How is this a mint error?

skamieniecki

Last I heard no 1898 Gold Eagles are being produced at the mint. So unless this was a hand fed employee produced error or made by Dan Carr, how does PCGS explain the "error"? Refer to PCGS cert number 48183803

LukeMarshall

The fingerprint kills it for me...

MsMorrisine

man made errors that occurred in the mint are still counted as mint errors

oih82w8

Makes me wonder if the one who planted this gold coin, before it was struck, actually received it back? I would image that the proof strike machines have a slower feed rate.

WinLoseWin

There are a number of strange 1970-S quarter overstrikes. Seems like one may have been confiscated from an auction by the government in the 1970's.

@Byers may have the some good info on those.

dunkleosteus430

The San Francisco Mint employees from the '70s are notorious for having made tons of blatantly unnatural errors, particularly proofs, such as this Ike struck on 3 dime planchets.

I don't think anybody's pretending they're legit, but they are pretty neat, at least to some people (including me).

MasonG

"How is this a mint error?"

It's not (unless you're willing to throw away the dictionary and just make stuff up) but some people like to pretend otherwise.

CaptHenway

It isn’t.

MFeld

@MasonG said:
"How is this a mint error?"

It's not (unless you're willing to throw away the dictionary and just make stuff up) but some people like to pretend otherwise.

Yet, that’s how the major grading classify/label such coins. I wish that instead, they’d use a term such as “Intentional Error” or “Fantasy Error”.

JBK

Yes, there should be different terminology for these. Maybe "mint shenanigans" or something similar.

MsMorrisine

"Mint Employee Made"

everything descriptive enough is too long to fit

MasonG

@MFeld said:
Yet, that’s how the major grading classify/label such coins.

Yes, I understand. But then, reportedly according to Abraham Lincoln: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?… Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”

@MFeld said:
I wish that instead, they’d use a term such as “Intentional Error” or “Fantasy Error”.

Probably not going to happen. Ask this question:

Which do you think people would show more interest in and spend more money on...

1. A manufacturing mistake that managed to escape quality control.
2. A novelty deliberately fabricated in order to sell to collectors.

and it's pretty clear why.

jmlanzaf

@MasonG said:

@MFeld said:
Yet, that’s how the major grading classify/label such coins.

Yes, I understand. But then, reportedly according to Abraham Lincoln: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?… Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”

@MFeld said:
I wish that instead, they’d use a term such as “Intentional Error” or “Fantasy Error”.

Probably not going to happen. Ask this question:

Which do you think people would show more interest in and spend more money on...

1. A manufacturing mistake that managed to escape quality control.
2. A novelty deliberately fabricated in order to sell to collectors.

and it's pretty clear why.

Idk. Everyone KNOWS, at least for certain errors, that they were intentionally made. They still drop serious coin on the dramatic ones.

I don't really collect errors, but I would rather have the clover leaf Ike than some run of the mill blockage.

The San Francisco Mint employees who manufactured these shenanigans were smart enough not to mass produce them. They end up being limited edition pieces of art, even if they aren't truly "errors".

MasonG

@jmlanzaf said:
Idk. Everyone KNOWS, at least for certain errors, that they were intentionally made. They still drop serious coin on the dramatic ones.

So there shouldn't be a problem with actually calling them what everybody knows them to be, then?

Moose1913

All of a sudden, I want some RITZ crackers.

Byers

@WinLoseWin said:
There are a number of strange 1970-S quarter overstrikes. Seems like one may have been confiscated from an auction by the government in the 1970's.

@Byers may have the some good info on those.

I bought and sold the gold Quarter. Then bought it again and consigned it to Heritage Auctions where it realized $93k. The new owner consigned it to GC.

Yes, it was intentionally struck. No one is pretending otherwise.

Featured in CoinWeek with some background info:

https://coinweek.com/the-gold-quarter-that-shouldnt-exist-1970-s-proof-error-heads-to-auction/

Byers

@dunkleosteus430 said:
The San Francisco Mint employees from the '70s are notorious for having made tons of blatantly unnatural errors, particularly proofs, such as this Ike struck on 3 dime planchets.

I don't think anybody's pretending they're legit, but they are pretty neat, at least to some people (including me).

Yes, this was intentionally struck as well. I consigned it to Heritage where it realized $105k:

jmlanzaf

@MasonG said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Idk. Everyone KNOWS, at least for certain errors, that they were intentionally made. They still drop serious coin on the dramatic ones.

So there shouldn't be a problem with actually calling them what everybody knows them to be, then?

Well...I think the problem is the edge cases. Everyone knows the clover leaf is intentional, and the gold quarter. What about the ones that COULD be intentional, but might not be?

I personally don't care. I don't think it changes the value one bit. As Mike Byers has pointed out, everyone knows the two coins I mentioned are "intentional". No one cares.

CaptHenway

@jmlanzaf said:

@MasonG said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Idk. Everyone KNOWS, at least for certain errors, that they were intentionally made. They still drop serious coin on the dramatic ones.

So there shouldn't be a problem with actually calling them what everybody knows them to be, then?

