" Does anyone know if Ken Potter is done counting trees..."
notlogical
Posts: 2,235 ✭
<< <i> Does anyone know if Ken Potter is done counting trees and just HOW MANY varieties of the EXTRA TREE , or if you prefer, DDR's are there ? Last I heard there were 49. >>
I saw that 2sides2acoin posted that question and no one answered it and I was wondering about that too?
If a coin has too many varities doesn't it kind of not make it as special?
What if there where 49 different extra leaf Wisconsin quarters. I don't think anyone would think they were as cool as just the two are. I don't think I would.
BTW I am kind of disappointed that no Nebraska quarters had any cool varieties. Like a "Cow chip" variety, or a "three legged settler" variety, or a "extra horn on the ox" variety or a "extra spoke on the wagon wheel" variety. Why did the Mint have to have such good quality control on the quarter from my state?
What Mr. Spock would say about numismatics...
... "Fascinating, but not logical"
"Live long and prosper"
My "How I Started" columns
... "Fascinating, but not logical""Live long and prosper"
My "How I Started" columns
0
Comments
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
And I thought JT's extensive comments in the new CPG about the Wisconsins was a nice juxtaposition of opinion on them versus Ken's. JT's belief that they were intentionally added, and that they are important varieties, will be remembered long after Ken's is forgotten.
Merry Christmas, Samuel, to you and your family.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
The name is LEE!
<< <i>JT's belief that they were intentionally added >>
Of course they were. I would have a hard time believing one of them could be produced by a perfectly placed, perfectly shaped die gouge. But I'm supposed to believe that TWO DIFFERENT perfectly placed, perfectly shaped die gouges occurred?
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>Most of these are VERY minor. I hope no one is paying big bucks for them. If you like doubled dies, put your efforts into some of the older GOOD stuff. There's lots to choose from and many are real bargains. >>
While I agree, I'd hardly be surprised to see two or three winners among these.
Collectors will do OK and others should try to buy them cheap and use good judgement.
<< <i>
<< <i>JT's belief that they were intentionally added >>
Of course they were. I would have a hard time believing one of them could be produced by a perfectly placed, perfectly shaped die gouge. But I'm supposed to believe that TWO DIFFERENT perfectly placed, perfectly shaped die gouges occurred?
Actually four or five. One of the so-called "extra leafs" is two die gouges, plus there is a Roosevelt dime obverse and a Lincoln cent reverse that need to be dealt with. All semi-circular arcs, all near the center of the coin. And the last two they can in no way be thought to add to the design, wheas the Wisconson quarters with a certain amount of squinting, closing one eye, looking at the upside down, and ignoring the complete lack of details compared to the real leaves one may then be able to say they look something like a leaf, in the sense that the moon looks something like a baseball.
Besides, if two dies mean something is intentionally caused, what shall we say about the multiple 1970 "atheist" cents? Was there a mint worker then who took the establishment clause seriously? Or, was there something about the dies that caused them to break in predictable areas around the border?
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>wheas the Wisconson quarters with a certain amount of squinting, closing one eye, looking at the upside down, and ignoring the complete lack of details compared to the real leaves one may then be able to say they look something like a leaf >>
OK, whatever.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>JT's belief that they were intentionally added >>
Of course they were. I would have a hard time believing one of them could be produced by a perfectly placed, perfectly shaped die gouge. But I'm supposed to believe that TWO DIFFERENT perfectly placed, perfectly shaped die gouges occurred?
Actually four or five. One of the so-called "extra leafs" is two die gouges, plus there is a Roosevelt dime obverse and a Lincoln cent reverse that need to be dealt with. All semi-circular arcs, all near the center of the coin. And the last two they can in no way be thought to add to the design, wheas the Wisconson quarters with a certain amount of squinting, closing one eye, looking at the upside down, and ignoring the complete lack of details compared to the real leaves one may then be able to say they look something like a leaf, in the sense that the moon looks something like a baseball.
Besides, if two dies mean something is intentionally caused, what shall we say about the multiple 1970 "atheist" cents? Was there a mint worker then who took the establishment clause seriously? Or, was there something about the dies that caused them to break in predictable areas around the border? >>
Don't lose sight of the fact that these two "die gouges" just happened to end up
on the exact same press and were minted at the exact same time.
And frankly I think they display more than a little artistic talent.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>JT's belief that they were intentionally added >>
Of course they were. I would have a hard time believing one of them could be produced by a perfectly placed, perfectly shaped die gouge. But I'm supposed to believe that TWO DIFFERENT perfectly placed, perfectly shaped die gouges occurred?
