Die State v. Die Stage

IGWT

A thread by Longacre and Dorkkarl's post in that thread prompt this question on the different meanings of "die state" and "die stage." I think of "die state" relative to the life span of a die, giving us the terms early die state, middle die state, and late die state. I think of "die stage" as the point at which a die exhibits changes without regard to whether they occurred early or late in the life of a die. For example, a clash can occur at any point over the course of a die's life; so, while that clash (die stage) can be used as diagnostic for determining die state, it doesn't qualify as a die state itself. The concept holds true but is a bit more difficult to explain using die cracks as an example.

I don't know if I'm right or wrong in my thinking. I do know, however, that some numismatists use the terms interchangeably, and others cringe when they do. The definitions on the PCGS "Lingo" page confuse more than clarify IMHO. What do you think is the proper meaning for each term (or do they mean the same thing to you)?


Edited to add: I didn't notice that Longacre's thread was started 2 years ago.

Barndog

here's what the PCGS Lingo says, to make answers easier:

die stage
There are two definitions for this term. One, many numismatists use it as a synonym for "die state." Two, some numismatists use the term "die stage" to refer to the specific status of a certain die state. For instance, in die state XYZ this coin exhibits a large cud at six o'clock, but in this particular die stage the cud isn't fully formed.

die state
A readily identified point in the life of a coinage die. Often dies clash and are polished, crack, break, etc., resulting in different stages of the die. These are called die states. Some coins have barely distinguishable die states, while others go through multiple distinctive ones.

IGWT

Bump.

Coxe

They are interchangeable terms, with die state being the general preference. EDS and LDS are specific, however, relating to the prgression of the use of a die and even the visibility of a particular state of that die. For most dies, LDS is the late state of the die's use even if it relates to specific episodic state. EDS however does not generally. On Morgans, the '87 donkey tail or '89 bar wing varieties are good examples to consider.

MikeKing

There may be different stages to a die state, but not the other way around.

dorkkarl

i do'nt like these terms as being "interchangable", i like what igwt has to say in the opening post

linky to the old thread?

K S

MrHalfDime

I must agree with Coxe on this one. I believe that the term 'die stage' began merely as a distortion of the more accurate term 'die state'. They should not be considered as somehow conveying different aspects of die deterioration, and they certainly should not be considered as interchangable terms. Die state is the appropriate term to use when describing the many changes a die goes through when subjected to the various forces incured during the striking of coins.

A die does not necessarily deteriorate in discrete steps, as when a die suddenly cracks, or a cud suddenly occurs. More often the progression of die deterioration is a more linear continuum, or progression, occuring gradually over the course of many hundreds or even thousands of coins. This makes it difficult for collectors to arrange the various die states into neatly arranged and discrete groups, each designated by a letter suffix such as V5a and V5b, or O-101a and O-101b. Someone will always locate an intermediate die state, between the a and b die state, adding to the confusion. It was for this very reason that the die state descriptions in the Logan/McCloskey reference were listed as a progression, or time line, rather than attempting to arrange them in discrete steps as in the earlier Reiver VIMs. It is more accurate to describe die states in relative terms, such as very early die state (VEDS), early die state (EDS), middle die state (MDS), late die state (LDS), very late die state (VLDS), and terminal die state (TDS), although this inexactness may offend collectors who like to think of such concepts in neatly arranged steps.

1798CentCollector

Allan Herbert who authored the Official Price Guide to Mint errors explains the differences in die states and Die Stages as follows:

Die State : “the amount of wear, possibly excessive use, and possibly even abrasion from “cleaning”, that a die has endured”,
Die Stage: “the emergence of new “die markers” signs of damage or break up. Most often these are cracks, chips, or larger breaks in the die surface, which translate into raised corresponding marks on coins struck by that die”

I like to refer to die state as a progression in the wear or use of the die over time - early-middle - late, and die stage as an event. For instance a cud may appear in the middle die state and will still be evident in the late die state. The cud may be associated with the middle die state because it "appears" in the middle die state, but it is not the definition of middle die state.

The term die state is often used interchangeably to incorporate the two because its probably easier and a certain die state may be instantly recognizable by a crack, cud, or other marker. The lines can get blurred and it takes some time to fully understand the distinctions. Although die state and die stage have two distinct connotations, I almost never hear the term die stage used, and I collect a series where the two are of significant consequence.

cladking

<< <i>i do'nt like these terms as being "interchangable", i like what igwt has to say in the opening post

linky to the old thread?

K S >>



I agree.

The PCGS lingo definition for "die state" is not what is used in common parlance.

IGWT

<< <i>linky to the old thread? >>



Consider yourself linked.