Misuse of numismatic terminology
coppercoins
Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭
I find on a pretty regular basis that people are misusing numismatic terms. Most of it is because they don't know any better due to being a novice collector, but plenty of times I have seen terms misused in published articles by those you would think know better - and if they wouldn't know better, at least the editor should.
This post will give those who have seen it a chance to set the record straight for the newer collectors in our midst. Post a term you have seen people confuse with something else, and explain their meaning to clarify things. I'll start...
The difference between an "error", a "variety", and a "die variety".
1. Error - a coin minted on either a faulty planchet (wrong metal, thin planchet, broken planchet, clipped planchet, etc.), with defective dies (die cracks, breaks, clashes, etc.), or in a malfunctioning minting press (double struck, broadstruck, brockage, capped dies, even machine doubling). In the case of planchet or striking errors, the error is often a coin to coin thing, and can very well be unique for that press run. In the case of die errors, since the error is on the die, every coin struck with that die after the point where the error occured will show the error. For instance, normal dies are punching away making coins...the dies clash. Every coin after the clash (until the marks are polished away) shows the hint of the other side's design on one side or the other of a coin...BUT...coins minted before the clash show no sign of the clash, naturally.
2. Variety - A small, usually intended change in a coin's design mid-stream through a year. Small dates, large dates, small letters, large letters, one curl, two curls, type 1, type 2, whatever. They are purposeful and intended changes to improve either the design or striking quality after coins have been struck for the particular issue. These are NOT errors, as explained above. The difference between a variety and a type is that types are obvious changes made and intended for a purpose, such as the arrows and rays on seated coinage, and the addition of "cents" to the Liberty nickel in 1883. Those are technically different types, while large date and small date 1960 cents are not different types...they are varieties.
3. Die Variety - A flaw occurring in the die making process. Doubled dies, mint mark varieties, date repunching - anything that can create an oddity in the form of doubling or a difference in appearance that is on the die when it is placed into service. These are generally (almost always) not intended, and are not expected to be noticed by people using the coins exhibiting the faults. The main difference between die varieties and errors is that die varieties exist on EVERY coin minted by a given die, since the fault was on the die when it struck its first coin. Given this fact, die varieties are catalogable as to which die they came from, while most errors are not. The exception to this is in die errors, where every coin struck after the error occurs is identifiable to the die, but coins struck before the error are generally not identifiable to the die since the error was not there.
That's my spiel. I've seen many other terms misused, but I thought I would leave that to the rest of you.
This post will give those who have seen it a chance to set the record straight for the newer collectors in our midst. Post a term you have seen people confuse with something else, and explain their meaning to clarify things. I'll start...
The difference between an "error", a "variety", and a "die variety".
1. Error - a coin minted on either a faulty planchet (wrong metal, thin planchet, broken planchet, clipped planchet, etc.), with defective dies (die cracks, breaks, clashes, etc.), or in a malfunctioning minting press (double struck, broadstruck, brockage, capped dies, even machine doubling). In the case of planchet or striking errors, the error is often a coin to coin thing, and can very well be unique for that press run. In the case of die errors, since the error is on the die, every coin struck with that die after the point where the error occured will show the error. For instance, normal dies are punching away making coins...the dies clash. Every coin after the clash (until the marks are polished away) shows the hint of the other side's design on one side or the other of a coin...BUT...coins minted before the clash show no sign of the clash, naturally.
2. Variety - A small, usually intended change in a coin's design mid-stream through a year. Small dates, large dates, small letters, large letters, one curl, two curls, type 1, type 2, whatever. They are purposeful and intended changes to improve either the design or striking quality after coins have been struck for the particular issue. These are NOT errors, as explained above. The difference between a variety and a type is that types are obvious changes made and intended for a purpose, such as the arrows and rays on seated coinage, and the addition of "cents" to the Liberty nickel in 1883. Those are technically different types, while large date and small date 1960 cents are not different types...they are varieties.
3. Die Variety - A flaw occurring in the die making process. Doubled dies, mint mark varieties, date repunching - anything that can create an oddity in the form of doubling or a difference in appearance that is on the die when it is placed into service. These are generally (almost always) not intended, and are not expected to be noticed by people using the coins exhibiting the faults. The main difference between die varieties and errors is that die varieties exist on EVERY coin minted by a given die, since the fault was on the die when it struck its first coin. Given this fact, die varieties are catalogable as to which die they came from, while most errors are not. The exception to this is in die errors, where every coin struck after the error occurs is identifiable to the die, but coins struck before the error are generally not identifiable to the die since the error was not there.
