Back in 2012 when I was doing far more roll hunting than today I found a 1967 Kennedy 50c which weighed between 12.2-12.3 gm. I had never seen one weigh more than 11.8 gm. I even emailed Fred about it and he was nice enough to respond and explained it was very likely a planchet that was rolled too thick. There is no question based on the edge appearance it was a normal 40% planchet. Very hard for me to consider this as a transitional.
Edited to add - How cool would it have been to find a circulated/slightly underweight 1967 Kennedy struck on a somehow leftover 90% planchet? I think I have read of some 1965 Kennedy's struck on 90%.
<< <i>How can we understand the potential importance of rare coins if we do not have an easy way to properly classify them with respect to each other?
With respect to what I have been referring to as perfect and imperferct transitional wrong stocks, I am going to post, what I hope will be, an easy to understand hypothetical example of what I have been discussing, and the rational for my original post.
The year is 1965 and the mint is simultaneously producing both 1964 dated silver coinage, and 1965 clad coinages. There are two separated but identical assembly lines set up that can take coin production from the point of blanking all the way to final striking of the coins. They are set up so that there can be no cross contamination between them, ie...no planchets can escape from one line to the other line. Line one is set up to run 1964 silver dated quarters and 1964 silver dimes. Line two is set up to run 1965 dated copper nickel clad quarters, and 1965 dated cu/ni dimes. Behind these productions lines is a room that is shared by the two production lines which houses the planchet rolling stocks. In that room, there are only four rolls and they are all different types of rolling stock. We have a roll of silver quarter stock, we have a roll of silver dime stock, we have a roll of cu/ni quarter stock, and we have a roll of cu/ni dime stock. Now assume that in the first production line, we are set up to run 1964 silver dated quarters. If we put on a blindfold and go into the room where the rolling stock is, and then randomly pick out any one of the four rolls of metal stock, and we then place it into our 1964 silver quarter production run, what occurs? We can get a perfect normal 1964 silver quarter production coin if we have selected the silver quarter dollar stock. But, what if we did not pick the silver quarter stock? What are we then producing, and how do we properly classify it? OK, so we ran the silver quarter stock, and then we are left with the other three rolls. So now we go and grab one of the last three rolls, and run it on our silver quarter production line. What gets produced, and how would you properly classify it? ... to be continued. >>
OK, so we ran out the silver quarter stock and now we renter the room holding the rolling stocks. We grab one of the last three remaining rolls, and we run it on our silver quarter dollar production line.. In this case, we just happened to grab the clad cu/ni quarter dollar rolling stock. What happens? We are going to get a perfect looking cu/ni clad quarter that is dated 1964. Everybody recognizes these to be our classic transitionals, but what exactly is going on here? We have a perfect coin which is a transitional date wrong composition wrong stock. It is virtually identical to the 1965 clad quarters in every way, except for the date. So we run out the 1964 dated "transitionals", and then we return to the room where the remaining two rolls of stock are, we grab one, and then we run it on our silver quarter production line. This time, we just so happened to pick out the silver dime stock, and we run it on our silver quarter production line. What gets produced, and how do we properly classify it? Well, look at the resulting coins that get made. Do they look normal or perfect? Of course not. They look like an understruck silver quarter with missing details struck on an underweight thin planchet. They most certainly are not perfect are they? They are imperfect, and they are struck on the wrong denomination 1964 silver rolling stock. They become imperfect wrong denomination wrong stocks. OK, so now we used up that roll of silver dime stock, we return to the rolling stock room, and we grab the last remaining roll of stock, the clad Cu/Ni dime stock, and we run it on our 1964 silver quarter production line. What gets produced, and what do we call it? Well, we are going to get another underweight and understruck quarter coin struck on wrong denomination dime stock, which is also made out of the wrong metal composition for it's date. The coin is not going to be perfect is it? Is is going to be another imperfect coin. It is also going to be a "transitional" date wrong stock. It is a 1964 dated clad quarter coin struck on a metal that was not intended for normal production use until 1965. Another classical "transitional" wrong stock, but just of another flavor. We are going to get an imperfect, transitional date, wrong composition, wrong denomination, wrong stock error.
If we trace back all of the four different scenarios we have developed, each one of them will have one thing in common, they all came down to the choice of rolling stock prior to blanking. This is where the transition took place, and it is what relates them to each other. They are transitional planchet errors, excepting the one perfectly normal 1964 dated silver quarter coin.
There seems to be some confusion in the understanding that the transition is not derived from any specific year to year date change, but rather in the selection of the planchet metals. Look at it this way. Even if I am in a 1964/65 transition period, and even if I am running both silver and clad, and even if I am running both of those metals with both dates, there cannot be any transitional coins produced from either of the two production lines unless there is a transition in metals between the different metals and dates. You would simply get two different denominations and dates of normal composition, normally dated, perfect production coins.
<< <i>Back in 2012 when I was doing far more roll hunting than today I found a 1967 Kennedy 50c which weighed between 12.2-12.3 gm. I had never seen one weigh more than 11.8 gm. I even emailed Fred about it and he was nice enough to respond and explained it was very likely a planchet that was rolled too thick. There is no question based on the edge appearance it was a normal 40% planchet. Very hard for me to consider this as a transitional.
Edited to add - How cool would it have been to find a circulated/slightly underweight 1967 Kennedy struck on a somehow leftover 90% planchet? I think I have read of some 1965 Kennedy's struck on 90%.
Jeff >>
I agree that Fred was correct on the 40% 12.3 gram 1967 Kennedy, assuming that the coin was not made intentionally as a transitional weight or compositional, perfect or imperfect, trial pattern. And...at that weight?
<< <i>Back in 2012 when I was doing far more roll hunting than today I found a 1967 Kennedy 50c which weighed between 12.2-12.3 gm. I had never seen one weigh more than 11.8 gm. I even emailed Fred about it and he was nice enough to respond and explained it was very likely a planchet that was rolled too thick. There is no question based on the edge appearance it was a normal 40% planchet. Very hard for me to consider this as a transitional.
Edited to add - How cool would it have been to find a circulated/slightly underweight 1967 Kennedy struck on a somehow leftover 90% planchet? I think I have read of some 1965 Kennedy's struck on 90%.
Jeff >>
I agree that Fred was correct on the 40% 12.3 gram 1967 Kennedy, assuming that the coin was not made intentionally as a transitional weight or compositional, perfect or imperfect, trial pattern. And...at that weight? >>
As others have said, a transitional planchet error has a very restricted meaning. It's a coin struck on a planchet of a different composition used in the previous year or a subsequent year. It also includes coins struck on a different composition planchet associated with a new issue (but same denomination) introduced in the same year.
All other wrong planchet/off-metal errors are just that. You can't re-define a term in the way that the grading services cynically re-defined the term "first strike".
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
Mike, the very idea that the use of the word transitional can only be limited to a specific type of date sensitive error is just a matter of convention. And in effect, that limitation amounts to no more than an abbreviated non technical shorthand. It is also what is keeping many collectors in the dark as to the proper identification and technical classification of many other types of rare and valuable transitional errors. We certainly do make many types of coin transitionals, like virtually every PDS error. These errors can be broken down and more properly classified and understood by embracing the concept of transitional, and then tracing their lineage throughout the manufacturing process. Our current conventional classification rigidity is what makes people think that date transitionals are caused by date changes, or by the introduction of alternative metals. It obscures the understanding that the parent error can be traced back to the changing of a metal prior to blanking, or to the mixup of a planchet post blanking from one which was intended for production, to that which was not. We all know what our transitionals are, right?
All definitions are a matter of "convention". All words are defined by culture, profession, and avocation. Without convention, a language's lexicon would be reduced to chaos. Sorry, you're not convincing anybody.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
IMO, transitionals are more of an accepted created class of errors that has been defined by collectors with an generally accepted cause. IMO By their very method of creation, they fall under wrong planchets.
Also, transitional has been used in coins on design changes, such as in 1859, when the Mint was changing the design of the half-dime. By definition, patterns in part are the testing of designs, so these would also fall under this category. But they are normally referred to as transitionals.
Lets look at the list of generally accepted transitionals (sorry if I miss some) 1943 (P, D, S) copper cent 1944 (P, D, S) steel cent Notes - the unique 1943-D copper was intentially struck by a Mint employee and kept for 50 or so years before passing on to relatives. Chief Engraver John Sinnock had a 43 copper and 44 steel that he gave to his mistress and she sold in 1960
1946 silver Jefferson Nickel
1965 silver dime 1965 silver quarter 1965 half dollar - have heard they exist, but have not examined one.
I have read/heard that the Mint was using 1964 dated working dies in 1965 and 1966 to strike half dollars to use up the planchets, not sure if they did the same for dimes and quarters.
1971-D Silver clad Kennedy half dollar
1974-D silver clad Eisenhower Dollar 1976-D silver clad Eisenhower Dollar 1977-D silver clad Eisenhower Dollar
It is believed that the 74-D was created when the SF mint was striking Eisenhower proofs on both silver and copper nickel clad planchets, CN planchets that were unacceptable for proofs were shipped to Denver. a few (12-15) silver planchets got mixed in. Even though the Mint was not transitioning from one planchet to another, as both were being used, these are normally referred to as transitionals. There is also a 1973-S Mint State clad. Few have known about this, so not really defined.
