieties rather than errors. I'm not sure too many people would put them in neither category.

They can be considered varieties if they’re dramatic or unusual enough. But if not, they won’t be considered as either.

They are varieties even if not dramatic or unusual. Just depends on whether anyone bothered to catalog them, which is a different issue.

Varieties by definition are die pairings or states that are considered important enough to be catalogued/named/distinguished. If every die state were a variety, then every coin would have its own variety, since at a microscopic level there is slight die erosion with every strike.

jmlanzaf

@PerryHall said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@PerryHall said:
A mint error can also be a variety. The 1955 DDO is both an error and a variety.

Disagree. DD are native to the die. I wouldn't classify them as errors. But people are loose with the terminology.

An error can also be a variety and vice versa. One doesn't preclude the other. When the mint made the 1955 DDO, it was an unintentional mistake which means it was an error on the part of the mint. We'll have to disagree on this one.

I think you're being too literal with "error". The variety/error distinction isn't rooted in "mistakes". A minting error occurs in the minting process. A variety is a die variation that yields thousands of identical coins. By your definition, almost all varieties are errors.

jmlanzaf

@Rexford said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Rexford said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Rexford said:

@PerryHall said:

@Rexford said:
Clashes aren’t errors

Of course, they're errors unless you think the mint intentionally clashed their dies. They don't usually add any value to the coin unless they are extreme and are on a coin that doesn't normally have die clashes. Die clashes on gold dollars are very common so there is no added value in the case of the OP's coin.

They’re a normal byproduct of the minting process. Die cracks and cuds aren’t intentional either, but they also aren’t errors. Even when they do add some value (like a flying eagle cent die clashed with a $20 die), they’ll be in a variety holder, not a mint error holder. In general, die-sided issues are varieties or die states, not mint errors. Errors are unique to individual coins and occur during the planchet production or striking process.

It is tricky. Some people might call them varieties rather than errors. I'm not sure too many people would put them in neither category.

They can be considered varieties if they’re dramatic or unusual enough. But if not, they won’t be considered as either.

They are varieties even if not dramatic or unusual. Just depends on whether anyone bothered to catalog them, which is a different issue.

Varieties by definition are die pairings or states that are considered important enough to be catalogued/named/distinguished. If every die state were a variety, then every coin would have its own variety, since at a microscopic level there is slight die erosion with every strike.

I agree. And that is why many varieties aren't cataloged. But they are still technically varieties as the die is distinctly different. Although, frankly, no one has ever really defined how big a difference is required. And they are starting to proliferate with all the early, mid, late die states as well as "tweener" states.