Are error coins a good investment?
timc67
Posts: 204
I was wondering what evreyone thinks of the future of error coins? Are they a good investment? For example: Off center pennies, Double-Dies, etc.
0
Comments
Doubled dies that are naked eye varieties are another matter. They could be OK if they catch on and IF there are not too many of them. If you need a 10X to see the doubling, it could be a lost cause.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Now when someone starts collecting the minor ones that are not in the redbook those are tough to sell because you usually have to find another person that is specializing in them. I also think things such as minor Repunched dates and RPM's are sometimes overhyped.
Bill Jones is correct about off-centers cents unless you are speaking of indian cents and items in that age group.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I would change "sometimes" to "often" Otherwise I agree with ya.
I don't think error coins, like any coins, should be bought with the idea of investment. A better way to double your money is to fold your money in half and put it in your pocket.
It also depends on the type of doubling. Technically speaking, hub doubling is considered to be a variety, while machine doubling is not.
We ARE watching you.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
GO TO:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2217917473&category=524&rd=1
For the most part, errors are either implied to be rare or they are not, based on the number reported and known.
Die varieties are different - since with die varieties we are talking about the footprint a die leaves on the coins it mints throughout its use, we can infer the number made by looking at a number of examples and studying the die state of the die, and assuming the number of coins minted by that die before the coin being examined was minted. Also, since every example of a die variety can be traced to the particular die that made it, we can much more easily catalog known examples and track much more easily the number known of a particular doubled die or mintmark variety. This is not possible with errors with the exception of particular die errors.
It is for this reason and the explanation of the answer that these terms ARE different and should be treated differently. Errors, die varieties, and varieties are three separable terms for different things that come out of the mint. To answer the question in the original post in this thread, rare errors are probably a good investment while common errors are not. Off-center coins are considered common, as are any errors that will fit into a roll. While some (especially older coins) will garner prices into the low thousands, the ones with price tags in the tens of thousands are always going to be the errors that are grotesque oddities that had to have come from bags or other secret sources and are never "found in rolls".
Die varieties and varieties are a good investment if they are known to be scarce, and this does NOT always mean the ones that are naked-eye visible. Some of the naked-eye doubled dies and repunched mintmarks are very common, while some of the lesser visible ones are very scarce to rare and command a hefty premium when offered for sale to the right market. A particular example of this theory in motion is 1972P-1DO-003 (DDO#3). It is visible with very small magnification and to the naked eye by those who know what they are looking for. It is common, and to those in the know, worth less than $20 in BU. On the other hand, 1960D-1MM-004 (RPM#4) is a very minor repunched mintmark, but is only known in EDS (early die state) meaning there were likely very few minted. When these are offered for sale in BU they range from $75-$150.
Another example is 1955P-1DO-002 (DDO#2) - while it's monster cousin, DDO#1, is offered in the thousands in BU grades, this much less obvious doubled die is extremely rare and VERY seldom offered for sale. I have seen one offered in 20 years in the hobby. If offered today, a 1955P-1DO-002 in GEM condition would likely bring a price tag into the thousands, even though they are far less visible than DDO#1.
A third example in closing - 1970S-1DO-001 is a very rare strong doubled die. It has lesser visible qualities than the big 1972P DDO, but more than three times the price tag. Reason - scarcity. Since we can trace all die varieties to a particular die, they can be much more easily counted. The only errors that this works with are CUDs, overpolished dies (3-leg), and other happenings to the die itself during its use. Brockages, broadstrikes, bonded coins, mated pairs, chain strikes, and other errors are not countable in this fashion because the very next coin minted by that die could well have been a completely "normal" coin.
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>First off, doubled dies are NOT errors. They are die varieties. >>
I disagree. Doubled dies are both errors and die varieties. How could you call a major mistake in die preparation anything but an error? OK, you can call it a “blundered die.” Either way we are dealing in semantics here.
