Varieties ARE NOT Errors
braddick
Posts: 24,116 ✭✭✭✭✭
I wish I could find the thread/post that Dog97 wrote regarding Varieties and Errors and the distinction between the two. I'm hoping, by starting this thread Dog, or anyone who has studied this field will respond.
peacockcoins
0
Comments
PCGS THE ONLY WAY TO GO
Ed
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Varities are a regular strike coin. The particular die that created the varity is different from all the other dies from that series and year in that it was changed through damage (3-Legged Buffalo), die state (22 No D Cent), overpunching a date or mintmark (42/1 Merc), (D/S etc), repunching a mintmark (O/O, S/S etc), engraving to strengthen strike up detail (many of the Morgan VAMs), This die will turn out hundreds ao even thousands of coins and each and every one of them look exactly the same. Many, many guys collect the major varities that are listed in the RedBook. Some collect all varities. Quite boring as a collector has to use a microscope to see the difference.
Errors are a product of the Mint's machinery malfunctioning. Coil doesn't advance to the gang punches (clips), collars aren't in place (broadstrikes) presses don't eject properly(doublestrikes), 2 coins can be in the press at the same time and many other things. Each of these coins are unique, in that no 2 are exactly alike, each is different. A press can strike 10,000 coins, jam, strike a couple of progressing brockages, clear itself, and strike 10,000 more normal coins. Just 1 in a million might get struck, flip up in the air, land back in the press and receive a second strike on the other side creating a flip over double strike. Few collectors actually care about these sub-standard "damaged goods" which actually are more valuable than most varities. Exciting coins, look at the one in my signature for example, a cheap & common off center with a rev indent.
Can't remember what Wondercoin had in stock, but nobody had all 4.
Keith
Greg
Good point. One way to address whether it's an error or variety is whether or not the Mint would KNOWINGLY release the coin with unique feature that differentiates it from the other coins fo the same issue? If the Mint would knowingly release the coin it's a variety. If it's something the Mint would reject for release it's an error. This may not cover all of the scenerios but I think under these circumstances the 1955 D/D would be considered an error.
Can't remember what Wondercoin had in stock, but nobody had all 4.
Keith
Keith: Thanks for pointing that out. The funny thing is I sold the 1934DD quarter earlier this year in top grade and asked the dealer I sold it to last week after the PCGS decision if I could possibly buy it back!! When forum members post threads with no factual support for their assertions it really is counterproductive. Wondercoin.
If anyone truly believed that- why stick around? I'd be so disillusioned I'd leave and never look back.
Instead- We have well-informed collectors andDealers who voice their opinions here.
It's what I enjoy most about this forum.
Where else would I learn what I do but here?
peacockcoins
You may think it is a pointless misguided post. Who lobbied PCGS to add these coins? It is still nothing but GREED GREED & MORE GREED on from all of you DEALERS.When these coins were optional YOU DEALERS could not sell them. Simple solution add them to the REGISTERY SETS and soak the COLLECTORS on the coins you couldnt move its that SIMPLE.
PCGS THE ONLY WAY TO GO
Ed
It's also counterproductive to tell people to "crawl back to the big board" and that if they share an opinion that doesn't happen to agree with yours that they're not welcomed to share it.
Back to the thread...in my OPINION I think the determining factor regarding whether a particular unusally feature should cause the coin to be considered a variety or an error would be whether it's release by the Mint was intentional or unintentional. Let's test the idea against the varieties you're familiar with and see what you think. Doubled die = error, overdate = variety, clash marks = ??? were they intentionally released that way???
Umm...
To your question, the 2 overdate mintmarks and the light motto quarter would then be a variety and included. The double die would not, although there is some argument as to how to classify a double die, can it be a variety or can it be an error?
So three of the four additions are "legitimate" additions to the set and 1 is "questionable."
Keith
Would you please, in a non-argumentative format, provide one incident that would lead me to believe what you are writing?
Even a speculation- I'll take that. Anything. Otherwise you appear bitter, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why.
Thanks,
Pat
peacockcoins
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
I am not bitter or anything else. The Registery Sets are turning into CASH COWS for DEALERS you have a COIN or series of coins that no one wants or needs just add them to the Registery Sets and BANG a $50 coin is now a must have $100 coin it is ABSOULTELY nothing but GREED PERIOD.
