Without a doubt the coolest error I think I've ever seen in a TPG holder.
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
This one is in the Stack's Franklin Part II auction in January, a 1922 die trial Peace Dollar that shows only traces of the rim detail, but enough for the date/MM to be made out!!! How cool is that and how absolutely rare is it to find something like this, especially in a large silver coin like that?? Just awesome....................
Al H.
Al H.
0
Comments
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
<< <i>what would you call it, a weak strike??
It would seem to be a die adjustment piece.
-Paul
<< <i>no, no, no you have it exactly wrong. the center is the low part of the die, the metal must flow from the strike into the recesses of the die. >>
Not to mention, the rim was the highest point on the planchet, having been upset prior to the strike to help the rim strike up fully.
I've seen this particular example a couple of times before (I'm pretty sure Mike Byers owned it after Fred W), and I've always wondered how it graded MS61; most other die adjustment / weak strike errors I've seen with that little detail have graded MS60. Of course, the numerical grae is the last thing anyone desiring that coin is concerned with.
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
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
well, your point is well taken and i'm not an error collector, but the fact that the date and MM can both be seen with such a miniscule portion of the overall detail struck is exactly what makes it cool to me. on other off-center strikes the same thing causes me to enjoy them, some with almost the entire detail present except the date and others just the reverse. like i said, i don't go in much for errors but this one just got me!!
The 1921-S Morgan and 1922-S Peace dollars have a very high upset rim with the ridge well in from the edge of the planchet. That corresponds perfectly with the struck areas on this coin. THere is an even weaker 1921-S Morgan out there that does not show the mint mark, but which I once proved to Bill Fivaz had to be a 1921-S for the same reasons.
TD
<< <i>It's a unintentional mint error as this die set-up trial strike should have hit the melting pot... not exited the mint. >>
It sounds like the error is in it leaving the mint, not in the creation? Is that correct?
<< <i>does it really matter?? >>
Yes. To me it matters in the definition of an error.
If this was intentionally created, the creation is not an error. If the "error" is simply that it left Mint hands, then many other coins that were not supposed to leave Mint control would also be errors. If this is an error, then then it seems the 1974 aluminum cent would also be an error. The Martha Washington patterns that mysteriously showed up in change would also be errors. It might be possible that the 1933 Saints are errors. It would expand error collecting.
My view is that this is an intentionally created die trial and not an error. The definition of an error for me involves the manufacture, not the distribution or anything down the line.
As was also mentioned, the setup pieces should have been destroyed – but with political pressure to strike hundreds of millions of dollar coins, no one cared too much.
<< <i>Zoins, pardon me but it's starting to sound like which came first "the Chicken or the Egg". Errors occur in the mint on a daily bases, and die trials are part of daily operation also. Weak strikes occur during start-up and shut down. Just for example within the mint a planchet adhering to hammer or anvil die and mushrooming into a either obverse or reverse die cap is the most common error... yet outside the mint it is the scarcest. These die trials had no reason to exit the mint except by accident, as there was no collector demand for another 30 years. I may be talking in circles here as I'm extremely tired. But they are in general mistakes, errors, and oddities... no matter how you look at it. Unique and scarce within the collector marketplace. >>
I don't consider collector demand or rarity (in or out of the Mint) in the definition of errors. They are irrelevant IMO. In my mind the question is whether they are intentionally or unintentionally produced by the Mint. If the are unintentional, then they are errors to me. If they are intentionally produced by the Mint as part of their normal operations, then I don't consider them errors since the are supposed to be made, regardless of how popular they are with collectors or not.
For many years, there was no reason for patterns to exist after the design studies as there were no collectors and no one considered them valuable. Should we classify them as errors because the Mint chose not to make use the designs in production and they are rare oddities?
What's wrong with classifying this as a die trial which it is?
Why classify it as an error when the Mint made no error in the manufacture?
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
The Superintendent of the New York Assay office in the late 19th century, Thomas Acton, acquired a number of pattern coins as well as specimens struck in off metals (‘cause they cost almost nothing).