<< <i>... while some of the lesser visible ones are very scarce to rare and command a hefty premium when offered for sale to the right market. >>
The "right market" phrase is key to your argument. Many times "the right market" is very very small, and if the coin is offered at a time when one or two of the big players are out for some reason, the price realized could be disappointing.
I don't advise people to invest in coins, especially if they are intending to leave the coins as a legacy for the kids. Quite often the kids don't care, and have no idea how to sell the collection after the collector has gone on to his final reward. The smaller the market and more difficult it is to locate and enter, the larger are the chances that that the heirs will recieve a fraction of the value of the coins.
If you insist upon investing in coins, go for the stuff that has a wide collector appeal.
<< <i>
<< <i>First off, doubled dies are NOT errors. They are die varieties. >>
I disagree. Doubled dies are both errors and die varieties. How could you call a major mistake in die preparation anything but an error? OK, you can call it a “blundered die.” Either way we are dealing in semantics here. >>
You can disagree with me all you want, but in that you are also disagreeing with Alan Herbert, Arnie Margolis, John Wexler, NCADD, ANA, and CONECA, as well as a whole host of others who do know the difference. "Error," as a term, does not imply that anything else is not "in error" - it is a term used for describing a particular family of oddities and does NOT include doubled dies, repunched dates, overdates, repunched mintmarks, and over mintmarks. These are all termed as "die varieties." You are getting the term used confused with an implication that the term describes anything "not intended." While die varieties are mistakes that were not intended for release as-is, they are not termed as "errors."
While in many cases I do not argue the truth, because like with your comment, a misunderstanding of terms doesn't really matter - but in this case, with the question asked, it is VERY important to KNOW the difference, because that difference can have a hefty impact on their particular market. (edited) Errors and die varieties ARE INDEED two separate markets...there are MANY people who collect one and not the other, and there are still others who collect both, but most know the difference. There are also dealers who deal in one or the other but not both.
I could go through a ten chapter examination of the difference and why the terms describe very different oddities, but it would likely be in vain, as many who insist they are the one in the same seem to be incapable of understanding the difference, or too bull-headed to listen. Talk to a wall as much as I like, but the point will never be taken. This statement is NOT directed toward any one individual, but after years of describing the difference, defining the difference, and trying to educate others on the difference, I always run into a group who insists they are one in the same, and no amount of describing can change that. I have learned to live with this fact.
Study the minting process, get to understand it, learn the terms and their exact definitions, and if you pay attention and listen to reason, you will understand why the people who use these terms correctly do so very carefully. While people may call a minivan a "car" in some cases this could cause more confusion than it's worth. Simply learning to call it a "van" is easier on everyone.
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>Even though I collect both types, to me they are both the same. They are both mistakes that should not happen. There are many different types of mistakes out there. What do you call a error coin that happens to be a variety error also? An "Error Variety" or a "Variety Error"? >>
Typically they are referred to by their die number and error type - a broadstruck 1972 DDO#3.
They are the same ONLY in the sense that they are mistakes and they were not internded for release as they are. I am NOT arguing that. They do have separate definitions that do mean different things. While in theory most if not all die varieties were made "in error" they are not termed as "errors." Period. They could "mean" the same thing to you or anyone else, but they are not the same by definition.
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>What will they call the waferd destroyed coins, errors or varieties? >>
As far as I'm concerned, "garbage".
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.
FURNACE FODDER.
Oh, and by the way, they are not "wafered", they are "riddled".
Jim
Another example is 1955P-1DO-002 (DDO#2) - while it's monster cousin, DDO#1, is offered in the thousands in BU grades, this much less obvious doubled die is extremely rare and VERY seldom offered for sale. I have seen one offered in 20 years in the hobby. If offered today, a 1955P-1DO-002 in GEM condition would likely bring a price tag into the thousands, even though they are far less visible than DDO#1.
here's a small picture of mine...its not "gem" only a ms-60 brown....never the less very rare. Text
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.
Varieties look just like the die that made them. So no error has occurred.