PCGS THE ONLY WAY TO GO
Ed
Regardless: coins DO go up in value and price! With or without a Registry, most of these varieties have ALWAYS been popular! I've heard of the 55/55 since I was a kid!
I'd still like an answer to my question though (even a PM). What evidence, or speculation do you have that shows either specifically or generally Dealer involvement in the manipulation of the Registry?
If there isn't any, I've got to go back to my follow up question: Why are you upset?
Thanks,
Pat
peacockcoins
THE MAJOR VARITIES WERE RELEASED WITH THE MINT'S BLESSING: The Mint was attempting to save money on dies when it instructed it's engravers to overpunch 1941 dies with the 1942 date. Same on the Buffalo overdates. etc etc
It is my humble opinion that Wondercoin would sell more coins in the long run if the registry DID NOT include mandatory varieties.
My feeling is that including them will discourage some people from participating at all.
Clearly, Wondercoin (and all dealers) have more to gain by getting more people to participate overall, than any profit made on any single coin that happens to be in inventory at the time a change is announced in the registry.
Ken
Dog's definition above of an error vs. variety squarely places alot of coins in the error or variety bucket, but is not definative to all coins. What about a 1955 Franklin Bugs Bunny? Accept that it was caused by a die clash. The die clash is a feature of the die (after the original die was damaged), but the die was damaged by a malfunctioning minting process. So is it an error or variety? Because thousands might have been made that appear similar, does that make it a variety, or merely a very collectible error? Did the mint know the die was damaged and use it anyway, thus making it a variety? I dunno, and you don't either.
Point is there is no line in the sand between variety and error, especially a demarcation that will help determine whether only varieties go into a registry set. What may go into a registry set might be whatever variety OR error that is popular enough with collectors to merit listing.
Daryl
I have known you for quite a long time and have done quite a few deals and I believe that if you were in any way involved in the decision by PCGS that you would have thrown out a post on the forum to get some feedback on this decision.I just believe that the Registery Set has now become a super CASH COW for dealers with no thought about the Collectors.I feel that any changes to Registery Set should have a time period for discussion before they are implemented.
PCGS THE ONLY WAY TO GO
Ed
Also, all varieties are not created by damage, e.g. Liberty Seated coins where details were hand punched into the dies.
Daryl
A failure of the feeder fingers to place a planchet in the striking chamber causes the dies to crash together leaving rev die images on the obv die & vice versa. This is the malfunction which creates this varity.
RE <<handpunched into the dies>>>
Let me repeat myself again on the causes of varities: overpunching a date or mintmark (42/1 Merc), (D/S etc), repunching a mintmark (O/O,
The Mint not only has specifications for size, weight and shape but also standards for deciding whether the original design has been transferred successfully to the coin. Errors in making the hubs or dies are transferred to the coin. Quality control inspectors make the decision as to whether the design transfer meets their standards. The Mint makes the decision regarding which features cause the coin to classified a variety verse an error by either intentionally releasing or discarding the coins. If coins get released that would otherwise be rejected they are errors.
This isn't really that cut and dry. What about die clash? It was a common occurrence at the first Mint and coins were intentional released with die clash marks. Those same coins would be rejected today. So sometimes die clash is a variety and at other times they're errors. I don't know the history of doubled die "errors" but I'd imagine that at some point the doubling is so minor that the coins would pass inspection and be released (variety?) but in the case of the pronounced doubling seen on the 55 D/D they would be rejected.
I'm so confused
To quote the error expert Fred Weinberg "Error coins are simply the result of coining mistakes made at the mint which escaped detection before leaving the facility in mint sewn bags."
BTW, die cracks or filled dies are not errors because according to Weinberg the Mint intentionally releases them.
Thanks,
Tim
dan
">Franklin Halves
">Kennedy Halves
If you want to buy an Standing Liberty Quarter 1918/7, you will spend more for that ONE coin than for the rest of the set combined in ANY grade. I am including Type 1 and Type 2 coins. These should be required and are true varieties, as the Mint intended to coin them differently.
I really doubt that the Director of the Mint wanted an overdate to be produced. Maybe someone in production made a conscious decision that it was OK, but I dont believe the Mint wanted these created.
