Why does PCGS refuse to list clashed dies on a Lincoln cent slab?

Saam

Recently, PCGS refused to list die clash on a coin they certified for me for as a Mint Error. I have been a club member and a member of this forum for many years, and I don't normally put in my two cents worth but maybe someone else has had the same problem. Of course, coins with clashed dies could be sent to another company who would gladly list clash on their slab, but I would prefer to continue having PCGS grade my coins. PCGS does list clashed dies on numerous other coins such as nickels, dimes, quarters, halves and so on, so why not a Lincoln Cent? The only Lincoln Cent I have found that PCGS listed die clash on the slab was a 1977 proof. So, if PCGS "does not recognize the designation" as I was told, why did they recognize it for a proof? Seems to me, if you pay PCGS to certify a coin that has more than one issue (error/variety/designation) why not put more than one on the slab, especially when it is requested. Do we just get what they give us or does our opinion not matter? Case in point, the picture below is one of the coins PCGS refused to list clashed dies on. PCGS only certified this Lincoln Cent as "Broadstruck" although it was obviously struck with clashed dies and die clash was listed on the submission. And yes, I have emailed and talked to customer service on the phone numerous times but to no avail. Is it because I don't spend tens of thousands of dollars at PCGS each year or maybe I didn’t pay enough to have the designation put on the slab? Or maybe it’s simply that PCGS doesn’t want to be inundated with minor errors or varieties, so they let those go to the other third-party grading companies. "What say ye"

OAKSTAR

@Saam said:
Why does PCGS refuse to list clashed dies on a Lincoln cent slab?

jmlanzaf

@OAKSTAR said:

@Saam said:
Why does PCGS refuse to list clashed dies on a Lincoln cent slab?

I think the issue is multiple errors not the clash. They generally list only one.

Rexford

Clashes aren’t errors, they’re die states. I would assume it was only listed on the coin above because it’s a proof and thus produced to a quality that shouldn’t typically have die clashes - but it should have been labeled as a variety, not a mint error. Clashes wouldn’t be recognized on any circulation issue coin except in the very rare circumstances when it is specifically collected as such, because it’s a normal part of the production process.

Typekat

Clased dies on a proof coin are unusual and rare. On business strikes, meh.

jmlanzaf

jmlanzaf

@Rexford said:
Clashes aren’t errors, they’re die states. I would assume it was only listed on the coin above because it’s a proof and thus produced to a quality that shouldn’t typically have die clashes - but it should have been labeled as a variety, not a mint error. Clashes wouldn’t be recognized on any circulation issue coin except in the very rare circumstances when it is specifically collected as such, because it’s a normal part of the production process.

This is true (that die clashes are die varieties not errors) but this is one of those defects that appears in multiple categories. It could be catalogued as a die variety (Bugs Bunny Franklin) if it is popular and plentiful. It may simply be considered a die state of not catalogued. But some people (error-ref.com, e.g.) call them "die errors". YMMV

Saam

This was graded as an error with clashed dies

Saam

So was this

Saam

So, why not a Lincoln Cent?

jmlanzaf

@Saam said:
So, why not a Lincoln Cent?

Why are you drawing that conclusion? You have one coin. There could be half a dozen reasons, including simple CS error.

Saam

@jmlanzaf said:

@Saam said:
So, why not a Lincoln Cent?

Why are you drawing that conclusion? You have one coin. There could be half a dozen reasons, including simple CS error.

>
You just proved my point jmlanzaf. PCGS Customer Service told me they "do not recognize the designation" but they obviously did on the two Lincoln business strikes you found. So, why not my coin? I believe something's awry.

MedalCollector

I don’t think that PCGS has had a change of heart about whether die clashes are considered errors. The error collecting community has always considered them errors, especially on modern US coins where such coins are not meant to be released. And as previously posted, there are many examples already certified as such.

PCGS customer service tends to rely on the following logic: their experts have seen the coin and so the absence of a specific designation indicates that the experts did not think it deserved that designation. Many other forum members have reported the same logic given to them by CS when a specific die variety was not listed on the label as expected. Giving this explanation to callers allows them to carry on without actually having to do a deep investigation every time someone calls about a similar issue.

My guess is either there wasn’t enough space on the label to include both the broadstruck designation and clashed dies designation. Or, whoever wrote up the label descriptions didn’t think the clashed dies were important compared to the designation of the broadstruck error, which is the more dramatic of the two errors here. Often times, errors are much more complex than what is written on the label, and the label descriptions are generally kept very simple. Sometimes this can be a benefit to the cherrypickers.

