Options
How is this a mint error?
skamieniecki
Posts: 125 ✭✭✭
Last I heard no 1898 Gold Eagles are being produced at the mint. So unless this was a hand fed employee produced error or made by Dan Carr, how does PCGS explain the "error"? Refer to PCGS cert number 48183803
0
Comments
The fingerprint kills it for me...
It's all about what the people want...
man made errors that occurred in the mint are still counted as mint errors
Makes me wonder if the one who planted this gold coin, before it was struck, actually received it back? I would image that the proof strike machines have a slower feed rate.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
There are a number of strange 1970-S quarter overstrikes. Seems like one may have been confiscated from an auction by the government in the 1970's.
@Byers may have the some good info on those.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
The San Francisco Mint employees from the '70s are notorious for having made tons of blatantly unnatural errors, particularly proofs, such as this Ike struck on 3 dime planchets.
I don't think anybody's pretending they're legit, but they are pretty neat, at least to some people (including me).
I collect world proof sets, coins featuring composers, mid-20th century U.S. proof coins, U.S. type coins, and whatever else I want.
"How is this a mint error?"
It's not (unless you're willing to throw away the dictionary and just make stuff up) but some people like to pretend otherwise.
It isn’t.
Yet, that’s how the major grading classify/label such coins. I wish that instead, they’d use a term such as “Intentional Error” or “Fantasy Error”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yes, there should be different terminology for these. Maybe "mint shenanigans" or something similar.
"Mint Employee Made"
everything descriptive enough is too long to fit
Yes, I understand. But then, reportedly according to Abraham Lincoln: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?… Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
Probably not going to happen. Ask this question:
Which do you think people would show more interest in and spend more money on...
and it's pretty clear why.
So there shouldn't be a problem with actually calling them what everybody knows them to be, then?
All of a sudden, I want some RITZ crackers.
I am a collector
And things, well things
They tend to accumulate
I bought and sold the gold Quarter. Then bought it again and consigned it to Heritage Auctions where it realized $93k. The new owner consigned it to GC.
Yes, it was intentionally struck. No one is pretending otherwise.
Featured in CoinWeek with some background info:
https://coinweek.com/the-gold-quarter-that-shouldnt-exist-1970-s-proof-error-heads-to-auction/
Yes, this was intentionally struck as well. I consigned it to Heritage where it realized $105k:
Do not speak for me. I care.
If I was collecting legitimate mint errors and found out I had one in my collection that was actually made-to-order and not really an error, I would not be happy about it.
I recognize that not everybody would feel the same way.
The standard could be that an error is presumed unintentional unless it's obviously not, such as the clover leaf Ike and gold quarter. A tossup is considered an error. Tie goes to the runner.
In my comment you quoted, I wasn't talking about those. I was talking about these: "What about the ones that COULD be intentional, but might not be?"
Odd that we have not coalesced around a term to describe these. We are so good at nuance.
when such are discussed it's usually said they "had help."
beyond that, my issue is what fits on the label?
Each of my listings of intentional proof errors on my website ( mikebyers.com and on ebay) include the following information with a link to the video.
a slabbed cricket sold
these came from inside the mint
Edge strikes and fold-overs come to mind for me.
Theres a pic of that floating around here somewhere....
Interesting how an intentional error is considered ok. This makes no sense to me.
I certainly wouldn't want one...
Undated PCGS Holder With Cricket Remains (From the Fred Weinberg Collection)
I am a collector
And things, well things
They tend to accumulate
In my opinion this qualifies as an exhibit at a Ripley's Believe It Or Not museum