Something I would be unable to do.
peacockcoins
All due respect to Dog97 but I think Mr. Weinberg knows a little something about errors. Based on his definition the 55 D/D would be an error not a variety:
"Error coins are simply the result of coining mistakes made at the mint which escaped detection before leaving the facility in mint sewn bags."
If you're Is that ok with you? is a serious question, then I'll answer it as a gentleman: Of course it is. Inquire all you want- that is what these forums are for. It's only that this variety/error road has been traversed before and Dog is a better forum member in revisiting the various definitions.
Now, if your question was a retorical and sarcastic one, I choose to still answer with the reply and method above.
Take care,
Pat
peacockcoins
FullSteps Even though it it was not intended as a normal the coins you described are indeed varities. Again the key designator:
<<<particular die that created the varity is different from all the other dies from that series and year in that it was changed through damage (3-Legged Buffalo), die state (22 No D Cent), overpunching a date or mintmark (42/1 Merc), (D/S etc), repunching a mintmark (O/O, S/S etc), engraving to strengthen strike up detail (many of the Morgan VAMs),>>>
The die that created the 3-legged Buffalo is different than all the other dies from that year. Thus it is a varity as in a varity of dies were used that year.
RPMs: Sometimes it took more than 1 blow from the mintmark punch to engrave the mintmark on a die. The engraver erred in that he didn't keep the 2nd & 3rd blows from the punch lined up but this made that die different from all the other dies from that mint and year. Again, different than the other dies makes it a varity.
pmh1nic <<<A doubled die is technically an error because it wasn't an intentional design feature.>>> The error was in the making of the die. The coin it makes is still an varity. Again, because that die is different from all the rest. This really IS that cut and dried. The difference is in having a through understanding of the minting process. The coin reference books, mainstream dealers and collectors have confused the issue by using these terms incorrectly, improperly, sloppy and interchangably. Fred Weinberg btw does all the attributions for PCGS's Error Submission Service and if you asked him he will gladly come here and tell you the 55 doubled die is not an error but a varity.
pmh1nic did you know the 22 plain that was quoted by a dealer in another thread <<<1922 Plain in 65RB grade as I recall fetch around $80,000>>> is neither a varity nor error but a filled die? The late die state being very worn with little detail remaining filled quite easily. Yes, this $80,000 coins brothers can be bought for less than $5 on eBay!! Heck, a die filled so completly that the obv or rev is almost completly blank can be bought for around $50. Now who do you think hyped it so much top make it so valuable?
Back to your post...Varieties ARE NOT Errors. Dog has cleared up alot of questions for me, but there still seems to be gray areas (in my mind anyway) that I have pointed out, as has pmh1nic. Still not sure what to call a die clash (Dog says variety, others say look at intent/knowledge) or a double die coin (Dog?).
Maybe the question at hand ought to be whether we really need to try to put all coins in one bucket or the other. Alot of the discussion on the boards about variety vs. error started because of the debate concerning what should be included in the registry. Should inclusion into the registry depend on whether a coin is a variety or an error? Or are we just having a nice educational debate?
Regards,
Daryl
Still not sure I understand your definition of a variety as a result of damage. Ex., an 1840-O Liberty Seated Half includes a very small mintmark, a small mintmark, and a large mint mark. Are any of these coins damaged dies, or just different?
peacockcoins
If a coin is different because the die was different, then it is a variety. If the coin is different because of problems in the striking process (wrong planchet, flawed planchet, multiple strike, off center, broadstrike, brockage, etc.), then it is an error. This is not hard to differentiate. Double die coins are clearly varieties. The die is the same for every one minted.
I think this definition is clear and consistent with the history of numismatic scholarship. I don't understand why so many people are having a problem with this.
I do understand the difficulty in determining which varieties to include in a Registry Set. Some varieties represent very tiny differences in dies. I can see an argument for omitting these. That is why I think PCGS suggested using the 1980 Red Book. At that point, the book only included the "major" or "classic" varieties.
Whatever PCGS decides to do with varieties, what does it matter? Collect what you want. I hope no one collects just for the sake of a Registry Set score!