Actually four or five. One of the so-called "extra leafs" is two die gouges, plus there is a Roosevelt dime obverse and a Lincoln cent reverse that need to be dealt with. All semi-circular arcs, all near the center of the coin. And the last two they can in no way be thought to add to the design, wheas the Wisconson quarters with a certain amount of squinting, closing one eye, looking at the upside down, and ignoring the complete lack of details compared to the real leaves one may then be able to say they look something like a leaf, in the sense that the moon looks something like a baseball.
Besides, if two dies mean something is intentionally caused, what shall we say about the multiple 1970 "atheist" cents? Was there a mint worker then who took the establishment clause seriously? Or, was there something about the dies that caused them to break in predictable areas around the border? >>
Don't lose sight of the fact that these two "die gouges" just happened to end up
on the exact same press and were minted at the exact same time.
And frankly I think they display more than a little artistic talent.
I've seen this argument way too many times to believe one side can ever convince the other side of their position. Unless new information ever comes out from the Mint, it's like pro-lifers argueing with pro-choicers.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>
I've seen this argument way too many times to believe one side can ever convince the other side of their position. Unless new information ever comes out from the Mint, it's like pro-lifers argueing with pro-choicers. >>
That's strictly an argument based on opinion. Certainly facts and figures can be injected
and passionate arguments can be made on both sides. There can be no truly right or wrong
answer that applies equally to all individuals and circumstances.
There is a definitive answer to whether the WI leaf varieties were intentional or not. The
facts simply imply they were. There are only these two known gouges from the two dies
in question. It is known as "fact" that there were four reverse dies is a press and two were
completely unaffected and two struck the two different varieties. In order to believe that two
(or three) accidental gouges made these then you have to believe not only that one was accidently made
to appear like a leaf or other design element but the second was as well. What are the odds
that this would occur by chance? Sure one could hit and might appear to be a design element.
Put a couple thousand gouges on the WI reverse and no doubt a dozen or two might look like
something. But two of them? Not only do the odds drop that they'd both look like something
but the odds become much smaller that such an accident affecting two dies would occur.
Yes, it's not impossible for it to happen by accident and yes, minting coins is a complicated bus-
iness that might result in all manner of strange happenings, but still, the onus is on those who
believe it was accidental to make a case. Most anyone with two eyes and a rudimentary understanding
of the minting and distribution process is naturally going to believe they were intentional. Even if it can be
shown to have been caused by a specific tool that would probably not make a convincing case
that it was accidental.
It's a certainty that these were in no way official or the investigation would have turned it up, but
there's no really good argument that they are accidental.
It was painful to do but i didn't butt in to others business.
The name is LEE!
I was told that the latest Coinage Magazine picks their choices of what coins will go up in value in the coming year (2007). The State Quarter Varieties and Errors were mentioned as well as a new book written by Alan Herbert of coin errors fame. This book is expected to be available April, 2007 and may very well increase the interest and value of both of the Wisconsin Extra Leaf Quarters. Time will tell. But I am feeling like 2007 will be a year of additional information written concerning the creation of these two rare varieties. By the end of 2007, maybe only Ken Potter and a few of his buddies will still stand alone with his "Die Gouge Theory" !!!!
I trust that level heads will prevail and we can agree that someome at the Denver mint in the Fall of 2004 made these two limited used reverse Wisconsin Quarter dies. Maybe in the future, the resposible party(parties) will come foward and receive their due credit !!
Merry Christmas to All !!! Mark.
Note: The MN extra tree error quarters seem to be dying a rapid death !! True, maybe 2 out of 60-70 DDRs may survive. The Wisconsin Quarters appear to have settled down for awhile in price but can go up on any positive news.
<< <i>There is a definitive answer to whether the WI leaf varieties were intentional or not. >>
True that. I must note in partial agreement w/ John C. that w/o additional information the definitive cause of these varieties may remain unknown. We are still arguing about the exact cause of the spiked chin half cent still, after all! Maybe Mr. Snow's book will help. Perhaps not and other variety experts will show his case week after his work is published. We shall see.
<< <i>The facts simply imply they were. There are only these two known gouges from the two dies
in question. >>
Why discount the similar semi-circular arcs on the Lincoln cent and Roosevelt dime?
<< <i>It is known as "fact" that there were four reverse dies is a press and two were
completely unaffected and two struck the two different varieties. >>
I agree that the two varieties would have to be made at about the same time, given the distributions patterns. I have no idea if they were on the same press or not, nor to the best of my memory has the Mint confirmed or disconfirmed that. I don't think it matters though. If they had been released at different times to different locations could you infer something different? If they are by design that would just mean that the mischievous die setter (or whoever) did his dirty deeds on more than one occasion. Doesn't sound any less likely, does it?
<< <i>In order to believe that two (or three) accidental gouges made these then you have to believe not only that one was accidently made
to appear like a leaf or other design element but the second was as well. What are the odds
that this would occur by chance? Sure one could hit and might appear to be a design element.