@SullivanNumismatics may be able to help with this particular case.

Rexford

@GoldenEgg said:
I don’t think that PCGS has had a change of heart about whether die clashes are considered errors. The error collecting community has always considered them errors, especially on modern US coins where such coins are not meant to be released. And as previously posted, there are many examples already certified as such.

PCGS customer service tends to rely on the following logic: their experts have seen the coin and so the absence of a specific designation indicates that the experts did not think it deserved that designation. Many other forum members have reported the same logic given to them by CS when a specific die variety was not listed on the label as expected. Giving this explanation to callers allows them to carry on without actually having to do a deep investigation every time someone calls about a similar issue.

My guess is either there wasn’t enough space on the label to include both the broadstruck designation and clashed dies designation. Or, whoever wrote up the label descriptions didn’t think the clashed dies were important compared to the designation of the broadstruck error, which is the more dramatic of the two errors here. Often times, errors are much more complex than what is written on the label, and the label descriptions are generally kept very simple. Sometimes this can be a benefit to the cherrypickers.

@SullivanNumismatics may be able to help with this particular case.

The business strike examples holdered as Mint Errors above are labeled inaccurately as such and should be labeled as varieties, if highlighted at all. They are also outliers, and should not be taken as justification for all clashed dies to be holdered, nor as indication that PCGS typically holders all clashed dies. At best they may be justified by those particular clashes being very extreme. Clashed dies are otherwise very common. Examples like the 1864 2C are holdered accurately as varieties, and are done so because they are collected as such. Clashed dies are die states and are a normal product of the minting process. They are not mint errors. Mint errors are related to the striking process or planchets, not the dies.

MedalCollector

@Rexford said:
Clashed dies are die states and are a normal product of the minting process. They are not mint errors. Mint errors are related to the striking process or planchets, not the dies.

They were a normal product of the minting process in the 18th and 19th century, perhaps. Not so much in the late 20th century onward. And regardless of time period, I think that a die clash is no more normal than a strike error such as an off-center strike; both are unintentional and both occur because of worker error or out-of-tolerance equipment (typical of standard production variability). Whereas die surface deterioration and die cracks are inevitable, equipment that is working correctly all of the time will not result in a die clash.

As a collector of Mint errors, I used to classify die clashes as errors and didn’t even consider that others may call them varieties or die states. I now consider them both Mint errors and indicators of die state for specific die pairs/varieties. I don’t see the need to classify solely one way or the other.

If your argument is that PCGS didn't notate the die clash on the label because they consider it a die state rather than a Mint error, that is a possibility (though I’ve indicated before that I don’t think PCGS is operating this way.) If they are, I think that is unfortunate for collectors that want their modern die clash coins slabbed.

Most modern die clashes are not catalogued and do not have a reference number that can be put on a label (the work done so far on maddieclashes.com is spectacular, but their scope is smaller.) If PCGS won’t designate a major die clash on the label because they don’t consider it a Mint error, the coins will end up in slabs with no designation or attribution whatsoever, because they don’t have a reference number to list.

A major die clash on a modern US coin is a feature that deserves some sort of recognition on the label, and there are plenty of collectors, including the OP, that think the same way and are willing to fork over money for it.

Rexford

@GoldenEgg said:

@Rexford said:
Clashed dies are die states and are a normal product of the minting process. They are not mint errors. Mint errors are related to the striking process or planchets, not the dies.

They were a normal product of the minting process in the 18th and 19th century, perhaps. Not so much in the late 20th century onward. And regardless of time period, I think that a die clash is no more normal than a strike error such as an off-center strike; both are unintentional and both occur because of worker error or out-of-tolerance equipment (typical of standard production variability). Whereas die surface deterioration and die cracks are inevitable, equipment that is working correctly all of the time will not result in a die clash.

As a collector of Mint errors, I used to classify die clashes as errors and didn’t even consider that others may call them varieties or die states. I now consider them both Mint errors and indicators of die state for specific die pairs/varieties. I don’t see the need to classify solely one way or the other.

If your argument is that PCGS didn't notate the die clash on the label because they consider it a die state rather than a Mint error, that is a possibility (though I’ve indicated before that I don’t think PCGS is operating this way.) If they are, I think that is unfortunate for collectors that want their modern die clash coins slabbed.