Errors do not look like the die that made them. So an error has occurred.
Furthermore, errors that error collectors collect are striking errors, thusly falling under S in the PDS designation, not D class errors which is die problems, but sometimes P class errors which is planchet problems but most of these are minor & of little interest.
So you could call a die variety an error but that is a sloppy term to use because it is too general & non-specific.
Kinda like driving a Lincoln Town Car & telling people that it is a Ford, if you get my drift.
But anyway, striking & planchet error coins are usually not good investments.
The major varieties as listed in The Redbook can be good investments because they are rare and popular with collectors & always in demand.
Especially since their recent inclusion in Set Registries.
<< <i>Are MAD errors or varieties? >>
MAD, assuming misaligned die strikes? Those are striking errors. They are errors only because of how the die was aligned when the coin was struck. Nothing odd needs to be on the die for this to occur, thus no die variety implied.
Die varieties CAN have a misaligned die, though.
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.
Errors do not look like the die that made them. So an error has occurred.
Some MAD errors look just like the die that made them. How can that be an error?
Some MAD errors don't look like the die that made them.
<< <i>Varieties look just like the die that made them. So no error has occurred. Errors do not look like the die that made them. So an error has occurred. Some MAD errors look just like the die that made them. How can that be an error? Some MAD errors don't look like the die that made them. >>
because this statement, "Varieties look just like the die that made them. So no error has occurred. Errors do not look like the die that made them. So an error has occurred." is not always true. Die error coins do look like the die that created them because the error is on the die.
As for the MAD error, the design might be the same, but the die was not created tilted off to one side as the coin shows...thus the coin does NOT look just like the die that created it. That's the only analogy that I can come up with that matches the statement, and it doesn't hold much water.
Here's the scoop...die varieties are almost always unintended flaws in the design on the die that was placed there before the die was put into use minting coins. Errors are flaws that occur either during the planchet making phase or the striking phase of the minting process. Die errors and striking errors are separated by whether or not the flaw is an inherent part of the die - something that happened to the die while it was in use. Cracks, breaks, CUDs, broken dies, split dies, and misaligned dies are all die errors. Brockages, caps, indents, broadstrikes, mated pairs, saddle strikes, ram strikes, die caps, and off-center strikes are all striking errors. Wrong planchet, wrong stock, clipped planchets, split planchets, and laminations are all planchet errors. Doubled dies, repunched dates, repunched mintmarks, over mintmarks, and overdates are all die varieties because the anomaly was punched or pressed into the die while the die was created or when the mintmark was applied, not while the die was striking coins. ALL coins minted by a die with a die variety carry the same anomaly, thus can be cataloged by die number.
Die errors are also cataloged by die number because it is a die that developed a flaw that could have happened after a normal die was placed into use. Thus, the three-legged buffalo. There is NO proof that this die went into production as a three legged die. It could well have had four full legs for the first 10,000 coins it minted, then someone polished off the leg creating the error. Since that die didn't necessarily ALWAYS create three legged buffalos, it must be assumed that it happened during the striking phase (die already on the press) thus it's an error....NOT a variety.
The 1955DDO was a DDO before the die ever saw a minting press. It was doubled while in storage waiting to mint its first coin. ALL of the coins minted with that die carry the same spread of doubling. DIE VARIETY.
These terms are inherently different for a reason....just like 'truck' and 'car' define similar yet different objects. They are not ALL cars because they have wheels and burn gasoline. If you told someone to go out in the parking lot into your car and get something for you and you described it as a red 1997 Ford, they would probably AUTOMATICALLY look for a Taurus or Escort....not the F-250 you drive...because A TRUCK IS NOT A CAR!!