That's my spiel. I've seen many other terms misused, but I thought I would leave that to the rest of you.
C. D. Daughtrey, NLG
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
0
Comments
<< <i>But what would you call a clipped, double struck, double die, RPM small mint mark with large letters on the wrong planchet
Easy...it's an error struck with a specific die exhibiting a die variety. The fact that it's also a "variety" doesn't matter in this case, the die variety alone would identify the variety.
For instance - 1960D-1MM-109, a repunched mint mark, is on a small date die. You don't have to explain that the coin is a small date, the mere fact that it's RPM#109 states so in itself....to those who know their Lincoln cent RPMs, that is.
There are also die varieties that were created specifically by the accidental use of two different varities of dies....1960D-1DO-001, a doubled die obverse, was created using a small date hub over a large date hub. There also exists a 1970S proof doubled die obverse that has a small date hubbing over a large date hubbing. There are also three different dies of proof 1960 cents that have the same basic characteristics.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
I was pushing for errors one time, everybody thought I wanted die varities.
And then the big error dealers confuse everybody. I remember one time pmh1nic wouldn't believe me that a certian coin was really a die variety because Fred Weinberg had one listed on his website under "major mint errors". It was some kind of DDO with a RPM.
I mean it's really hard for a little guy like me to say the largest error dealer in the US, PNG board of directors member, attributer for PCGS etc etc is wrong and have anybody believe me.
Even at ErrorWorld 5 different dealers will give you 5 different definations of error vs variety. The real experts can't always agree.
See, I take issue with your post; die cracks, breaks, clashes are nor errors in my opinion but rather varities because they are a change in the die. I like a defination Mike Byers gave on this forum one time that every error coin was unique. Die cracks, breaks, clashes do not make unique coins but I'll meet you in the middle and say they describe die state, which is neither variety nor error and do not meet your defination <<varieties exist on EVERY coin minted by a given die, since the fault was on the die when it struck its first coin>>
Good descripition coppercoins and I'll like to add:
So now people are going to ask what is an off-metal, wrong stock etc? It's not an error my mine & Byer's terms because they all look like the die that struck them. It's not a variety by yours. It's a planchet error.
Collectors break errors down by class:
Planchet errors.
Striking errors.
Hubbing errors.
Die errors.
So what is a blank planchet
Why do they call all unstruck discs a blank planchet? They of all people should know Type 1 is a blank & Type 2 is a planchet and there's no such animal as a blank planchet.
A chopmark is a seal (usually counterstamped onto a coin) that shows a merchant, assayer, or other certified the coin was of the right weight and fineness. A dealer who sells lots of chopmarked coins advertised one as having "assayer's chops" (which are usually 4-character raised rectangular chopmarks), but when I got the coin I saw it covered in test marks (simple cuts into a coin to see if it was plated or hollowed).
Obscurum per obscurius
Ebay is flat wrong at listing "errors" alone, it needs to be "errors/varieties" but they rarely listen or care so we live with the section being what it is. Both, with only one of the two listed in the name of the category.
As for clashes, die cracks, breaks, etc. being varieties...that's simply against the technical definition of such. "Variety" denotes a change in the design on the die, not just change in the die. So a CUD is a variety too? I don't think so. They are die errors, simply put. Errors that occur to the die which transfer to the coins minted with the error die. I find it difficult to impossible to characterize a CUD as being the same thing as the two different reverse lettering types of bicentennial Ike dollars. One was intentional, another was a fluke - a broken die minting coins. One was a variety, the other an error.
I believe what you are getting at with "hubbing errors" is doubled dies - that's the only hubbing problem I can think of. Alan Herbert coined the terminology used to classify errors, which were not so coincidentally in synch with the three mints making coins at the time...P, D, S - Planchet, Die, Strike. There is no H for Hub in that. All errors fit within the three error classifications.
P - wrong thickness, wrong stock, clipped, split planchet, tapered planchet, unplated, etc.
D - die breaks and CUDs, die clashes, split dies, broken dies, etc.
S - double struck, chain struck, saddle struck, broadstruck, misaligned die strike, off center struck, struck through, indent strike, capped die strike, and a plethera of others.