Most modern die clashes are not catalogued and do not have a reference number that can be put on a label (the work done so far on maddieclashes.com is spectacular, but their scope is smaller.) If PCGS won’t designate a major die clash on the label because they don’t consider it a Mint error, the coins will end up in slabs with no designation or attribution whatsoever, because they don’t have a reference number to list.

A major die clash on a modern US coin is a feature that deserves some sort of recognition on the label, and there are plenty of collectors, including the OP, that think the same way and are willing to fork over money for it.

Clashes are definitely not comparable to strike errors like off-center strikes. If an off-center coin was produced in the US in the 19th century, it would have been considered a mistake and the coin would not have been released if caught. If a die clashed against another die, the dies would not be thrown out. Coins struck with those dies would also not be tossed. At most, the clash would be polished over if someone bothered to do so. It wasn't intentional or inevitable, but it was a given and accepted part of the process.

On modern coins the production process may be stricter and less prone to clashes, but again, they are die-sided issues, not strike/planchet-sided issues. That means that they are not one-offs like errors and can be grouped as varieties. If any such clashes are deemed important enough to notate on a slab, then they should be important enough to create a separate variety for (whether there is an existing reference # or not - there doesn't really need to be), and those coins should be assigned a separate PCGS or NGC coin number - like on the 2C. If they're not important enough to create a separate variety for, then they're not important enough to notate. And maybe the fact that no one has gone about creating reference numbers is indicative that they really aren't that important.

Rexford

@jmlanzaf said:

@Saam said:
So, why not a Lincoln Cent?

Also, looking at this post, there is clear inconsistency. The top coin is labeled as a mint error, and the bottom coin is labeled as a minor variety (as it should be).

PerryHall

A die clash is definitely a mint error unless you believe the mint intentionally clashes their dies. It's also a variety since every coin struck from this die will show the same clash. Being an error does not preclude it from also being a variety.

MedalCollector

@Rexford said:
If a die clashed against another die, the dies would not be thrown out. Coins struck with those dies would also not be tossed. At most, the clash would be polished over if someone bothered to do so. It wasn't intentional or inevitable, but it was a given and accepted part of the process.

This is exactly one of my points. Die clashes were an accepted part of the process at the 19th century US Mint, largely because process variability was much larger in early manufacturing and standards were lower. Each individual die represented a large amount of sunk time and expense and would considerably constrain output, if scrapped. They couldn’t afford not to accept die clashes that occurred. Late 20th century on, die clashes are not an acceptable defect. If found, the Mint will scrap coins that have them, because they are not acceptable per their modern standards and tighter process variability, and they can afford to do so.

@Rexford said:
On modern coins the production process may be stricter and less prone to clashes, but again, they are die-sided issues, not strike/planchet-sided issues. That means that they are not one-offs like errors and can be grouped as varieties.

On today’s high speed presses, improperly calibrated machinery can produce coins with the exact same off-center, broadstruck, or partial collar error in quick succession. These coins are indistinguishable from each other and are not one-offs. I would not consider these coins varieties, but they would be considered such with this criterion.

@Rexford said:
If any such clashes are deemed important enough to notate on a slab, then they should be important enough to create a separate variety for (whether there is an existing reference # or not - there doesn't really need to be), and those coins should be assigned a separate PCGS or NGC coin number - like on the 2C. If they're not important enough to create a separate variety for, then they're not important enough to notate. And maybe the fact that no one has gone about creating reference numbers is indicative that they really aren't that important.

I am in agreement with you still, that it’s possible that PCGS no longer considers die clashes as errors, and that is why it was omitted from the OP’s label.

Thanks for the discussion! I think we have veered a little too far off from the OP’s inquiry.

jmlanzaf

@Rexford said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Saam said:
So, why not a Lincoln Cent?

Also, looking at this post, there is clear inconsistency. The top coin is labeled as a mint error, and the bottom coin is labeled as a minor variety (as it should be).

Yes. As I noted earlier, the hobby as a whole is not consistent with how they view clashes.

jmlanzaf

@PerryHall said:
A die clash is definitely a mint error unless you believe the mint intentionally clashes their dies. It's also a variety since every coin struck from this die will show the same clash. Being an error does not preclude it from also being a variety.

That is too literal an interpretation of error.

And while the creation of the clashed die might have been a mistake, the creation of the coins with the clash marks was intentional and by design and not a mistake.

PerryHall

@jmlanzaf said:

@PerryHall said:
A die clash is definitely a mint error unless you believe the mint intentionally clashes their dies. It's also a variety since every coin struck from this die will show the same clash. Being an error does not preclude it from also being a variety.