Some of these have a different root cause, some were done intentionally. In researching this, some possibilities include planchets are transported throughout the mint in bins. If a planchet of one metal was struck in the bin, for example in the exit door, and reused when the next year new metal was introduced, it might occur. If a planchet was left over in the hopper in the coining press or some other part of the coining press. We also strike coins from foreign countries, Stewart Blay showed me a alum cent in a proof set, I believe it was from 1970. I believe at the time we were striking coins for one of the countries in South America. The coining press was used to strike these coins, then used to strike cents.
IMO, when referring to transitionals, this is more an accepted meaning that a defined one that has been used to refer to certain types of coins over the years. Obviously there are others that probably fall into this list.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Good answer Mike. However, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am offering up a reasonably simple way for us collectors to understand the subtle nuances between different types of error events in relationship to each other. I choose to classify these errors by virtue of manufacture event and parentage, so that I can better understand them, and their relationships to each other. I respect both convention, and preference. And your time sir.
<< <i>I am offering up a reasonably simple way for us collectors to understand .......... >>
No you are trying to confuse the subject.
The greatest error experts in the world have chimed in and you fight them, instead just listen to them as we all can learn a great deal from these experts.
<< <i>Very good. Kinda like as all double dies are to all transitional's, but existent. >>
If you are going to use another numismatic term to make your point, please use it correctly. Double dies do not exist ... doubled dies do, however. No need to reiterate what some of the knowledgable error folks have said here. Simply "redefining" a numismatic term to fit your need doesn't make it correct. There is one author who insists a coin is not a proof unless it was released for sale to the public. Just because he defines a proof that way, does not make it so. Perhaps your next thread will be lucky number 7 and you will convince us all. >>
Lane,
Thats funny, correcting someone on redefining a numismatic term. Pot calling the kettle black.
Then stating an author (obviously me) who insists a coin is not a proof unless it was released for sale to the public. If you are going to quote me, please do it properly I define a proof coin as "The definition of a proof coin refers to the intent and the method of manufacture, not the condition of the coin. Proof coins are made by the Mint for presentation, souvenir, exhibition, numismatic purposes, and to encourage coin collecting. They normally have mirror-like fields, sharp detailed designs, and high squared rims and corners."
Lets take the 1838-O Half Dollar for example, New Orleans strikes 10 to test the new large coining press and to prove they can do this. They have to jury right under the lower die as it would not fit. Strike 10 perfect specimens, none on a polished planchet. In March, after striking a few 1839-O half dollars, Coiner Tyler strikes a 1838-O half dollar and this coin winds up in the Smithsonian collection. IMO, the first 10 are not proofs, they were test strikes, they are also far superior than normal half dollars in strike. As the 38-O half for the Smithsonian was on a polished planchet and winds up in the Smithsonian collection, the intent was to especially strike this for Director Patterson. PCGS will call any of the first 10 specimens in the future specimen coins.
Lets take the 1893 Isabella quarter, they were all struck on polished planchets, are these proofs, they were done as the coiner wanted to something special for the ladies who were doing this.
Lets take the 1894-S dime, listed as a coin for circulation by the Mint, no polished planchets, normal die and strike you might see on an early strike. Yet in 1945, in an auction, it was called a proof, most likely they believed it would bring more money being called a proof.
Lets take the 1855-S half and quarter that were struck as proofs. From a Heritage catalogue on a 1855-S proof quarter, "The Smithsonian Institution specimen has been part of the National Numismatic Collection since the time of issue, when San Francisco Mint Superintendent Robert Aiken Birdsall preserved the piece and sent it to Mint Director James Ross Snowden." These were struck as proofs and one was presented to Director.
I can go on and on with examples. Then we have pattern coins that were sold as proofs, which under the law is legal so long as the same design and same alloy and year, such as the two cent small motto proof.
You are obviously bringing up the 1875-S Twenty cent piece that you have called a proof. This variety was first called a proof in 1931 by Max Mehl, over 50 years after it was struck (you left out this important fact in your book) There are no Mint records that the SF Mint struck proofs in 1875, R.B. White wrote an article on these in 1974 and stated he did a comprehensive search of SF newspapers for 1875 and found no mention of any ceremony on these coins or anything else with coins especially struck and released.
And to another point, its not just me who defines a proof in this manner. The Red Book does it also. PCGS has adopted a standard that proof (evidence) is required of intent that a coin was struck as a proof in order to be certified as one. I do not disagree that some of these coins exhibit superior strike and some have proof like surfaces, but PCGS will certify these coins in the future as specimen coins. Which is of course ironic, as proof coins were first referred to as master coins, then as specimen coins.
If you want to have a conversation, do so directly please, not implying as you did here that I was redefining a common term, then also getting what I stated incorrect.
<< <i>I am offering up a reasonably simple way for us collectors to understand .......... >>
No you are trying to confuse the subject.
The greatest error experts in the world have chimed in and you fight them, instead just listen to them as we all can learn a great deal from these experts. >>
I am not fighting anyone. I am not even in disagreement with the experts.. If you read closely you would know that. What I am suggesting is that maybe it is time that we take a closer look at our conventional numismatic classifications to see if we can improve on them for ease of understanding and appreciation.
And, with respect to our transitional coins, I just kinda get a kick out of how we can call the one a transitional, while relegating it's parent family to the lessor understood moniker of wrong stocks, or other.
<< <i>Very good. Kinda like as all double dies are to all transitional's, but existent. >>
If you are going to use another numismatic term to make your point, please use it correctly. Double dies do not exist ... doubled dies do, however. No need to reiterate what some of the knowledgable error folks have said here. Simply "redefining" a numismatic term to fit your need doesn't make it correct. There is one author who insists a coin is not a proof unless it was released for sale to the public. Just because he defines a proof that way, does not make it so. Perhaps your next thread will be lucky number 7 and you will convince us all. >>
Lane,
On Double Die vs Doubled Die, you probably should correct Heritage Auctions also, as they have used both, Ex: "1917 1C Double Die Obverse, Die 1 VG10 ANACS. NGC Census: (11/200). PCGS Population (3/105). Mintage: 196,429,792. (#2495)..."
Your last three sentences above are the only ones that I fully understand, and that make any sense to me.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
I don't consider those 40% silver coins from Denver to be Transitional Wrong Planchets like I would the 1943 Copper Cents or 1983 Copper Cents.
The Denver Mint didn't strike, as the normal course of business, regular 1974-D, 1976-D, or 1977-D coinage of any three of those denominations; the planchets originated from the San Francisco Mint, and were shipped in error to Denver.
They're Wrong Planchet Errors, but I'm not aware of the term "Transitional" being used in a regular fashion for any of them.
That being said, I appreciate your kind words, but I'm just an old-time collector who at age 22 became a full time coin dealer (for the past 43 years). I make mistakes like we all do, and although I might have better stories than most about the error coin hobby and market over the past 50 years or so, believe me - there are others who are quite knowledgeable about the Minting Process.
I've always credited three people who encouraged me, helped me, and were very supportive of my collecting days - Arnie Margolis, Syd Kass, and Mort Goodman. Folks like Lonesome John Devine were also very helpful and 'fun competitors' - lots of people that I have fond memories of back in the 60's and '70's....
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
What you said about the Ikes make sense, these are not the same as the 43 copper, which traditionally set the standard on this term. I did not know about the 1983 copper cent, that is good to know. Do you have a list of what you consider transitional error coins?
I remember at the 1997 ANA in NY, Bowers had an auction and was selling a 1974-D silver clad Ike, which I remember them calling a transitional, which I purchased. I remember you were there, believed we talked about the coin. It was in an ANACS MS63 holder. Of course, IMO a catologuer might choose to adlib so to speak, if they believe it might add value or interest, obviously it did in my mind
No, I don't have a list of what I consider to be true Transitional errors, but I'm pretty much a traditionalist when it comes to Transitionals.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
I don't consider those 40% silver coins from Denver to be Transitional Wrong Planchets like I would the 1943 Copper Cents or 1983 Copper Cents.
The Denver Mint didn't strike, as the normal course of business, regular 1974-D, 1976-D, or 1977-D coinage of any three of those denominations; the planchets originated from the San Francisco Mint, and were shipped in error to Denver.
They're Wrong Planchet Errors, but I'm not aware of the term "Transitional" being used in a regular fashion for any of them.
That being said, I appreciate your kind words, but I'm just an old-time collector who at age 22 became a full time coin dealer (for the past 43 years). I make mistakes like we all do, and although I might have better stories than most about the error coin hobby and market over the past 50 years or so, believe me - there are others who are quite knowledgeable about the Minting Process.