Look...errors, varieties, and die varieties are separate markets into themselves. They are a subspecies of coins, not necessarily to be understood or liked (or collected) by all. Their markets are very small in comparison to other parts of the numismatic market. There are a rather small group of people who are really interested in that part of the market enough to really understand fully what makes them different and what makes the terms uniquely different. We don't necessarily expect that everyone is going to knw or understand them or what makes them different....but there is one thing that bugs ALL serious error and variety collectors, dealers, researchers, authors. That's the INSISTANCE of some people in the generalist part of the hobby to state that these are all one in the same because they simply don't understand what it is that makes them different. It just muddies the waters we are trying to clear up with education, posts on boards, web pages, books, magazines, clubs, and the like. One article by some nay-sayer in Coin World can undo ten years of work - just like that...and it really chafes my butt (along with that of many hundreds of others) when it happens. PLEASE - I beg of you that if you are going to use the terms, please do everyone a favor and learn which terms really do fit which coins. If everyone would just start using the correct terms, all the newbies coming into the hobby would have so much easier time understanding this hobby we all love.
I said some things in an earlier post that were offensive to some, and for that I apologize. I really apologize. I don't want enemies, I just want people to understand that the mainstay of my collecting and what will someday be the lion's share source of my income is "die varieties" and not "errors" and there really is a difference. There are others out there who say the same thing. It DOES affect our bottom line to have people out there muddying the waters by crossing the terms. It becomes quite frustrating to answer the same questions for so many years just to be cancelled out by someone else who doesn't really know the difference or wants to argue why the terms should define something they don't. I sometimes let that get to me and I rant, and for that I should beg mercy and learn to stop. So to those I offended, I am sorry.
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 am helping an older collector here where i live in disposing of his 19 century off center error type set
so far i have helped him with an off center chain cent off center twenty cent piece off center indian cent
off center trade dollar
in two of the above cases i did not get basically any interest from the pcgs buy sell trade boards for the errors
and for the error trade dollar on the ngc boards buy sell trade i got no interest at all
and by interest i mean cash buyers lol
so for me a thinly traded hard to get out of undercapitalized market for these coins
michael
Don't worry we all do it from time to time. I think as time goes by many arguments will happen.
Is the coin an error or a variety? Time will change, and the opinions will change in the market. In either case something went wrong in the process.
I found a Proof planchet error on a 2001 S penny, it has a defective plating error on it. It looks like a double "Spiked Head" die crack. According to Ken Potter at Coneca it is defective plating when he looked at the coin. It is a strange one because I have never seen a plating error go in such a straight line like this on a modern penny before. It looks like it enters his chin and exits the back top of his head.
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 understand. Even Bible scholars argue what the terms mean in the Bible these days in 2004 AD. People will, and have different ideas as to what the true meaning is. That is what makes us all different. Perhaps, they should just call them mistakes.
preparation or design differentiate one die from another as surely as a different date or
mint mark. Frequently these differences can be quite dramatic as in DDO's and/or quite
rare. Many circulating varieties have not been well documented or reported and in some
cases can be unknown in uncirculated condition.
Errors can provide some valuable insight into how coins are made and the physics involved
in their production. There are collectors for these, too.
Varieties seem certain to gain more interest as time goes on so higher prices are likely. Errors
are being released in far smaller numbers than in the past so they at least have the supply
side of the equation in their favor.
These are the large letters, small letters - large date, small date - type 1, type 2 - "reverse of (year)" - and other "differences," usually intended in one way or another, but also often unintended on different coins of the same basic type and denomination struck in the same year. They do not inherently involve doubling of any kind, but can be used as a "marker" in determining the die number of a die variety. For instance, 1960D-1MM-001 (RPM#1 cent) is a repunched mintmark on the large date variety Lincoln cent for 1960. It is a die variety in itself because of the doubling on the mintmark, not because of the large date. That is the "variety".
Three terms used to describe that which is different, odd, flawed, or an anomaly of some sort in some general area of manufacturing coins or the tools that made them. Error, variety, and die variety do describe very different and definable things that can happen at the mint. The more people understand all of these terms the more people can learn to look for them, profit from them, collect them, educate others about them, and enjoy them.