Just because an error is minor, like machine doubling or a die crack, doesn't mean it's not an error. Sure, there are probably errors to some degree on most coins minted. The market, however, centers its attention on errors that are the more obvious ones - usually those that can be detected with the naked eye, and those that will not fit in the diameter of a normal coin are usually subject to more interest and higher premiums than those that will not jam a counting machine and fit into rolls (unstruck planchets, clipped planchets, filled dies, etc).
I'm guessing that we could argue this until we're both blue in the face and get nowhere. I am comfortable with the definitions I posted, which are my collective learning experiences and adaptations of what has been written in the guides used for teaching seminars through the ANA, through the writings of Alan Herbert, Arnie Margolis, and John Wexler. I am the web master and developer for Rich Schemmer's web site, and have edited a number of articles he has written on the subject. Rich is in the same league as an error dealer as Mike Byers and Fred Weinberg. And yes, I have read most of the books written on the subject, and those which are good books written by knowledgeable sources are in agreement with one another pertaining to the definitions I gave above.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
In mentioning hubbing errors the famous 55 Lincoln which was a hubbing problem does come to mind but it clearly falls under the D heading for die errors. I guess you could put doubled hubs under the D heading since they were 'dies' but then again they could fall under S but since they didn't strike coins I don't think that is appropiate. Might not even be applicable to this thread because it is hardly misused terminology since it is rarely used at all.
Where does coppercoins place this class of error?
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
On eBay there is a common tactic used by some sellers to list the 1972 master die doubling as a doubled die because it was referenced and given a die number (MD 5-O-I+II) by John Wexler and published in his 1984 Lincoln cent doubled die book. That idea was carried through to the CONECA master listing of 1994, but CONECA has since dropped the die number. 1972 "die#5" Lincolns have sold for as much as $10 each and $25-$50 per roll on eBay, and every time I see it I cringe - they are common as dirt. In fact, half of all 1972 cents including proofs have the characteristics of this minor doubling.
1957 cents often show minor doubling at the bottom of the word "GOD". These, too, are as common as dirt and shouldn't warrant any premium value. They were at one time listed as die #4 for that year, but have since been disregarded.
1960 cents show a minor amount of doubling in the E of "WE". These too should be disregarded - the doubling is on nearly all 1960 large date cents, including proofs.
They are all, however, considered die varieties: non-collectible die varieties, just as machine doubling and die cracks are non-collectible errors.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
But what I was trying to get across is that I wasn't talking about the 55 when I didn't put hub problems under the PDS classification in my very first post to this thread.
If I understand correctly the DDO 55 was created when the working hub shifted between impressions on a working die creating the doubled mottos & date. A variety or properly termed, a die variety as comparred to the other working dies that didn't shift and were normal.
I was asking what classification does the a coin fall under when the problem is created further back up the manufacturing line say for example the master die shows doubling from a shifted master hub impression and passes the doubled image to the working hubs which in turn pass it to ALL of the working dies then to the coins-thus it's not a variety because all the dies & coins show the same doubling so you have a doubled die that IS NOT a variety.
But when you mentioned the 1972 doubled master die my mind muddled more.
So how can it be a die variety when all the dies are the same and all the coins these dies struck all look exactly the same??
Now what confused me is that on one hand you say "die erosion" is nothing, but when the die sustains an actual crack, which seems logical to conclude is a form of erosion, it becomes and error.
I hope you realize that by categorizing a coin with evidence of a die crack as an "error" you are in essence disputing way more "professional" numismatists, than those whom you list as in agreement with your definitions - e.g., just about anyone publishing Morgan dollar varieties, (4 authors immediately come to mind), and none of the grading services identify such coins as errors (the big 3 do attribute errors and USUALLY by consultation and Byers doesn't work for all of them).
I give you your props on the work and effort you put in the hobby, but surely you can see how others aren't going to accept each and every opinion you offer as "gospel". Don't get me wrong; its all very educational, informative and good for the hobby - but sometimes. just sometimes, one should acquiesce in the face of logic and reason.
Actually, I guess I should have asked: Are these the definitions you are employing based on your beliefs OR are you stating these are the hobby published definitions. I guess I'm just trying to determine if they are your interpretations or agreed upon by amongst the majority.
I have a somewhat difficult time seeing coins struck with clashed dies and die cracks as constituting error coins. Yes, I accept bringing the dies together without a planchet is someone's error/mistake, but the resulting coin just has been accepted as an "error coin," nor have those with evidence of "die cracks." Is everybody else wrong and you're right?