I've always credited three people who encouraged me, helped me, and were very supportive of my collecting days - Arnie Margolis, Syd Kass, and Mort Goodman. Folks like Lonesome John Devine were also very helpful and 'fun competitors' - lots of people that I have fond memories of back in the 60's and '70's.... >>
<< <i>Mike, the very idea that the use of the word transitional can only be limited to a specific type of date sensitive error is just a matter of convention. And in effect, that limitation amounts to no more than an abbreviated non technical shorthand. It is also what is keeping many collectors in the dark as to the proper identification and technical classification of many other types of rare and valuable transitional errors. We certainly do make many types of coin transitionals, like virtually every PDS error. These errors can be broken down and more properly classified and understood by embracing the concept of transitional, and then tracing their lineage throughout the manufacturing process. Our current conventional classification rigidity is what makes people think that date transitionals are caused by date changes, or by the introduction of alternative metals. It obscures the understanding that the parent error can be traced back to the changing of a metal prior to blanking, or to the mixup of a planchet post blanking from one which was intended for production, to that which was not. We all know what our transitionals are, right? >>
<< <i>Good answer Mike. However, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am offering up a reasonably simple way for us collectors to understand the subtle nuances between different types of error events in relationship to each other. I choose to classify these errors by virtue of manufacture event and parentage, so that I can better understand them, and their relationships to each other. I respect both convention, and preference. And your time sir. >>
In your own words you call them different types of errors. How is that easier to classify different things all as the same thing? It's not!
<< <i>Your last three sentences above are the only ones that I fully understand, and that make any sense to me. >>
Hi Fred,
In my mind, there are error experts, then there is you, IMO the most knowledgable individual on coin errors.
Curious what you think of the Ike "transitionals"
Do you consider the 74-D, 76-D, 77-D silver clad coins transitionals? Do you consider the 73-S CN coins transitionals?
Thanks Kevin >>
Kevin, FWIW I do not consider any of these four to be "transitional errors." I would call them "wrong metal errors," and for the silver ones struck in Denver would gladly consider calling them "wrong mint errors" if anybody wants to.
And also FWIW, I was at Coin World (not ANACS as I misspoke elsewhere) when the first of the 40% silver D-Mints surfaced. I had just opened a package with one in it and done weight and specific gravity to confirm it when the phone rang and a guy told me all excited that he had a 40% silver Ike struck at Denver and I said something to the effect of "What, another one?" and he said "WHAT???"
He was a blackjack dealer in Las Vegas and said that he occasionally encountered S-Mint 40% silver Ikes in the dollar coins they still used on the tables back then, but this was the first one he had seen with a D mint mark. Perhaps it was no coincidence that when I contacted the owner of the first coin for the story we did about the errors he was also from Vegas.
We naturally talked to the Mint, which was much more communicative back then, and they told us that Proof planchets of all denominations deemed unfit for Proof coinage at the SFAO were placed in barrels (not the normal tote bins) and shipped to Denver whenever they had enough barrels to fill up a truck, except for the cent planchets which could be used to make circulation strikes at the SFAO through 1974.
At some later date I learned from somebody at the Mint that because of our inquiry the Denver Mint had suspended the striking of the SFAO dollar planchets until they couild be checked by hand, and that in doing so they had discovered a few dozen more 40% silver planchets. I believe they also hand sorted all struck Ike dollars that had not yet left the Mint, but I don't recall if they found any more struck 40% silver coins. They may have.
I remember that it made me wish that we had not publicized the errors, because if we had not then more of them would have gotten out, but that's show biz!
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Your last three sentences above are the only ones that I fully understand, and that make any sense to me. >>
Hi Fred,
In my mind, there are error experts, then there is you, IMO the most knowledgable individual on coin errors.
Curious what you think of the Ike "transitionals"
Do you consider the 74-D, 76-D, 77-D silver clad coins transitionals? Do you consider the 73-S CN coins transitionals?
Thanks Kevin >>
Kevin, FWIW I do not consider any of these four to be "transitional errors." I would call them "wrong metal errors," and for the silver ones struck in Denver would gladly consider calling them "wrong mint errors" if anybody wants to.
And also FWIW, I was at Coin World (not ANACS as I misspoke elsewhere) when the first of the 40% silver D-Mints surfaced. I had just opened a package with one in it and done weight and specific gravity to confirm it when the phone rang and a guy told me all excited that he had a 40% silver Ike struck at Denver and I said something to the effect of "What, another one?" and he said "WHAT???"
He was a blackjack dealer in Las Vegas and said that he occasionally encountered S-Mint 40% silver Ikes in the dollar coins they still used on the tables back then, but this was the first one he had seen with a D mint mark. Perhaps it was no coincidence that when I contacted the owner of the first coin for the story we did about the errors he was also from Vegas.
We naturally talked to the Mint, which was much more communicative back then, and they told us that Proof planchets of all denominations deemed unfit for Proof coinage at the SFAO were placed in barrels (not the normal tote bins) and shipped to Denver whenever they had enough barrels to fill up a truck, except for the cent planchets which could be used to make circulation strikes at the SFAO through 1974.
At some later date I learned from somebody at the Mint that because of our inquiry the Denver Mint had suspended the striking of the SFAO dollar planchets until they couild be checked by hand, and that in doing so they had discovered a few dozen more 40% silver planchets. I believe they also hand sorted all struck Ike dollars that had not yet left the Mint, but I don't recall if they found any more struck 40% silver coins. They may have.
I remember that it made me wish that we had not publicized the errors, because if we had not then more of them would have gotten out, but that's show biz!
TD >>
Interesting about the barrels of planchets, and that would explain how the silver planchets ended up at the Denver Mint.
I wonder how the clad Ike planchet ended up being struck at San Francisco in 1973? Considering (I believe) there are about 2 of them known, it wasn't a "one-off" situation.
In early 1966 and sometime between our release of the 2nd edition of the NECA Master Doubled Die Files, and before the upcoming Errorama show, I was at a coin club meeting in Crown Point Ind. These people walked in and came up to me. They told me that they were from Redbook and that they wanted to talk to me. I asked them what I could do for them. They told me that they wanted to know what I thought the correct descriptor was for the 1943 copper cent, and how it should be properly classified. They also told me that Walter Breen had recommended that they come and speak with me.
I told them that I had heard that they were being lobbied real hard to classify the coin as a transitional error but that I thought that it was a fundamental mistake to do so. I told them that I thought that compositional was the more descriptive and correct term. They asked me why.
I then proceeded to explain to them that I saw the word transitional as a high level numismatic classification descriptor that should be reserved and used as a major categorical classification term which could then be applied to a variety of different situations. I also told them that compositional seemed to me to be a more descriptive and easy to understand term in relation to the 1943 copper coin. I also told them technically speaking, I saw the copper as a perfect, transitional date composition, planchet error. They then asked me if I could further explain, so I gave it a shot.
I went on to explain that transitional was a major categorical concept, and that compositional was a sub category of it. I also told them that denominational was also another sub category which could also easily fall under transitional. It seemed to me that denominational and compositional were sub classifications of transitionals, and not the other way around. I explained to them that the use of the word transitional when limited for the use of any sub category compositional, would effectively amount to no more than a hijacking of an important numismatic term, and for no more than the profit motive of a relative few, and that it would be a technical missclassification which would only serve to confuse.
I continued on to further explain that with respect to the 43 coppers, if we used transitional as the descriptor, certain confusion would arise as to the implications of date and metals. The implication being that transitional would forever be linked to some sort of date event as opposed to a compositional one (with respect to that particular circumstance), and in choosing to do so, the proper links between error event and parentage would be confused. I told them that the 1943 date was used on both copper and zinc/steel. Their dates were the same. It was their composition which had been altered, and with respect to any particular year, the parent error classification would always be applicable. I also said that despite the fact that different metals, and different dated dies may have been available at the mint in any particular period of transition at the mint, no transitionals could be created without some swap in the choice of metals selected.
I lost... and, now for my opinion, so did numismatics.
<< <i>Your last three sentences above are the only ones that I fully understand, and that make any sense to me. >>
Hi Fred,
In my mind, there are error experts, then there is you, IMO the most knowledgable individual on coin errors.
Curious what you think of the Ike "transitionals"
Do you consider the 74-D, 76-D, 77-D silver clad coins transitionals? Do you consider the 73-S CN coins transitionals?
Thanks Kevin >>
Kevin, FWIW I do not consider any of these four to be "transitional errors." I would call them "wrong metal errors," and for the silver ones struck in Denver would gladly consider calling them "wrong mint errors" if anybody wants to.
And also FWIW, I was at Coin World (not ANACS as I misspoke elsewhere) when the first of the 40% silver D-Mints surfaced. I had just opened a package with one in it and done weight and specific gravity to confirm it when the phone rang and a guy told me all excited that he had a 40% silver Ike struck at Denver and I said something to the effect of "What, another one?" and he said "WHAT???"
He was a blackjack dealer in Las Vegas and said that he occasionally encountered S-Mint 40% silver Ikes in the dollar coins they still used on the tables back then, but this was the first one he had seen with a D mint mark. Perhaps it was no coincidence that when I contacted the owner of the first coin for the story we did about the errors he was also from Vegas.
We naturally talked to the Mint, which was much more communicative back then, and they told us that Proof planchets of all denominations deemed unfit for Proof coinage at the SFAO were placed in barrels (not the normal tote bins) and shipped to Denver whenever they had enough barrels to fill up a truck, except for the cent planchets which could be used to make circulation strikes at the SFAO through 1974.
At some later date I learned from somebody at the Mint that because of our inquiry the Denver Mint had suspended the striking of the SFAO dollar planchets until they couild be checked by hand, and that in doing so they had discovered a few dozen more 40% silver planchets. I believe they also hand sorted all struck Ike dollars that had not yet left the Mint, but I don't recall if they found any more struck 40% silver coins. They may have.
I remember that it made me wish that we had not publicized the errors, because if we had not then more of them would have gotten out, but that's show biz!