Added to post:
type or series - Large cent, Flying Eagle Cent, Indian Head Cent, Lincoln Cent, etc.
(subsets would be series changes such as wheat cent, memorial cent...sometimes considered different series)
variety - large letters, small letters, type 1, type 2, type 3, large date, small date, blunt 5, pointed 5, etc.
("type" is a confusing word used to describe a variety, but is a shorter word than saying "variety 1" "variety 2")
error - brockage, indent, cap, off-center, split planchet, broadstruck, double struck, broken die, struck-through, etc.
(subsets are planchet error, die error, striking error)
die variety - doubled die, repunched mintmark, repunched date, overdate, over mintmark, misplaced date.
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.
<<<Since that die didn't necessarily ALWAYS create three legged buffalos, it must be assumed that it happened during the striking phase (die already on the press) thus it's an error....NOT a variety.>>>
That is a Mint authorized modification to the die so that makes it a die variety. The Buffalo's leg was not removed during striking but during the repair & alteration of the die in the machine shop.
The three-legged buffalo is a simple case of an overpolished die that is commonly accepted as a "variety" but is actually none of the above. Die overpolishing would most accurately fit as an error because the die very likely did not start out that way. In 99.999% of cases die overpolishing would be laughed at if someone tried to get hundreds of dollars for an example, which is why I say it really doesn't even fit as an error - most would consider it generally uncollectible for what it is except in this ONE case. You are taking a misfit oddity that somehow gained popularity and attaching a well-refined term to it. If people want to call them a variety or a die variety to make themselves happy that they have a term for it that logically meets their needs, then that's fine. But in an educational situation it's irresponsible to do so.
The 1922 "no D" cents are the same basic thing....the dies were overused and wore out, thus we muddy the waters of what a "variety" is by including them in the definition because we have noplace else to put an anomaly that shouldn't even be considered collectible as such - because it isn't for all the other years in which the exact same thing happened. Only difference is the absence of any REAL Philadelphia mint cents that one year. Woo hoo...
"Poor man's double" 1955 cents are another key example. Die abrasion, not an error, not a variety, and certainly not a die variety. They are examples of worn out, normal dies that made coins with a bit of a shadow effect next to the last digit in the date. Again, the only reason they get a second look is because people once confused them for the real doubled die from the same date. I have dozens of examples of Lincolns from other dates on which the exact same effect happened, but they get no attention at all. A 1955 cent minted from a worn out die will bring $5-$10, though. Should we attach one of these definitions to it just because it is a misunderstood anomaly and sells for a premium? Let's just call it an error - no wait...a variety, that sounds good. No, it's a double die because it's double, but it's not a doubled die because it's not doubled. All of this erroneous classification ONLY muddies the waters and causes confusion.
Sure, accept it for what people call it, but according to technical definition none of these fit any of the three categories because other coins of other dates with the same problem don't sell for Jack - because they didn't have a misunderstood following. Because people want to attach a term to something that doesn't fit doesn't necessarily make it right. There are the rare cases of oddity coins making news in the hobby and becoming collectible because of that, but they are far less common than the hundreds of examples of the exact same thing that wouldn't sell for a premium on any day.
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.
In most cases die varieties in modern coins are either indistinguishable or so minor that few if anyone cares. The reason is that modern working dies are sunk from hubs and are almost always identical to one another.
<< <i>
In most cases die varieties in modern coins are either indistinguishable or so minor that few if anyone cares. The reason is that modern working dies are sunk from hubs and are almost always identical to one another. >>
Generally die varieties on later date coins are ignored just as the later date coins are ignored.
Some of these varieties are, however, quite dramatic. This would include a few of the doubled
dies and OMM/RPM's but also most of the "proof" reverse varieties such as the type "d" reverse
on 1977 to 1984 quarters and the late date Lincolns with "proof" reverses.
It isn't always necessary to have a dramatic difference for collectors to desire to have one of
each coin in any case. Just the act that varieties exist is sufficient to drive some to desire each.