First of all these aren't "my" definitions - I mentioned the names of the people who published all of this information and that it does agree. It's as clear as crystal if you expand beyond the boundaries of thinking ALL errors, varieties, and die varieties HAVE to have some value - they don't. Machine doubling is technically an error - whether the coin was struck twice in-place, scooted out of the chamber before it cleared the dies, or whatever, it was not struck and released as normal, and the evidence remains on the coin - that's an error, a striking error. It doesn't matter that hardly anyone would take notice of it, and it would be extremely difficult to get a premium for a machine doubled coin. It's still an error.
The main difference here is that die varieties and varieties are on the die before it is placed into use. Die errors occur to the die as it is being used. So yes, a die crack, although not generally collectible and nobody cares about them, is still an error. Much like it is difficult to get anyone to pay a premium for a minor die variety, and many varieties go completely unnoticed, errors can go without care as well. Just because they are classified as errors doesn't mean they have to have a market.
Here's one...you have a coin that has a huge ridge line running down the obverse, an obvious case of a die that split in two while it was striking coins. What is this? A variety? Nope. It's an error. And what did that error start as? Certainly not a small date, or a doubled die...it started as a die crack. A tiny, miniscule die crack. Is anyone going to collect the tiny die crack? Probably not, unless they happen to have found the split die strike first and are looking for a progression set back to the beginning of the ERROR.
Look....I'm not trying to hold an arguement session here. I was trying to clear the waters for the less informed collectors. I cannot accept, however, that a die crack is a variety. That's completely illogical. If a split die, broken die, CUD is an error, then so is a die crack. That's how the others usually get started. Go back to the top, read again, and you will see that I am still completely within the confines of the definitions I posted that I have read time and time again from the likes of Arnold Margolis, John Wexler, and Alan Herbert.
A die variety and/or a variety starts on the die before producing coins. A die variety is usually unintended and generally shows some sort of doubling on the die. Repunched dates, overdates, over mint marks, repunched mint marks, doubled dies. Some blunder that happened on the die and they let it pass. ALL coins minted with that die have those characteristics. A variety is intended and is a change of design features, most of the time very modest, within a single year of striking. I gave the 1976 Ike reverse letter types as an example. It is very obvious that there are examples that have serif letters and examples that have sans-serif letters. THAT is a "variety".
An error is something that happens either during the planchet making process or during the striking process. Striking errors and die errors occur during the same process, the difference is between whether it is the die that is malfunctioning or the press that is malfunctioning. Since die cracks are not hubbed into the die, intentionally or unintentionally, they are not die varieties nor varieties. They are errors, non-collectible generally.
This is my final post on the subject. I see no sense in arguing if you don't agree. I did not intend on starting arguements here, it was an informative post, and yes, I have read the books and referred to them again and again. I do know what they say, and have spoken personally with all of the authors mentioned above among others who do know the differences and have set me completely clear on them.
As for the die erosion - a completely natural process of a die when it strikes the hundreds of thousands of coins they generally strike. It develops flow lines due to the pressure, and those flow lines eat away at the devices. No reason to call it an error. Is an old book an error because it has brittle, yellowed pages? Nope. Same thing. It's a simple matter of die age.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
<< <i>cool thread, thanks for the info copper. >>
You're welcome. I hope it cleared things up for you, if it wasn't clear already.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
DIE
Cheers,
Bob
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
<< <i>Does the press operator immediately stop the press and change the die(s) for a die crack? I don't think so. >>
I don't think so either, and never stated so. Many different collectible errors start out as very minor non-collectible errors. That's my point. They typically don't change out the dies unless they become unusable, thus there are MANY coins out there with die cracks on them. They are common as dirt - but that doesn't make them non-errors. A small dent in your fender doesn't preclude you from driving your car - but it's still a dent - the car is still wrecked in the sense that it's no longer what came from the factory.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
all the known errors, varieties, states, mistakes and known individual coins. Until re-
cently most of the attempts at a coherent system left most unsatisfied. The system
in use currently does seem to fit the universe being described quite well. There are
some terms which would be easy to quibble with, but the most important function of
any such system is to facilitate communication and understanding. So while this term-
inology may well stand a little "tweeking" it does make an excellent vocabulary for de-
scribing coins and I intend to try to learn it.