That is too literal an interpretation of error.

And while the creation of the clashed die might have been a mistake, the creation of the coins with the clash marks was intentional and by design and not a mistake.

I disagree. Once the clash is discovered, the dies are normally lapped to remove the damage. An extreme example is the three-legged buffalo nickel. The mint employee may not discover that the dies are clashed until after many coins were struck and choose to let those coins go into circulation. Also, as the most pedantic forum member, I'm surprised that you'd have a problem with my literal use of the word "error".

robec

How many error designations are allowed to be put on an insert? If it is limited to one do you have any input as to which should be used?

jmlanzaf

@PerryHall said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@PerryHall said:
A die clash is definitely a mint error unless you believe the mint intentionally clashes their dies. It's also a variety since every coin struck from this die will show the same clash. Being an error does not preclude it from also being a variety.

That is too literal an interpretation of error.

And while the creation of the clashed die might have been a mistake, the creation of the coins with the clash marks was intentional and by design and not a mistake.

I disagree. Once the clash is discovered, the dies are normally lapped to remove the damage. An extreme example is the three-legged buffalo nickel. The mint employee may not discover that the dies are clashed until after many coins were struck and choose to let those coins go into circulation. Also, as the most pedantic forum member, I'm surprised that you'd have a problem with my literal use of the word "error".

Words have different meaning in different contexts. "Uncirculated" in numismatics doesn't mean never in circulation, for example. "Original surfaces" are often not the way they originally looked. Etc.

By your definition, most varieties are errors because they weren't trying to be different. Also using your definition, damage at the Mint after striking could also be called a "Mint error". When the definition becomrss that broad, it becomes useless as a means of distinction.

Saam

Thank you all for the information and comments! Your replies have helped verify that PCGS does list Die Clash on other Lincoln Cents but for some reason they chose to overlook the request to have it listed on mine. Guess the rest of my coins with multiple errors will now be certified by a different company. If nothing else comes of this post, hopefully other error collectors will now know that coins sent to PCGS might return with a designation different from what they requested. And, who knows, at some point PCGS might recognize this is a problem that needs corrected before it happens to someone else.

CRHer700

I believe that @joeykoins has a 2021 or thereabouts Lincoln cent with visibly clashed dies. I don't remember whether he had it traded or not.

ldhair

MFeld

@Saam said:
Thank you all for the information and comments! Your replies have helped verify that PCGS does list Die Clash on other Lincoln Cents but for some reason they chose to overlook the request to have it listed on mine. Guess the rest of my coins with multiple errors will now be certified by a different company. If nothing else comes of this post, hopefully other error collectors will now know that coins sent to PCGS might return with a designation different from what they requested. And, who knows, at some point PCGS might recognize this is a problem that needs corrected before it happens to someone else.

I’m sure PCGS isn’t the only grading company that encapsulates and returns coins with different designations than requested (or with none at all). Typically, the reasons for such occurrences are inconsistencies and/or disagreements regarding the requested designations.

oih82w8

PCGS lists this variety as RPD OBV Clash FS-306/401

davewesen

Did you submit it under the error service? Is it a recognized variety they include like those from Cherrypickers' guide?

Saam

This coin along with another one were submitted to be graded as errors and the obvious broadstrike and clashed die errors on each were noted on the submission form. After learning both errors had not been listed on the slabs, I discussed the issue with Customer Service and the only reason I was given was that they do not recognize the designation. Although I pointed out the coins PCGS had certified that did include the die clash error/variety/designation (regardless of being listed in a guide) they refused to add it to my coins. I did offer to pay their variety fee to have the die clash listed on their certification page for the coins and was told no. I also asked to be contacted by a supervisor, but one has not reached out to me. Just a bad all-around experience in trying to have something corrected that I believe should be addressed. Now, I am concerned on what they did with my next order, that is due for delivery today.

Byers

https://minterrornews.com/discoveries-10-15-18-discovery-coin-mule-die-clash.html

Junkntrunks

“One man’s trash is another man’s treasure “ . MS70 few and far between though none are really unique. Same with variety. Yet a truly “one of a kind “ minting error needs others to be attributed for recognition ? Buying into a value added situation is definitely dicey at best . There are a myriad of worse things to buy . Enjoy !

Shurke

For what it’s worth, I don’t think you lose anything by not having the clashes listed on the label. They’re interesting, but they take a back seat to the broadstrikes.

I can’t imagine the absence of the clashes on the label would affect resale value, if that’s a concern.