TD >>
Interesting about the barrels of planchets, and that would explain how the silver planchets ended up at the Denver Mint.
I wonder how the clad Ike planchet ended up being struck at San Francisco in 1973? Considering (I believe) there are about 2 of them known, it wasn't a "one-off" situation. >>
They did strike copper-nickel clad Proof Ikes in the SFAO in 1973, so a few planchets just ended up in the wrong press.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
So, if by now I have not completely lost everyone, let us continue on with another hypothetical example.
It is 1942 and we are switching from 1942 copper cents to 1943 steels. Let us also consider that we have great mint records. We have 2 different sets of hypothetical records. Record set number one tells us that the 1943 copper cents were made because the mint decided to use up some left over 1942 copper planchets at the end of the year when they switched over the dies to 1943, (or similar but different, they got stuck in hoppers). Record set number two tells us that in 1942 the mint was running all 1942 coppers and then decided at some point in 1942 to use an experimental 1943 dated die in the middle of the production run, and they then struck a few coins. (and some die genius can actually track the individual 1943 dies used by individual die, and maybe even die state)...and the mint then went on to use up that very same die during 1943 steel cent production. Now remember, this is all hypothetical, and we actually only have records of one or the other of the two events happening but not both. What occurs? How do we classify the differences? Transitional, compositional, intentional, unintentional? ...Uh? Definitions matter only if an appreciation of them can exist without bias.
Hypothetically that cannot happen as the US Mint would never use a 1943 dated die in 1942 for experimental purposes. The US Mint used 1942 dated dies, first the Judd 2054 dated 1942 in November 1942, then the off metal 1942 regular lincoln cent dies.
<< <i>Hypothetically that cannot happen as the US Mint would never use a 1943 dated die in 1942 for experimental purposes. The US Mint used 1942 dated dies, first the Judd 2054 dated 1942 in November 1942, then the off metal 1942 regular lincoln cent dies. >>
I don't think that the U.S. Mint used any 1943 dies in 1942 for experimental purposes, but remember that in a different era the Mint used 1974-dated dies in 1973 to strike aluminum cents.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I am going to throw in a kicker here. Let's assume that the 1943 coppers were actually unintentionally produced because the planchets got stuck in hoppers, and as the mint was transitioning metals at the end of 1942, they got struck as 1943 coppers. Now, lets look at my original example about the 1964-5 transitional's.
Let us assume that they are both unintended events.
The 1943 copper cent is an unintentional, perfect, transitional date composition, planchet error. The 1965 silvers are unintentional, perfect, transitional date composition, wrong stock errors. Edited... (assuming that the transition took place prior to blanking)
The mint struck 90% silver dimes, quarters and halves until 1966. (at least for some, but well into 1965 for all if I recall. Would need to look up the official mintages for these)
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
Once we understand what happened to the usage of the term transitional and move on, we can begin to get a better understanding of many other types of errors and their relative rarities. For instance, do we really understand our modified die transitionals?
Or, how about this... Why don't we have a bunch of wrong denomination, wrong stock, proof coins? Is the coin error type an unintentional, imperfect, wrong denomination, wrong stock error, or is it an unintentional, imperfect, wrong denomination, planchet error? Or, is it both?
Without a precise and fundamentally technical understanding and classification of our error coins, can we really even begin to appreciate them?
<< <i>Once we understand what happened to the usage of the term transitional and move on, we can begin to get a better understanding of many other types of errors and their relative rarities. For instance, do we really understand our modified die transitionals?
Or, how about this... Why don't we have a bunch of wrong denomination, wrong stock, proof coins? Is the coin error type an unintentional, imperfect, wrong denomination, wrong stock error, or is it an unintentional, imperfect, wrong denomination, planchet error? Or, is it both?
Without a precise and fundamentally technical understanding and classification of our error coins, can we really even begin to appreciate them? >>
Lets look at the wrong denomination wrong stock errors and see if we can understand what is occurring with them. An example:
The year is 1988 and the Denver mint is producing 15 million half dollar planchets to be struck. 12 million are going to be struck in Denver as business strike coins and 3 million are going to be sent to San Fransisco to be struck as S mint proof coins. Only one Denver produced planchet is known to exist as a wrong denominational wrong stock planchet. The odds of that one wrong denominational coin being struck on any Denver produced planchet of that year, and mint, is 15 million to one.
Now let us assume that we are going to pull 3 million planchets from the total of 15 million to be used as proof coins. We only have a 20% chance of picking the wrong denominational error from throughout the grouping of planchets for use as a proof coin. The likelihood of pulling that wrong stock for use as a proof is only one in 5. Therefore, the chance of getting that one wrong denominational made as a proof is one in 75 million. (15 million x 5).
Now, what happens if the 1988 S proof coins were blanked and struck in San Fransisco? Well assuming that S.F. Mint only produced those 3 million proof half dollars, and no business strike coins, and only one of those planchets turned out to be the wrong denomination wrong stock error, we have a 1 in 3 million chance of that error occurring. What is going on here?
Now here is where understanding transitionals gets interesting, and important.
If the denominational was blanked in San Fransisco, it produces a proof transitional wrong denomination wrong stock error. The transition occurred prior to blanking, when the metal chosen for blanking was incorrect.
However, if the Denver Mint was responsible for producing the wrong stock planchet, we have different things going on. We still have a transition occurring when the wrong metal stock was selected before blanking, which gives us a wrong denomination wrong stock, and we also have another error event.
We selected that one defective planchet from among the 3 million normal proof planchets needed, and pulled it out from the 15 million Denver planchets available, and we then sent that defective planchet to San Fransisco with the other 2, 999,999 normal planchets, to be struck as S Mint proof coins.
When that planchet was then sent into proof production, we introduced a wrong planchet error into the proof production mix. That defective planchet was not intended for normal proof production. It is the wrong planchet. It becomes a San Fransisco proof transitional wrong planchet error, and it was already a Denver wrong stock error. We have a dual transitional series of events.
The odds of those two different coins being produced are quite different. One is a Proof dual transitional, wrong denominational, wrong stock, wrong planchet error, and the other is a proof transitional wrong denominational wrong stock error.
The dual transitional is 25 times less likely to occur...ie... 75 million to 1 versus 3 million to 1.
If we simply label both types of error events as proof wrong denominational wrong stock errors, how can we understand the difference in their manufacturing event, and their probability of occurrence?
And, both coins for all intent and purposes, are the exact same, or are they?
Edited...the above mathematical examples are simplistic hypothetical's for the point of understanding transitionals and error events. We are assuming that the wrong stock just exists and got mixed in with the other planchets. It does not factor into account the probability of occurrence of the production of an actual 1988 wrong denomination wrong stock planchet.
Nobody has to redefine transitional. It is already well established to the point of near blindness. I do suggest that they may not want to wear sunglasses.
Some readers may be able to make good use of this information in the determination of the parentage and relative rarity of their coins. I personally do not know of a better way to understand any of this without a fundamental grasp of the numismatic origination of the word transitional, and it's application.
FYI, I did not redefine our understanding of the word transitional for contemporary numismatic abuse. A relative handful of profit motivated individuals did that about 50 years ago.
Rest assured that after collecting coins for 59 years, I am well aware of more than just my own limitations.
<< <i>Nobody has to redefine transitional. It is already well established to the point of near blindness. I do suggest that they may not want to wear sunglasses.
Some readers may be able to make good use of this information in the determination of the parentage and relative rarity of their coins. I personally do not know of a better way to understand any of this without a fundamental grasp of the numismatic origination of the word transitional, and it's application.
FYI, I did not redefine our understanding of the word transitional for contemporary numismatic abuse. A relative handful of profit motivated individuals did that about 50 years ago.
Rest assured that after collecting coins for 59 years, I am well aware of more than just my own limitations. >>
... This is for you Rick.
Off the top of my head, I think that technically speaking, your 1864 L modified die cent is a date transitional modified die that was struck on a transitional date composition planchet. But of course, it is not a transitional coin... Uh?
<< <i>Nobody has to redefine transitional. It is already well established to the point of near blindness. I do suggest that they may not want to wear sunglasses.
Some readers may be able to make good use of this information in the determination of the parentage and relative rarity of their coins. I personally do not know of a better way to understand any of this without a fundamental grasp of the numismatic origination of the word transitional, and it's application.
FYI, I did not redefine our understanding of the word transitional for contemporary numismatic abuse. A relative handful of profit motivated individuals did that about 50 years ago.
Rest assured that after collecting coins for 59 years, I am well aware of more than just my own limitations. >>
... This is for you Rick.
Off the top of my head, I think that technically speaking, your 1864 L modified die cent is a date transitional modified die that was struck on a transitional date composition planchet. But of course, it is not a transitional coin... Uh?
The non proof 1864 L Obv. die cent error type produces a DATE TRANSITIONAL modified die coin. It does not produce a TRANSITIONAL DATE modified die coin (Normally). That coins die modification, and technical classification is date sensitive, as it took place during the year 1864 production run as the non L coins were being produced. The 1864 L coin is not a transitional date modified die coin which occurs between years, and which carry different dates. It is a 1864 dated transitional design change which occurred within the 1864 dated cent production run.
A parent error classification is always applicable irregardless of date, or date change. And somewhere within lies contemporary numismatic classification confusion. >>
The 1864 L Obv. non proof cent is most certainly a rare and valuable dual type transitional coin. It appears to be a transitional type that claims right to both wrong planchet, and die modification classification. It is worthy of proper descriptive.