Modern patterns serve much the same purposes, except designs are approved from sculpted models instead of struck coins. Although the mint makes quite a few trial pieces before full production begins. Trial and press set up pieces are normal intended to be destroyed – they are just like the set up and trial pieces struck by any metal stamping factory (or plastic forming plant). That one or two occasionally escapes via regular coinage channels is to be expected. That, due to the prices some of these things, and legitimate errors being on the private market, some attempt escape with human assistance is also to be expected.
For comparison, should modern patterns that escape destruction be considered errors because they weren't supposed to escape into the public and are rare? I don't think so. The same with die trials.
<< <i>unintentional would be the general classification of any geniune mint error. >>
Are die adjustment pieces created unintentionally?
Or are they created intentionally as a normal part of Mint operations?
<< <i>Your not going to let this rest are you? >>
Are you?
Your arguments don't seem objective. You are using rarity and collector demand as part of your definition. Are you saying they are unintentionally popular with collectors? If so, wouldn't all business strikes with numismatic premiums be "errors"? And as I mentioned, if we use your reasoning, many pattern coins and other unintentionally released coins would also be errors. Are you saying patterns should be errors?
Die Trials are part of normal Mint operation, but a few escape unintentionally.
<< <i>
<< <i>Are die adjustment pieces created unintentionally? Or are they created intentionally as a normal part of Mint operations? >>
Die Trials are part of normal Mint operation, but a few escape unintentionally. >>
Yeah, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't consider escaping part of the definition of an error. Modern patterns would be classified as errors using your definition which is fine if that's how you view patterns. 1933 Saints may also be error coins.
This reminds me of how some people like classifying the New Haven Fugio counterfeits as restrikes.
Will’sProoflikes
CONECA President Mike Diamond has argued for years that very weakly struck coins which are typically attributed as "die adjustment" strikes could also result in the course of normal operation from what he terms "insufficient die approximation." He argues that it is possible for a set of incorrectly installed dies to essentially bottom out (my term, not his) without fully striking a planchet - or striking it at all. He speculates that many of the "blank planchets" known actually passed between a set of dies which did not close enough to strike them.
As evidence he has written a couple of articles showcasing what he calls "invisible strikes", where a planchet is struck only where more than one planchet was between the dies (i.e., indents or brockages). Hopefully he'll find this thread and go into some more detail, but if you accept his theory, then coins like the Peace Dollar that started this thread can absolutely be considered Mint errors.
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
The terms "die adjustment strike", "die trial", and "setup piece" are all untenable because they introduce a hypothesis that cannot be verified -- that these are escapees from test runs. It's just as likely that these are the products of accidental and spontaneous equipment malfunction during a normal press run. All of the evidence I've accumulated and published on over the years indicates to me that the vast majority of so-called die adjustment strikes are simply the products of equipment malfunction. You can find equally weak strikes in combination with a wide variety of striking errors -- off-center strikes, double-strikes, triple-strikes, misaligned dies, saddle strikes, etc., which is consistent with press malfunction. You can also find double and triple struck coins in which the first strike was very weak and the second strong, and vice versa. In other words, these malfunctions can occur instantaneously and are sometimes self-correcting.
Labeling weak strikes as die adjustment strikes constitutes a disservice to the collecting community as it promotes and legitimizes an unprovable claim. Unless you were right there in the press room, there is no way that such a claim can be corroborated. Better alternatives might include "weak strike", "low pressure strike", and "shallow strike". They are nonspecific and make no claim as to ultimate cause.
<< <i>well, it sounds like it's a an error to the error collectors but not an error to zoins............................it's stll cool to me. >>
keets. My point is that being rare, valued by collectors and/or escaping the Mint unintentionally isn't sufficient to be an error which is what Broadstruck seemed to be arguing. If error collectors think errors don't have to be erroneously manufactured, then yes we disagree.
However, if the error collecting community does not use Broadstruck's reasoning but uses reasoning more along the lines of that provided by seanq and efformaven, then I am in agreement, as that reasoning is tied to the production process.