You are correct to call a clash a variety. Actually it is a sub-varity of a varity meaning the clash can't stand on it's own. For example, in the VAM book an 1883-O Morgan with doubled 1 is cataloged as VAM 22. After this die clashed it's cataloged as VAM 22-A. CONECA lists dies with a RPM # and clashes as a diagnostic or die marker for identification of die stages of that RPM.
And although PCGS does allow errors in the Registry it doesn't designate them as such. Braddick's PCGS MS67 1990 JFK is not mentioned as an off-centered coin unless he puts it in the coin's description himself.
If Mr. Weinberg would call the 55 D/D a variety then he'd better go back and change the statement he made on his website.
I think one of the problems with this discussion is (as Dog97 mentioned) that the terms are commonly used interchangeably. Even in authoritative books like "U.S. Minting Errors and Varieties" by Dr. James Wiles (published by the ANA) the terms are commonly used interchangeably. Maybe we're having such difficulty defining the difference between the two because we're trying to determine a dividing line between the two where traditionally none exist.
He (Weinberg) list under major mint "errors" a DDO with an RPM in his inventory section (1960-D DDO/RPM)and the definition he gives in the FAQ on his web page (quoted in my previous post) would included doubled dies.
CONECA (according to what I've read on their website) also classifies doubled dies as errors.
What about hub break "errors". A break in the hub is transferred to the die and produces thousands of coins that are exactly the same. The defect in the die is transferred to every coin, the same as a doubled die, and they are also classified as errors by CONECA.
I'm not trying to be difficult but it really isn't that straight forward and the problem (if there actually is a clear distinction between the two) is exacerbated by the common interchangeable usage of the terms among those in the know (present company excluded of course
B & M Advertisement
In general, aren't clashes, die breaks or any other die damage examples of die state and not variety? Some interesting die breaks are classically referred to as varieties (e.g., the 1804 "Spiked Chin" Half Cent), but this is more custom than science. Your point is well taken, however. If there are exceptions to any clear definition of the term "variety", then there is no clear definition.
I am by no means a variety or error expert. If there is confusion regarding what constitutes a variety verses an error it's confusion as a result of the fact that the "authorities" haven't agreed on an all-inclusive definition.
It's my understanding that die clash, die breaks and other die damage do not create varieties. Some classify die clash and die breaks as error while others don't. What caused the crack in the die would determine if it's a die state "error" (broken through usage) or broken hub "error" (if error is what you want to call them).
Now after everything I've said in this thread you might think I'm stuck on the terminology...I'm not. The important thing is understanding how the error, variety or whatever else you want to call it was made. I don't care if you call it a doubled die error or a doubled die variety. Then again I'm not the one who's got to decide which varieties, errors or whatever will be included in the registry set.
The tread was started with the statement "Varieties are not errors". Well it seems that that depends on which "authority" you asking. The 55 D/D; is it a variety or an error? Some classify doubled dies as errors but it seem this particular D/D has been widely considered a variety. For the sake of the registry set program someone has got to make a decision. I'm just glad it's not going to be me
The B&M article is wrong. If it were an error it would be submitted under PCGS's Error Service and have "Error Coin" on the insert. Pmh1nic you insist on calling it an error coin but the only error was in the making of the die which does not apply to what is being discussed here. Varities & Errors are divided into 3 main catagories using the PDS system:
P=Planchet Errors which deals with planchets & their problems.
D=Die Varities which deal with hubbings, RPM, cracks, clashes and polishing.
S=Striking Errors which covers struck thru & struck on weird objects, clips, indents, brockages collars and multiple strikes but not limited to these.
<<<Well it seems that that depends on which "authority" you asking>>> What I have outlined in this thread is an accurate designation as Error vs Variety as accepted by the numismatic community. It's very defined and very Cut & Dried. Just remember the PDS system!
I suggest you write to the ANA and CONECA to straighten them out because they are publishing a lot of misinformation and confusing us newbies which will only cause us to continue to make a variety of errors
P.S. I'm familiar with the P,D,S system of classifying errors. I borrowed "the book" from the ANA library and even had an opportunity to corresponded with Alan Herbert regarding die clash on early half eagles. He colaborated with Dr. Wiles on the ANA book I mentioned earlier in the thread.