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
My point - "errors", except for die errors, cannot be attributed to a die, unless the error happens to have occurred on a die exhibiting a die variety (i.e., a clipped planchet doubled die). Even at that it is impossible to come close to a count of just how many of a perticular error there are out there. Are there 50 1978D 5% clipped cents from K-12 or are there 50,000 of them? How can one attach a value to something that can't be counted, even approximately? That area of error collecting not only confuses me, but turns me away from them completely. In that, I find myself constantly having to explain to people that what I collect and study are die varieties, not errors. Then the next week I get a Coin World in the mail with ads and articles saying something to the effect of, "double die errors". This is a misnomer, and makes the world a more difficult place for anyone trying to understand them or trying to teach about them. If we can't get the people publishing books and periodicals to understand the difference, how could we possibly get the people trying to collect them to understand the difference?
I do not collect errors, and I know a lot of other people who do collect die varieties and do not collect errors. I know a lot of people who collect errors and do not collect die varieties. Rich Schemmer sells errors, and very rarely handles die varieties. I study die varieties and have only a small handful of errors in my collection - I simply don't like them. Running a web site about die varieties, I often end up having to field questions about errors - to which I usually reply that I don't collect or study errors, so I am on shaky ground trying to educate about them. Then I end up having to explain the whole minting process to get the people to understand that errors are not die varieties and vice versa. As a side note, one RPM specialist I know who used to be an attributor for one of the major clubs considers errors "mint floor scrap metal". One of the error collectors I know calls die variety collecting "flyspeck analysis". Neither are right or wrong, but they are collecting completely different animals.
Bottom line - except for die errors, errors cannot be classified by anything other than type. Because die varieties are on the die when it is placed into use, reading the die state of the die and approximating the number of coins struck before the die reached that point in age allows one to know approximately how many of that die variety exist. Delma K. Romines was the first to study "die state" and wrote a rare and detailed analysis of die state and how many coins are struck for each die state of each die in each denomination, and I happen to have a copy of it with original snapshots included. It is with this study, an understanding of the minting process, years of study, and years of experience that I can say there is indeed a way of determining not only to what die a specific die variety can be attributed but also approximately how many were struck. It is this "order" that I enjoy collecting them, and one of the major reasons why I don't deal with or care about errors....which brings me to the concluding point. Errors, varieties, and die varieties are different - like it or not, understand it or not. That they are different, and that there are concrete classifications for each oddball coin that comes out of the mint is the reason why I write this manifesto. If this helps one person to better understand the whole thing, it was worth it. But I beg of those who differ to look into the writings of the poeple who have been to the mint, who have researched mint records, and have written logically about their findings. Once it clicks into place there is no misunderstanding, there is no gray area. I did not pull this out of thin air, I have been dealing with it on a daily basis for over 15 years.
The general misunderstanding of what these separate things are is being fed by publications and writers in those publications who are finally fed up with trying to get people to understand the differences. Because so many people have misused and misunderstood the differences, the "experts" are beginning to throw their hands up in the air and allow the people who don't understand to redefine the terms and muddy the waters. Ken Potter once wrote that there is a difference, but cross-use of the terms and definitions has caused a general acceptance of one for the other. I don't like that, and there are many others who don't like that. It would be the sme thing as putting hard times tokens, Civil War tokens, tax tokens, and transportation tokens in the same category with one another because they all include the word "token"...It's clearly wrong, they are clearly different things, and have very different markets, listing structures, and collectors. For those who do collect Civil War Tokens alone, how would you like for people to e-mail you daily asking about plastic mil tax tokens, expecting that you would know about them because you collect "tokens"? How would you like to read in Coin World about how they are all the same, blah, blah? It's wrong. Just wrong. Anyhow, someone will make it to this point in this post and understand. Thanks.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
untill my wings fell off.
Camelot
You're right. We are arguing semantics, which is exactly what I was trying to point out and I believe this particular statement evidences it:
Yes, I accept bringing the dies together without a planchet is someone's error/mistake, but the resulting coin just hasn't been accepted as an "error coin," nor have those with evidence of "die cracks." Is everybody else wrong and you're right?
The only way to avoid the "semantical" argument IS by identifying error coins that are considered collectible as errors, otherwise most coins are probably errors, as your definition would encompass each coin with a mispositioned mintmark and/or date, die scratch or gouge, overpolished die (which by the way, during the minting of Morgan dollars, the dies were routinely checked during striking to preclude any noticeable differences), alignment dashes and/or marks, and a whole host of other "pecularities" that are die unique, particularly in the Morgan silver dollar series. I'm sure the definitions can be tailored based on the series in question, so I guess I was merely trying to diplomatically say what Cladking said, and hope you might see that such a hard and fast "rule" may not always be applicable.