Comments
Edited to add - How cool would it have been to find a circulated/slightly underweight 1967 Kennedy struck on a somehow leftover 90% planchet? I think I have read of some 1965 Kennedy's struck on 90%.
Jeff
<< <i>How can we understand the potential importance of rare coins if we do not have an easy way to properly classify them with respect to each other?
With respect to what I have been referring to as perfect and imperferct transitional wrong stocks, I am going to post, what I hope will be, an easy to understand hypothetical example of what I have been discussing, and the rational for my original post.
The year is 1965 and the mint is simultaneously producing both 1964 dated silver coinage, and 1965 clad coinages. There are two separated but identical assembly lines set up that can take coin production from the point of blanking all the way to final striking of the coins. They are set up so that there can be no cross contamination between them, ie...no planchets can escape from one line to the other line.
Line one is set up to run 1964 silver dated quarters and 1964 silver dimes.
Line two is set up to run 1965 dated copper nickel clad quarters, and 1965 dated cu/ni dimes.
Behind these productions lines is a room that is shared by the two production lines which houses the planchet rolling stocks.
In that room, there are only four rolls and they are all different types of rolling stock.
We have a roll of silver quarter stock, we have a roll of silver dime stock, we have a roll of cu/ni quarter stock, and we have a roll of cu/ni dime stock.
Now assume that in the first production line, we are set up to run 1964 silver dated quarters.
If we put on a blindfold and go into the room where the rolling stock is, and then randomly pick out any one of the four rolls of metal stock, and we then place it into our 1964 silver quarter production run, what occurs?
We can get a perfect normal 1964 silver quarter production coin if we have selected the silver quarter dollar stock.
But, what if we did not pick the silver quarter stock? What are we then producing, and how do we properly classify it?
OK, so we ran the silver quarter stock, and then we are left with the other three rolls. So now we go and grab one of the last three rolls, and run it on our silver quarter production line. What gets produced, and how would you properly classify it?
...
to be continued. >>
OK, so we ran out the silver quarter stock and now we renter the room holding the rolling stocks. We grab one of the last three remaining rolls, and we run it on our silver quarter dollar production line.. In this case, we just happened to grab the clad cu/ni quarter dollar rolling stock. What happens? We are going to get a perfect looking cu/ni clad quarter that is dated 1964. Everybody recognizes these to be our classic transitionals, but what exactly is going on here? We have a perfect coin which is a transitional date wrong composition wrong stock. It is virtually identical to the 1965 clad quarters in every way, except for the date.
So we run out the 1964 dated "transitionals", and then we return to the room where the remaining two rolls of stock are, we grab one, and then we run it on our silver quarter production line.
This time, we just so happened to pick out the silver dime stock, and we run it on our silver quarter production line. What gets produced, and how do we properly classify it? Well, look at the resulting coins that get made. Do they look normal or perfect? Of course not. They look like an understruck silver quarter with missing details struck on an underweight thin planchet. They most certainly are not perfect are they? They are imperfect, and they are struck on the wrong denomination 1964 silver rolling stock. They become imperfect wrong denomination wrong stocks.
OK, so now we used up that roll of silver dime stock, we return to the rolling stock room, and we grab the last remaining roll of stock, the clad Cu/Ni dime stock, and we run it on our 1964 silver quarter production line. What gets produced, and what do we call it?
Well, we are going to get another underweight and understruck quarter coin struck on wrong denomination dime stock, which is also made out of the wrong metal composition for it's date. The coin is not going to be perfect is it? Is is going to be another imperfect coin. It is also going to be a "transitional" date wrong stock. It is a 1964 dated clad quarter coin struck on a metal that was not intended for normal production use until 1965.
Another classical "transitional" wrong stock, but just of another flavor. We are going to get an imperfect, transitional date, wrong composition, wrong denomination, wrong stock error.
If we trace back all of the four different scenarios we have developed, each one of them will have one thing in common, they all came down to the choice of rolling stock prior to blanking. This is where the transition took place, and it is what relates them to each other. They are transitional planchet errors, excepting the one perfectly normal 1964 dated silver quarter coin.
There seems to be some confusion in the understanding that the transition is not derived from any specific year to year date change, but rather in the selection of the planchet metals.
Look at it this way. Even if I am in a 1964/65 transition period, and even if I am running both silver and clad, and even if I am running both of those metals with both dates, there cannot be any transitional coins produced from either of the two production lines unless there is a transition in metals between the different metals and dates. You would simply get two different denominations and dates of normal composition, normally dated, perfect production coins.
<< <i>Back in 2012 when I was doing far more roll hunting than today I found a 1967 Kennedy 50c which weighed between 12.2-12.3 gm. I had never seen one weigh more than 11.8 gm. I even emailed Fred about it and he was nice enough to respond and explained it was very likely a planchet that was rolled too thick. There is no question based on the edge appearance it was a normal 40% planchet. Very hard for me to consider this as a transitional.
Edited to add - How cool would it have been to find a circulated/slightly underweight 1967 Kennedy struck on a somehow leftover 90% planchet? I think I have read of some 1965 Kennedy's struck on 90%.
Jeff >>
I agree that Fred was correct on the 40% 12.3 gram 1967 Kennedy, assuming that the coin was not made intentionally as a transitional weight or compositional, perfect or imperfect, trial pattern. And...at that weight?
<< <i>
<< <i>Back in 2012 when I was doing far more roll hunting than today I found a 1967 Kennedy 50c which weighed between 12.2-12.3 gm. I had never seen one weigh more than 11.8 gm. I even emailed Fred about it and he was nice enough to respond and explained it was very likely a planchet that was rolled too thick. There is no question based on the edge appearance it was a normal 40% planchet. Very hard for me to consider this as a transitional.
Edited to add - How cool would it have been to find a circulated/slightly underweight 1967 Kennedy struck on a somehow leftover 90% planchet? I think I have read of some 1965 Kennedy's struck on 90%.
Jeff >>
I agree that Fred was correct on the 40% 12.3 gram 1967 Kennedy, assuming that the coin was not made intentionally as a transitional weight or compositional, perfect or imperfect, trial pattern. And...at that weight?
...Did it work in vending machines.
All other wrong planchet/off-metal errors are just that. You can't re-define a term in the way that the grading services cynically re-defined the term "first strike".
It is also what is keeping many collectors in the dark as to the proper identification and technical classification of many other types of rare and valuable transitional errors.
We certainly do make many types of coin transitionals, like virtually every PDS error.
These errors can be broken down and more properly classified and understood by embracing the concept of transitional, and then tracing their lineage throughout the manufacturing process.
Our current conventional classification rigidity is what makes people think that date transitionals are caused by date changes, or by the introduction of alternative metals. It obscures the understanding that the parent error can be traced back to the changing of a metal prior to blanking, or to the mixup of a planchet post blanking from one which was intended for production, to that which was not.
We all know what our transitionals are, right?
IMO, transitionals are more of an accepted created class of errors that has been defined by collectors with an generally accepted cause.
IMO By their very method of creation, they fall under wrong planchets.
Also, transitional has been used in coins on design changes, such as in 1859, when the Mint was changing the design of the half-dime.
By definition, patterns in part are the testing of designs, so these would also fall under this category. But they are normally referred to as transitionals.
Lets look at the list of generally accepted transitionals (sorry if I miss some)
1943 (P, D, S) copper cent
1944 (P, D, S) steel cent
Notes - the unique 1943-D copper was intentially struck by a Mint employee and kept for 50 or so years before passing on to relatives.
Chief Engraver John Sinnock had a 43 copper and 44 steel that he gave to his mistress and she sold in 1960
1946 silver Jefferson Nickel
1965 silver dime
1965 silver quarter
1965 half dollar - have heard they exist, but have not examined one.
I have read/heard that the Mint was using 1964 dated working dies in 1965 and 1966 to strike half dollars to use up the planchets, not sure if they did the same for dimes and quarters.
1971-D Silver clad Kennedy half dollar
1974-D silver clad Eisenhower Dollar
1976-D silver clad Eisenhower Dollar
1977-D silver clad Eisenhower Dollar
It is believed that the 74-D was created when the SF mint was striking Eisenhower proofs on both silver and copper nickel clad planchets, CN planchets that were unacceptable for proofs were shipped to Denver. a few (12-15) silver planchets got mixed in. Even though the Mint was not transitioning from one planchet to another, as both were being used, these are normally referred to as transitionals.
There is also a 1973-S Mint State clad. Few have known about this, so not really defined.
Some of these have a different root cause, some were done intentionally.
In researching this, some possibilities include
planchets are transported throughout the mint in bins. If a planchet of one metal was struck in the bin, for example in the exit door, and reused when the next year new metal was introduced, it might occur.
If a planchet was left over in the hopper in the coining press or some other part of the coining press. We also strike coins from foreign countries, Stewart Blay showed me a alum cent in a proof set, I believe it was from 1970. I believe at the time we were striking coins for one of the countries in South America. The coining press was used to strike these coins, then used to strike cents.
IMO, when referring to transitionals, this is more an accepted meaning that a defined one that has been used to refer to certain types of coins over the years.
Obviously there are others that probably fall into this list.
Kevin
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
However, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.