Sometimes too few coins can be as bad as too many from an "investment" standpoint.
There have been some excellent posts on this thread and I hope mine doesn't seem gauche, however this post is on topic.
<< <i>I can attest to the fact that later date die varieties are largely ignored. Repeated exposure in the numismatic press is sometimes required for demand to reach critical mass.
Sometimes too few coins can be as bad as too many from an "investment" standpoint.
>>
Many of the best modern varieties have a huge range of availability all the
way from being struck by a single die to accounting for about a quarter of
production. Those which don't appear in mint sets can be exceedingly rare
even where substantial numbers were minted since many moderns were
barely saved in rolls or bags.
The '81-P type "d" reverse quarter is one of the tougher of these by production
standards since only several dies were used, but it will be one of the most
common ones because it appears in mint sets. About one 1981 mint set out
of 180 contains a type "d" reverse P quarter.
The primary reason for polishing dies is a die clash. Two dies hit one another without a planchet between them and transfer their designs to one another. The affected dies are removed and polished, usually with a wire brush or emery cloth until the lines caused by the transfer are gone. Often this completely removes small, shallow design elements on the die causing "missing" detail on the subsequent coins. This can happen at ANY stage of the die's life, and does not denote a die state in itself for that very reason. We could just as easily be paying hundreds for a 1945 "no vest" Lincoln, or a 1936S "No leaf" Mercury dime, but we don't. It just happens to be a 1937D "Three leg" buffalo. There are hundreds of cases of "removed detail due to polishing" across US coins. This single one gained fame. It's a very simple concept...it's not an error, a die variety, or a true variety. It's a rather normal process that somehow gained notariety and still sells for a very extreme premium for what it is.
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.
Varieties look just like the die that made them. So no error has occurred on the three legger. Even though they polished it off makes it a variety because it was not intended to look as such in the original design. The error was in polishing the DIE.
Dog says: What's the timeline that defines when a die variety is created? Is it limited to when the die is in the shop being prepared before it has struck any coins or can a die be modified or altered after it has struck coins, in effect creating a new variety? The design was changed, even if it was an accident so that makes it a variety.
Maybe the proper numismatic term would be Type. A change in the design creates a Type doesn't it?
I still maintain it would be a D under the PDS which makes it closer to a die variety than the general accepted "error" that falls under P or S but I think you said it best when you said it's not a die variety, it's not a variety, and it's not enough of an error to really call an error.
I think using "type" takes us even further into left field on this one, because a "type" is a major design change, i.e. indian cent to Lincoln cent is a type change.
Using "variety" is also not necessarily correct, because a variety notes a change in the design as hubbed into the dies, i.e. the different "globe" varieties in Ike dollars, or the "large date" and "small date" coins of various years and types. Using the term "type" to describe them is accepted but is mighty confusing considering we are talking about "varieties" not "types."
Toss into the mix that "varieties" and "die varieties" are similar terms but do mean different things, and we have a mess that I know is very difficult for many people to separate and fully understand, and with good reason. It took years of studying and talking to the experts before I could fully separate them and make everything crystal clear in my head.
As far as the three terms - die variety, variety, and error - go, there is no real place for the three-legged buffalo, the 1922 "no D" cent, the "poor man's double" or other abrasion or die age-wear-polishing anomalies that gained popularity through a general public misunderstanding of the minting process. These coins are simply "oddities" that just don't fit into a "technical definition" because their anomalies are so common in other US coins they are considered rather normal...it's just these few cases that gained the publicity.
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.
Seriously, the MAJOR doubled dies should be a good investment as they are publicized more and more. After all, they are just as easy to distinguish as any Mint mark is. And, most have MUCH lower mintages and MUCH lower survival rates than even the key Mint marked stuff. Think of how many of the major silver date doubled dies had to have been melted in the late '70's and early '80's-Roosevelts, Washingtons, Walkers etc. Also, there are LOTS of great varieties that have yet to make the Red Book but most certainly belong there.