I also believe that "numismatically" speaking, an "error coins" ARE delineated by their collectibility -- those very same "specialists" you mention don't bother with nor list "machine doubled" coins, which I believe we all agree are examples of a striking error. How can one be an "error coin specialist" if THOSE errors are of no consequence. I would say that is proof "error coins" are delineated by their collectibility (value) NUMISMATICALLY speaking. But, as you said, this WILL be my last post to this thread -- it is apparent that I am not going to change your mind. I simply posted again so that it was also apparent that other opinions may be as logical and worthy of consideration.
One thing I (even larger capital) have learned is, almost everything in this hobby is does not apply to every series. But there is room for multiple views.
These get excessively complicated and the only reference for them apparently
got all the obverse pictures mixed up with the wrong reverses. Many of the rec-
ords of when orders were made are lost and it can be difficult to be sure what is
a variety and what is an error even if you use a system which is coherent. Keep
in mind that for many of these tokens it will be almost impossible to locate another
specimen and the grades often vary widely even when another is found.
<<<So how can it be a die variety when all the dies are the same and all the coins these dies struck all look exactly the same??<<<
If the same working die with doubling originating from the hub or master die was used for different years & mints along newer working dies from a modified or new hub it certianly fits into the die variety catagory.
But if the doubled master die creates dies & coins for an entire year & mint is it still classified as a die variety or is it then classified as a normal die? Like most collectors I consider a die variety to have a fault that makes it different from other coins minted from a particular mint in that same particular year.
References to Lincoln cents do not answer my question unless coppercoins is saying that ALL cents from 1972 show doubling since the doubling was on the hub. If ALL 1960D are doubled then my question is answered. If not all are doubled then it clearly is a die variety and I fully understand that much.
If Gilbert is willing to continue this discussion then maybe he can provide some insight into this. I know Gilbert understands what I'm asking. Only 2 cases of hub doubling are known in the entire Morgan series: The III2 Morgan has doubling from the master hub but this does not make it a die variety according to Morgan authors & experts. Entire various year & mint runs have this doubling. So is this an error, die variety or normal die not worthy of mention? Where does it fit in the PDS error designation? Does PDS apply to these Morgans?
Or take the C4, some years and mint runs have it exclusively while others have it mixed in with other reverses of the same year & mints. This is a die variety for years 1900, 01, 02, 03 but in 1904 it ceases to be a die variety and is a normal die.
Do these fall under the PDS system or are they just misc hubbing characteristics or am I trying to classify something that can not be classified or am I overlooking the obvious because these error & variety terms confuse me just as much as the next guy??
As for what you are asking, I understand completely. ALL 1957 cents have the doubling I mentioned. ALL 1960 cents have a degree of the doubling mentioned. There's a run of minor doubling on Jefferson nickels that lasted over 20 years. The answer goes more than one way depending on who you listen to.
John Wexler and NCADD have always listed the doubling with a die number. CONECA used to, but that's because John Wexler was running the show. When John left and James Wiles took over, James got rid of the master die listings (after a number of years).
Where I stand on this is that it is hub doubling, but does not deserve a place in collectibility and cannot be assigned a die number, simply because all of the dies have it, are ya gonna list them all? Nope!
It is, technically anyway, a die variety by definition. But it's not collectible and it's not valuable.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
Dog97, you set me up
Are you asking if a master die is doubled (MDD - I think) would it be considered a die variety presupposing that there is only the one master die, and the doubling is present thru the whole year of minting, right? hmmmmm
I would think, strictly speaking that since there isn't a design change WITHIN THE SERIES (I suppose that would result in a "type" change), and the dies before and after will not (should not) exhibit doubling, one could safely consider it a die variety. I also believe there are a couple examples of MDD in the Jefferson series (war nickels), but I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe them as a die variety, only that they are "master die doubled" and not meriting a premium, so ... I suppose there is a camp that would consider them normal for those years, and I can except that too.
Looks like you found that obscure, but persuasive example that illustrates the need for flexibility. Great example!
Just like evey single 82-CC Morgan ever minted is a die variety because of hub doubling in UNIM but nobody collects them for that 'error' so I really don't need to worry about the PDS system but if I were then the D would be proper instead of trying to put them in my own MISC error catagory.
Sorry for the confusion but I was confused!