I am offering up a reasonably simple way for us collectors to understand the subtle nuances between different types of error events in relationship to each other.
I choose to classify these errors by virtue of manufacture event and parentage, so that I can better understand them, and their relationships to each other.
I respect both convention, and preference.
And your time sir.
<< <i>I am offering up a reasonably simple way for us collectors to understand .......... >>
No you are trying to confuse the subject.
The greatest error experts in the world have chimed in and you fight them, instead just listen to them as we all can learn a great deal from these experts.
<< <i>
<< <i>Very good.
Kinda like as all double dies are to all transitional's, but existent. >>
If you are going to use another numismatic term to make your point, please use it correctly. Double dies do not exist ... doubled dies do, however.
No need to reiterate what some of the knowledgable error folks have said here. Simply "redefining" a numismatic term to fit your need doesn't make it correct. There is one author who insists a coin is not a proof unless it was released for sale to the public. Just because he defines a proof that way, does not make it so.
Perhaps your next thread will be lucky number 7 and you will convince us all. >>
Lane,
Thats funny, correcting someone on redefining a numismatic term. Pot calling the kettle black.
Then stating an author (obviously me) who insists a coin is not a proof unless it was released for sale to the public.
If you are going to quote me, please do it properly
I define a proof coin as
"The definition of a proof coin refers to the intent and the method of manufacture, not the condition of the coin. Proof coins are made by the Mint for presentation, souvenir, exhibition, numismatic purposes, and to encourage coin collecting. They normally have mirror-like fields, sharp detailed designs, and high squared rims and corners."
Lets take the 1838-O Half Dollar for example, New Orleans strikes 10 to test the new large coining press and to prove they can do this. They have to jury right under the lower die as it would not fit. Strike 10 perfect specimens, none on a polished planchet. In March, after striking a few 1839-O half dollars, Coiner Tyler strikes a 1838-O half dollar and this coin winds up in the Smithsonian collection.
IMO, the first 10 are not proofs, they were test strikes, they are also far superior than normal half dollars in strike. As the 38-O half for the Smithsonian was on a polished planchet and winds up in the Smithsonian collection, the intent was to especially strike this for Director Patterson. PCGS will call any of the first 10 specimens in the future specimen coins.
Lets take the 1893 Isabella quarter, they were all struck on polished planchets, are these proofs, they were done as the coiner wanted to something special for the ladies who were doing this.
Lets take the 1894-S dime, listed as a coin for circulation by the Mint, no polished planchets, normal die and strike you might see on an early strike. Yet in 1945, in an auction, it was called a proof, most likely they believed it would bring more money being called a proof.
Lets take the 1855-S half and quarter that were struck as proofs. From a Heritage catalogue on a 1855-S proof quarter, "The Smithsonian Institution specimen has been part of the National Numismatic Collection since the time of issue, when San Francisco Mint Superintendent Robert Aiken Birdsall preserved the piece and sent it to Mint Director James Ross Snowden."
These were struck as proofs and one was presented to Director.
I can go on and on with examples.
Then we have pattern coins that were sold as proofs, which under the law is legal so long as the same design and same alloy and year, such as the two cent small motto proof.
You are obviously bringing up the 1875-S Twenty cent piece that you have called a proof.
This variety was first called a proof in 1931 by Max Mehl, over 50 years after it was struck (you left out this important fact in your book)
There are no Mint records that the SF Mint struck proofs in 1875, R.B. White wrote an article on these in 1974 and stated he did a comprehensive search of SF newspapers for 1875 and found no mention of any ceremony on these coins or anything else with coins especially struck and released.
And to another point, its not just me who defines a proof in this manner. The Red Book does it also. PCGS has adopted a standard that proof (evidence) is required of intent that a coin was struck as a proof in order to be certified as one.
I do not disagree that some of these coins exhibit superior strike and some have proof like surfaces, but PCGS will certify these coins in the future as specimen coins.
Which is of course ironic, as proof coins were first referred to as master coins, then as specimen coins.
If you want to have a conversation, do so directly please, not implying as you did here that I was redefining a common term, then also getting what I stated incorrect.
Sincerely
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>I am offering up a reasonably simple way for us collectors to understand .......... >>
No you are trying to confuse the subject.
The greatest error experts in the world have chimed in and you fight them, instead just listen to them as we all can learn a great deal from these experts. >>
I am not fighting anyone.
I am not even in disagreement with the experts..
If you read closely you would know that.
What I am suggesting is that maybe it is time that we take a closer look at our conventional numismatic classifications to see if we can improve on them for ease of understanding and appreciation.
And, with respect to our transitional coins, I just kinda get a kick out of how we can call the one a transitional, while relegating it's parent family to the lessor understood moniker of wrong stocks, or other.
<< <i>
<< <i>Very good.
Kinda like as all double dies are to all transitional's, but existent. >>
If you are going to use another numismatic term to make your point, please use it correctly. Double dies do not exist ... doubled dies do, however.
No need to reiterate what some of the knowledgable error folks have said here. Simply "redefining" a numismatic term to fit your need doesn't make it correct. There is one author who insists a coin is not a proof unless it was released for sale to the public. Just because he defines a proof that way, does not make it so.
Perhaps your next thread will be lucky number 7 and you will convince us all. >>
Lane,
On Double Die vs Doubled Die,
you probably should correct Heritage Auctions also, as they have used both,
Ex: "1917 1C Double Die Obverse, Die 1 VG10 ANACS. NGC Census: (11/200). PCGS Population (3/105). Mintage: 196,429,792. (#2495)..."
Kevin
I am just NECA.
ones that I fully understand, and that make
any sense to me.
<< <i>Your last three sentences above are the only ones that I fully understand, and that make any sense to me. >>
Hi Fred,
In my mind, there are error experts, then there is you, IMO the most knowledgable individual on coin errors.
Curious what you think of the Ike "transitionals"
Do you consider the 74-D, 76-D, 77-D silver clad coins transitionals?
Do you consider the 73-S CN coins transitionals?
Thanks
Kevin
I don't consider those 40% silver coins from Denver
to be Transitional Wrong Planchets like I would the
1943 Copper Cents or 1983 Copper Cents.
The Denver Mint didn't strike, as the normal course
of business, regular 1974-D, 1976-D, or 1977-D
coinage of any three of those denominations; the
planchets originated from the San Francisco Mint,
and were shipped in error to Denver.
They're Wrong Planchet Errors, but I'm not aware
of the term "Transitional" being used in a regular
fashion for any of them.
That being said, I appreciate your kind words, but I'm
just an old-time collector who at age 22 became a
full time coin dealer (for the past 43 years). I make
mistakes like we all do, and although I might have
better stories than most about the error coin hobby
and market over the past 50 years or so, believe me -
there are others who are quite knowledgeable about
the Minting Process.
I've always credited three people who encouraged me,
helped me, and were very supportive of my collecting
days - Arnie Margolis, Syd Kass, and Mort Goodman.
Folks like Lonesome John Devine were also very helpful
and 'fun competitors' - lots of people that I have fond
memories of back in the 60's and '70's....
What you said about the Ikes make sense, these are not the same as the 43 copper, which traditionally set the standard on this term.
I did not know about the 1983 copper cent, that is good to know.
Do you have a list of what you consider transitional error coins?
I remember at the 1997 ANA in NY, Bowers had an auction and was selling a 1974-D silver clad Ike, which I remember them calling a transitional, which I purchased.
I remember you were there, believed we talked about the coin. It was in an ANACS MS63 holder.
Of course, IMO a catologuer might choose to adlib so to speak, if they believe it might add value or interest, obviously it did in my mind
Thanks
Kevin
No, I don't have a list of what I consider to be
true Transitional errors, but I'm pretty much
a traditionalist when it comes to Transitionals.
<< <i>Kevin,
I don't consider those 40% silver coins from Denver
to be Transitional Wrong Planchets like I would the
1943 Copper Cents or 1983 Copper Cents.
The Denver Mint didn't strike, as the normal course
of business, regular 1974-D, 1976-D, or 1977-D
coinage of any three of those denominations; the
planchets originated from the San Francisco Mint,
and were shipped in error to Denver.
They're Wrong Planchet Errors, but I'm not aware
of the term "Transitional" being used in a regular
fashion for any of them.
That being said, I appreciate your kind words, but I'm
just an old-time collector who at age 22 became a
full time coin dealer (for the past 43 years). I make
mistakes like we all do, and although I might have
better stories than most about the error coin hobby
and market over the past 50 years or so, believe me -
there are others who are quite knowledgeable about
the Minting Process.
I've always credited three people who encouraged me,
helped me, and were very supportive of my collecting
days - Arnie Margolis, Syd Kass, and Mort Goodman.
Folks like Lonesome John Devine were also very helpful
and 'fun competitors' - lots of people that I have fond
memories of back in the 60's and '70's.... >>
I remember.
I miss them too.
<< <i>Mike, the very idea that the use of the word transitional can only be limited to a specific type of date sensitive error is just a matter of convention. And in effect, that limitation amounts to no more than an abbreviated non technical shorthand.
It is also what is keeping many collectors in the dark as to the proper identification and technical classification of many other types of rare and valuable transitional errors.
We certainly do make many types of coin transitionals, like virtually every PDS error.
These errors can be broken down and more properly classified and understood by embracing the concept of transitional, and then tracing their lineage throughout the manufacturing process.