Well...I think the problem is the edge cases. Everyone knows the clover leaf is intentional, and the gold quarter. What about the ones that COULD be intentional, but might not be?

I personally don't care. I don't think it changes the value one bit. As Mike Byers has pointed out, everyone knows the two coins I mentioned are "intentional". No one cares.

Do not speak for me. I care.

MasonG

@jmlanzaf said:
Well...I think the problem is the edge cases. Everyone knows the clover leaf is intentional, and the gold quarter. What about the ones that COULD be intentional, but might not be?

If I was collecting legitimate mint errors and found out I had one in my collection that was actually made-to-order and not really an error, I would not be happy about it.

I recognize that not everybody would feel the same way.

JBK

The standard could be that an error is presumed unintentional unless it's obviously not, such as the clover leaf Ike and gold quarter. A tossup is considered an error. Tie goes to the runner.

jmlanzaf

@CaptHenway said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MasonG said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Idk. Everyone KNOWS, at least for certain errors, that they were intentionally made. They still drop serious coin on the dramatic ones.

So there shouldn't be a problem with actually calling them what everybody knows them to be, then?

Well...I think the problem is the edge cases. Everyone knows the clover leaf is intentional, and the gold quarter. What about the ones that COULD be intentional, but might not be?

I personally don't care. I don't think it changes the value one bit. As Mike Byers has pointed out, everyone knows the two coins I mentioned are "intentional". No one cares.

Do not speak for me. I care.

I think you misunderstand my point. You would pay more or less if they changed what they called them? My point is that calling them "fantasies", or whatever, won't change the value. Everyone who bids on them knows what they are.

jmlanzaf

@MasonG said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Well...I think the problem is the edge cases. Everyone knows the clover leaf is intentional, and the gold quarter. What about the ones that COULD be intentional, but might not be?

If I was collecting legitimate mint errors and found out I had one in my collection that was actually made-to-order and not really an error, I would not be happy about it.

I recognize that not everybody would feel the same way.

Sure, but who actually thinks the cover leaf and gold quarter are "real errors".

MasonG

@jmlanzaf said:
Sure, but who actually thinks the cover leaf and gold quarter are "real errors".

In my comment you quoted, I wasn't talking about those. I was talking about these: "What about the ones that COULD be intentional, but might not be?"

Some_of_it

Odd that we have not coalesced around a term to describe these. We are so good at nuance.

MsMorrisine

@Some_of_it said:
Odd that we have not coalesced around a term to describe these. We are so good at nuance.

when such are discussed it's usually said they "had help."

beyond that, my issue is what fits on the label?

Byers

@MasonG said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Well...I think the problem is the edge cases. Everyone knows the clover leaf is intentional, and the gold quarter. What about the ones that COULD be intentional, but might not be?

If I was collecting legitimate mint errors and found out I had one in my collection that was actually made-to-order and not really an error, I would not be happy about it.

I recognize that not everybody would feel the same way.

Each of my listings of intentional proof errors on my website ( mikebyers.com and on ebay) include the following information with a link to the video.

MsMorrisine

a slabbed cricket sold

these came from inside the mint

jmlanzaf

@MsMorrisine said:
a slabbed cricket sold

these came from inside the mint

True. And the cricket was also intentional.

gonzer

@jmlanzaf said:
Idk. Everyone KNOWS, at least for certain errors, that they were intentionally made. They still drop serious coin on the dramatic ones.

So there shouldn't be a problem with actually calling them what everybody knows them to be, then?

Well...I think the problem is the edge cases. Everyone knows the clover leaf is intentional, and the gold quarter. What about the ones that COULD be intentional, but might not be?

I personally don't care. I don't think it changes the value one bit. As Mike Byers has pointed out, everyone knows the two coins I mentioned are "intentional". No one cares.

Edge strikes and fold-overs come to mind for me.

johnny9434

@jmlanzaf said:

@MsMorrisine said:
a slabbed cricket sold

these came from inside the mint

True. And the cricket was also intentional.

Theres a pic of that floating around here somewhere....

WQuarterFreddie

Interesting how an intentional error is considered ok. This makes no sense to me.

I certainly wouldn't want one...

Moose1913

@jmlanzaf said:

@MsMorrisine said:
a slabbed cricket sold

these came from inside the mint

True. And the cricket was also intentional.

Undated PCGS Holder With Cricket Remains (From the Fred Weinberg Collection)

WQuarterFreddie

@Moose1913 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@MsMorrisine said:
a slabbed cricket sold

these came from inside the mint

True. And the cricket was also intentional.

Undated PCGS Holder With Cricket Remains (From the Fred Weinberg Collection)

In my opinion this qualifies as an exhibit at a Ripley's Believe It Or Not museum

jmlanzaf

@WQuarterFreddie said:
Interesting how an intentional error is considered ok. This makes no sense to me.

I certainly wouldn't want one...

Define "ok". They aren't illegal. People know what they are, regardless of what you call them: errors, intentional errors, exonumia, fantasy coins. They are collectible for what they are.