Our current conventional classification rigidity is what makes people think that date transitionals are caused by date changes, or by the introduction of alternative metals. It obscures the understanding that the parent error can be traced back to the changing of a metal prior to blanking, or to the mixup of a planchet post blanking from one which was intended for production, to that which was not.
We all know what our transitionals are, right? >>
To answer your question, clearly you do not.
Choice Numismatics www.ChoiceCoin.com
CN eBay
All of my collection is in a safe deposit box!
<< <i>Good answer Mike.
However, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.
I am offering up a reasonably simple way for us collectors to understand the subtle nuances between different types of error events in relationship to each other.
I choose to classify these errors by virtue of manufacture event and parentage, so that I can better understand them, and their relationships to each other.
I respect both convention, and preference.
And your time sir. >>
In your own words you call them different types of errors. How is that easier to classify different things all as the same thing? It's not!
Choice Numismatics www.ChoiceCoin.com
CN eBay
All of my collection is in a safe deposit box!
<< <i>
<< <i>Your last three sentences above are the only ones that I fully understand, and that make any sense to me. >>
Hi Fred,
In my mind, there are error experts, then there is you, IMO the most knowledgable individual on coin errors.
Curious what you think of the Ike "transitionals"
Do you consider the 74-D, 76-D, 77-D silver clad coins transitionals?
Do you consider the 73-S CN coins transitionals?
Thanks
Kevin >>
Kevin, FWIW I do not consider any of these four to be "transitional errors." I would call them "wrong metal errors," and for the silver ones struck in Denver would gladly consider calling them "wrong mint errors" if anybody wants to.
And also FWIW, I was at Coin World (not ANACS as I misspoke elsewhere) when the first of the 40% silver D-Mints surfaced. I had just opened a package with one in it and done weight and specific gravity to confirm it when the phone rang and a guy told me all excited that he had a 40% silver Ike struck at Denver and I said something to the effect of "What, another one?" and he said "WHAT???"
He was a blackjack dealer in Las Vegas and said that he occasionally encountered S-Mint 40% silver Ikes in the dollar coins they still used on the tables back then, but this was the first one he had seen with a D mint mark. Perhaps it was no coincidence that when I contacted the owner of the first coin for the story we did about the errors he was also from Vegas.
We naturally talked to the Mint, which was much more communicative back then, and they told us that Proof planchets of all denominations deemed unfit for Proof coinage at the SFAO were placed in barrels (not the normal tote bins) and shipped to Denver whenever they had enough barrels to fill up a truck, except for the cent planchets which could be used to make circulation strikes at the SFAO through 1974.
At some later date I learned from somebody at the Mint that because of our inquiry the Denver Mint had suspended the striking of the SFAO dollar planchets until they couild be checked by hand, and that in doing so they had discovered a few dozen more 40% silver planchets. I believe they also hand sorted all struck Ike dollars that had not yet left the Mint, but I don't recall if they found any more struck 40% silver coins. They may have.
I remember that it made me wish that we had not publicized the errors, because if we had not then more of them would have gotten out, but that's show biz!
TD
As usual that was good history lesson
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Your last three sentences above are the only ones that I fully understand, and that make any sense to me. >>
Hi Fred,
In my mind, there are error experts, then there is you, IMO the most knowledgable individual on coin errors.
Curious what you think of the Ike "transitionals"
Do you consider the 74-D, 76-D, 77-D silver clad coins transitionals?
Do you consider the 73-S CN coins transitionals?
Thanks
Kevin >>
Kevin, FWIW I do not consider any of these four to be "transitional errors." I would call them "wrong metal errors," and for the silver ones struck in Denver would gladly consider calling them "wrong mint errors" if anybody wants to.
And also FWIW, I was at Coin World (not ANACS as I misspoke elsewhere) when the first of the 40% silver D-Mints surfaced. I had just opened a package with one in it and done weight and specific gravity to confirm it when the phone rang and a guy told me all excited that he had a 40% silver Ike struck at Denver and I said something to the effect of "What, another one?" and he said "WHAT???"
He was a blackjack dealer in Las Vegas and said that he occasionally encountered S-Mint 40% silver Ikes in the dollar coins they still used on the tables back then, but this was the first one he had seen with a D mint mark. Perhaps it was no coincidence that when I contacted the owner of the first coin for the story we did about the errors he was also from Vegas.
We naturally talked to the Mint, which was much more communicative back then, and they told us that Proof planchets of all denominations deemed unfit for Proof coinage at the SFAO were placed in barrels (not the normal tote bins) and shipped to Denver whenever they had enough barrels to fill up a truck, except for the cent planchets which could be used to make circulation strikes at the SFAO through 1974.
At some later date I learned from somebody at the Mint that because of our inquiry the Denver Mint had suspended the striking of the SFAO dollar planchets until they couild be checked by hand, and that in doing so they had discovered a few dozen more 40% silver planchets. I believe they also hand sorted all struck Ike dollars that had not yet left the Mint, but I don't recall if they found any more struck 40% silver coins. They may have.
I remember that it made me wish that we had not publicized the errors, because if we had not then more of them would have gotten out, but that's show biz!
TD >>
Interesting about the barrels of planchets, and that would explain how the silver planchets ended up at the Denver Mint.
I wonder how the clad Ike planchet ended up being struck at San Francisco in 1973? Considering (I believe) there are about 2 of them known, it wasn't a "one-off" situation.
They told me that they wanted to know what I thought the correct descriptor was for the 1943 copper cent, and how it should be properly classified. They also told me that Walter Breen had recommended that they come and speak with me.
I told them that I had heard that they were being lobbied real hard to classify the coin as a transitional error but that I thought that it was a fundamental mistake to do so. I told them that I thought that compositional was the more descriptive and correct term. They asked me why.
I then proceeded to explain to them that I saw the word transitional as a high level numismatic classification descriptor that should be reserved and used as a major categorical classification term which could then be applied to a variety of different situations. I also told them that compositional seemed to me to be a more descriptive and easy to understand term in relation to the 1943 copper coin. I also told them technically speaking, I saw the copper as a perfect, transitional date composition, planchet error.
They then asked me if I could further explain, so I gave it a shot.
I went on to explain that transitional was a major categorical concept, and that compositional was a sub category of it. I also told them that denominational was also another sub category which could also easily fall under transitional. It seemed to me that denominational and compositional were sub classifications of transitionals, and not the other way around. I explained to them that the use of the word transitional when limited for the use of any sub category compositional, would effectively amount to no more than a hijacking of an important numismatic term, and for no more than the profit motive of a relative few, and that it would be a technical missclassification which would only serve to confuse.
I continued on to further explain that with respect to the 43 coppers, if we used transitional as the descriptor, certain confusion would arise as to the implications of date and metals. The implication being that transitional would forever be linked to some sort of date event as opposed to a compositional one (with respect to that particular circumstance), and in choosing to do so, the proper links between error event and parentage would be confused.
I told them that the 1943 date was used on both copper and zinc/steel. Their dates were the same. It was their composition which had been altered, and with respect to any particular year, the parent error classification would always be applicable. I also said that despite the fact that different metals, and different dated dies may have been available at the mint in any particular period of transition at the mint, no transitionals could be created without some swap in the choice of metals selected.
I lost... and, now for my opinion, so did numismatics.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Your last three sentences above are the only ones that I fully understand, and that make any sense to me. >>
Hi Fred,
In my mind, there are error experts, then there is you, IMO the most knowledgable individual on coin errors.
Curious what you think of the Ike "transitionals"
Do you consider the 74-D, 76-D, 77-D silver clad coins transitionals?
Do you consider the 73-S CN coins transitionals?
Thanks
Kevin >>
Kevin, FWIW I do not consider any of these four to be "transitional errors." I would call them "wrong metal errors," and for the silver ones struck in Denver would gladly consider calling them "wrong mint errors" if anybody wants to.
And also FWIW, I was at Coin World (not ANACS as I misspoke elsewhere) when the first of the 40% silver D-Mints surfaced. I had just opened a package with one in it and done weight and specific gravity to confirm it when the phone rang and a guy told me all excited that he had a 40% silver Ike struck at Denver and I said something to the effect of "What, another one?" and he said "WHAT???"
He was a blackjack dealer in Las Vegas and said that he occasionally encountered S-Mint 40% silver Ikes in the dollar coins they still used on the tables back then, but this was the first one he had seen with a D mint mark. Perhaps it was no coincidence that when I contacted the owner of the first coin for the story we did about the errors he was also from Vegas.
We naturally talked to the Mint, which was much more communicative back then, and they told us that Proof planchets of all denominations deemed unfit for Proof coinage at the SFAO were placed in barrels (not the normal tote bins) and shipped to Denver whenever they had enough barrels to fill up a truck, except for the cent planchets which could be used to make circulation strikes at the SFAO through 1974.
At some later date I learned from somebody at the Mint that because of our inquiry the Denver Mint had suspended the striking of the SFAO dollar planchets until they couild be checked by hand, and that in doing so they had discovered a few dozen more 40% silver planchets. I believe they also hand sorted all struck Ike dollars that had not yet left the Mint, but I don't recall if they found any more struck 40% silver coins. They may have.
I remember that it made me wish that we had not publicized the errors, because if we had not then more of them would have gotten out, but that's show biz!
TD >>
Interesting about the barrels of planchets, and that would explain how the silver planchets ended up at the Denver Mint.
I wonder how the clad Ike planchet ended up being struck at San Francisco in 1973? Considering (I believe) there are about 2 of them known, it wasn't a "one-off" situation. >>
They did strike copper-nickel clad Proof Ikes in the SFAO in 1973, so a few planchets just ended up in the wrong press.
TD
It is 1942 and we are switching from 1942 copper cents to 1943 steels.
Let us also consider that we have great mint records.
We have 2 different sets of hypothetical records.
Record set number one tells us that the 1943 copper cents were made because the mint decided to use up some left over 1942 copper planchets at the end of the year when they switched over the dies to 1943, (or similar but different, they got stuck in hoppers).
Record set number two tells us that in 1942 the mint was running all 1942 coppers and then decided at some point in 1942 to use an experimental 1943 dated die in the middle of the production run, and they then struck a few coins. (and some die genius can actually track the individual 1943 dies used by individual die, and maybe even die state)...and the mint then went on to use up that very same die during 1943 steel cent production.
Now remember, this is all hypothetical, and we actually only have records of one or the other of the two events happening but not both.
What occurs?
How do we classify the differences?
Transitional, compositional, intentional, unintentional? ...Uh?
Definitions matter only if an appreciation of them can exist without bias.
<< <i>Hypothetically that cannot happen as the US Mint would never use a 1943 dated die in 1942 for experimental purposes. The US Mint used 1942 dated dies, first the Judd 2054 dated 1942 in November 1942, then the off metal 1942 regular lincoln cent dies. >>
I don't think that the U.S. Mint used any 1943 dies in 1942 for experimental purposes, but remember that in a different era the Mint used 1974-dated dies in 1973 to strike aluminum cents.
Let's assume that the 1943 coppers were actually unintentionally produced because the planchets got stuck in hoppers, and as the mint was transitioning metals at the end of 1942, they got struck as 1943 coppers.
Now, lets look at my original example about the 1964-5 transitional's.
Let us assume that they are both unintended events.
The 1943 copper cent is an unintentional, perfect, transitional date composition, planchet error.
The 1965 silvers are unintentional, perfect, transitional date composition, wrong stock errors. Edited... (assuming that the transition took place prior to blanking)
Hope this helps.
NECA
Or, how about this... Why don't we have a bunch of wrong denomination, wrong stock, proof coins?
Is the coin error type an unintentional, imperfect, wrong denomination, wrong stock error, or is it an unintentional, imperfect, wrong denomination, planchet error?
Or, is it both?
Without a precise and fundamentally technical understanding and classification of our error coins, can we really even begin to appreciate them?
<< <i>Once we understand what happened to the usage of the term transitional and move on, we can begin to get a better understanding of many other types of errors and their relative rarities. For instance, do we really understand our modified die transitionals?
Or, how about this... Why don't we have a bunch of wrong denomination, wrong stock, proof coins?
Is the coin error type an unintentional, imperfect, wrong denomination, wrong stock error, or is it an unintentional, imperfect, wrong denomination, planchet error?
Or, is it both?
Without a precise and fundamentally technical understanding and classification of our error coins, can we really even begin to appreciate them? >>
Lets look at the wrong denomination wrong stock errors and see if we can understand what is occurring with them. An example:
The year is 1988 and the Denver mint is producing 15 million half dollar planchets to be struck. 12 million are going to be struck in Denver as business strike coins and 3 million are going to be sent to San Fransisco to be struck as S mint proof coins. Only one Denver produced planchet is known to exist as a wrong denominational wrong stock planchet. The odds of that one wrong denominational coin being struck on any Denver produced planchet of that year, and mint, is 15 million to one.
Now let us assume that we are going to pull 3 million planchets from the total of 15 million to be used as proof coins. We only have a 20% chance of picking the wrong denominational error from throughout the grouping of planchets for use as a proof coin. The likelihood of pulling that wrong stock for use as a proof is only one in 5. Therefore, the chance of getting that one wrong denominational made as a proof is one in 75 million. (15 million x 5).
Now, what happens if the 1988 S proof coins were blanked and struck in San Fransisco? Well assuming that S.F. Mint only produced those 3 million proof half dollars, and no business strike coins, and only one of those planchets turned out to be the wrong denomination wrong stock error, we have a 1 in 3 million chance of that error occurring.
What is going on here?
Now here is where understanding transitionals gets interesting, and important.
If the denominational was blanked in San Fransisco, it produces a proof transitional wrong denomination wrong stock error. The transition occurred prior to blanking, when the metal chosen for blanking was incorrect.
However, if the Denver Mint was responsible for producing the wrong stock planchet, we have different things going on.
We still have a transition occurring when the wrong metal stock was selected before blanking, which gives us a wrong denomination wrong stock, and we also have another error event.
We selected that one defective planchet from among the 3 million normal proof planchets needed, and pulled it out from the 15 million Denver planchets available, and we then sent that defective planchet to San Fransisco with the other 2, 999,999 normal planchets, to be struck as S Mint proof coins.
When that planchet was then sent into proof production, we introduced a wrong planchet error into the proof production mix. That defective planchet was not intended for normal proof production. It is the wrong planchet.
It becomes a San Fransisco proof transitional wrong planchet error, and it was already a Denver wrong stock error. We have a dual transitional series of events.
The odds of those two different coins being produced are quite different. One is a Proof dual transitional, wrong denominational, wrong stock, wrong planchet error, and the other is a proof transitional wrong denominational wrong stock error.
The dual transitional is 25 times less likely to occur...ie... 75 million to 1 versus 3 million to 1.
If we simply label both types of error events as proof wrong denominational wrong stock errors, how can we understand the difference in their manufacturing event, and their probability of occurrence?
And, both coins for all intent and purposes, are the exact same, or are they?
Edited...the above mathematical examples are simplistic hypothetical's for the point of understanding transitionals and error events. We are assuming that the wrong stock just exists and got mixed in with the other planchets.
It does not factor into account the probability of occurrence of the production of an actual 1988 wrong denomination wrong stock planchet.
<< <i>The probability of redefining the term transitional when applied to numismatic errors based on this thread, 1 billion to one. >>
Maybe next the OP will contact Webster's about changing the definition of every word in the dictionary next
Choice Numismatics www.ChoiceCoin.com
CN eBay
All of my collection is in a safe deposit box!
It is already well established to the point of near blindness.
I do suggest that they may not want to wear sunglasses.
Some readers may be able to make good use of this information in the determination of the parentage and relative rarity of their coins.
I personally do not know of a better way to understand any of this without a fundamental grasp of the numismatic origination of the word transitional, and it's application.
FYI, I did not redefine our understanding of the word transitional for contemporary numismatic abuse.
A relative handful of profit motivated individuals did that about 50 years ago.
Rest assured that after collecting coins for 59 years, I am well aware of more than just my own limitations.
<< <i>Nobody has to redefine transitional.
It is already well established to the point of near blindness.
I do suggest that they may not want to wear sunglasses.
Some readers may be able to make good use of this information in the determination of the parentage and relative rarity of their coins.
I personally do not know of a better way to understand any of this without a fundamental grasp of the numismatic origination of the word transitional, and it's application.
FYI, I did not redefine our understanding of the word transitional for contemporary numismatic abuse.
A relative handful of profit motivated individuals did that about 50 years ago.
Rest assured that after collecting coins for 59 years, I am well aware of more than just my own limitations. >>
... This is for you Rick.
Off the top of my head, I think that technically speaking, your 1864 L modified die cent is a date transitional modified die that was struck on a transitional date composition planchet.
But of course, it is not a transitional coin... Uh?
NECA.
This Op is for you David.
I cannot even imagine.
...and thank you Fred.
<< <i>
<< <i>Nobody has to redefine transitional.
It is already well established to the point of near blindness.
I do suggest that they may not want to wear sunglasses.
Some readers may be able to make good use of this information in the determination of the parentage and relative rarity of their coins.
I personally do not know of a better way to understand any of this without a fundamental grasp of the numismatic origination of the word transitional, and it's application.
FYI, I did not redefine our understanding of the word transitional for contemporary numismatic abuse.
A relative handful of profit motivated individuals did that about 50 years ago.
Rest assured that after collecting coins for 59 years, I am well aware of more than just my own limitations. >>
... This is for you Rick.
Off the top of my head, I think that technically speaking, your 1864 L modified die cent is a date transitional modified die that was struck on a transitional date composition planchet.
But of course, it is not a transitional coin... Uh?
The non proof 1864 L Obv. die cent error type produces a DATE TRANSITIONAL modified die coin.
It does not produce a TRANSITIONAL DATE modified die coin (Normally).
That coins die modification, and technical classification is date sensitive, as it took place during the year 1864 production run as the non L coins were being produced.
The 1864 L coin is not a transitional date modified die coin which occurs between years, and which carry different dates.
It is a 1864 dated transitional design change which occurred within the 1864 dated cent production run.
A parent error classification is always applicable irregardless of date, or date change.
And somewhere within lies contemporary numismatic classification confusion. >>
The 1864 L Obv. non proof cent is most certainly a rare and valuable dual type transitional coin.
It appears to be a transitional type that claims right to both wrong planchet, and die modification classification.
It is worthy of proper descriptive.
NECA