Put a couple thousand gouges on the WI reverse and no doubt a dozen or two might look like
something. But two of them? Not only do the odds drop that they'd both look like something
but the odds become much smaller that such an accident affecting two dies would occur. >>
Well remember that some of us don't think they really look much like a leaf beyond the ability of a leaf to be crudely represented by a semi-circular arc. As to the chances of two dies (or, IMO as noted above, at least four) having a die gouge near the same location (i.e. the center of the die, irregardless of what the design there is) suggests that they do all have similar causes. The fact that these are all simple in appearance (by something simply hitting the die, whether by accidentally in a similar matter due to certain mint machinery, accidentally by a human, or intentionally by a human), is not an easy puzzle. I would think that Okkham's razor would tell us to treat it like other die gouges unless we have additional evidence.
Plus, I must note that I don't think that the fact that there are multiple dies involved argues against an accidental origin. It may argue for a similarity in cause (though granted, two or four are probably too small a number of dies to say much by itself with any confidence) but not what the cause is. In any case, in other instances where we have multiple similar design variants, we don't seem likely to argue intent in those cases. We don't think the extra tree quarters were made by intent. We don't believe that RPM's are by intent (rather human accident) even for years like 1960-D where there are over 100. We don't even think that attaching a non-technical name implies intent, such as the 1970-era "atheist" cud cents. So it seems odd that two would be considered a significant number to argue intent in why the dies look as they do. (Perhaps instead there is a maximum number where intent can be inferred, apparently somewhere between two and twenty? I'm sure if someone claims that there will be an exception.)
Arguing the other way, we don't even need multiple dies to reach a conclusion as to whether a die was altered by intent. We have no problem accepting the the 1944-D 50c w/ a re-engraved AW is intentional. Overdates, even the 1806/5 (reused die) quarter are intentional, even when only one die is involved. We know the reverse of the S-63 large cent was reworked from an older die. I don't think any other reverses like this are known yet, but the evidence is compelling. Overmintmarks are clearly sometimes intentional, when the specific cases warrant them, such as the 1900-O/CC $1 and the 1955-D/S nickel. (In other cases whether it is intentional or accidental is unclear.) In short, we should look at the dies themselves to determine (if we can) if any alterations were intentional or not, rather than simply enumerating the number of dies.
<< <i>Yes, it's not impossible for it to happen by accident and yes, minting coins is a complicated bus-
iness that might result in all manner of strange happenings, but still, the onus is on those who
believe it was accidental to make a case. Most anyone with two eyes and a rudimentary understanding
of the minting and distribution process is naturally going to believe they were intentional. Even if it can be
shown to have been caused by a specific tool that would probably not make a convincing case
that it was accidental. >>
I disagree as to where the burden of proof lies. If someone makes a positive claim they are accidental (as I did), then they should be able to back it up (as hopefully I have done). If someone makes a positive claim they are intentional, then they too should be able to back that up too. Certainly after initial arguments are made, the burden may shift to one side or the other. Obviously, I think given all we know about these quarters so far, that those that think they are intentional need to make a bigger case than they do. As I hope I've said above, I don't think that "they look like leaves" and "there's not one die but rather two!" are that convincing.
Finally, remember also that it not just amateurs like us arguing the issue. And I'll admit that both sides have important on them. Arguing for intent you have people such as Rick Snow, JT Stanton, and even Q David Bowers thinks they are intentional varieties. OTOH, luminaries such as Bill Fivaz, Billy Crawford, Ken Potter, and Tom Delorey (IIRC) think they are not intentional. The answer needs to lie in the arguments and evidence, not the people.
<< <i> It's a certainty that these were in no way official or the investigation would have turned it up, but
there's no really good argument that they are accidental. >>
My understanding of the "mere die gouge" theory is that the best evidence for them is that the gouges/leaves act just like other die gouges: the are simple impressions into the die rather than engraving, and they act like any other die gouges in only affecting the highest areas of the die and can travel straght through areas of the die which are lower, which is what is seen with both varieties.
-----
BTW, Billy Crawford reports a third die gouge Wisconson quarter, which I doubt anyone will claim is intentional, though I'm sure we can find a fancy name for it. Look at page 38:
PDF Link
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>is not an easy puzzle. >>
Sure it's easy, and it's not a puzzle.
<< <i>some of us don't think they really look much like a leaf >>
Who cares. Essentially everyone else does. Why, they even have names that mention extra leaves. Whodathunkit?
You seem the type who would happily argue forever about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. To wit:
<< <i>Plus, I must note that I don't think that the fact that there are multiple dies involved argues against an accidental origin. >>
Keep it up, by all means. I'm sure that you would be very pleased with a never ending debate, secure in the knowledge that the Mint will never disclose. Have at it.
The rest of us have moved on, and don't get paid by the word, as the dissenters/professional writers you mention do. Their stake in having this go on and on, counting angels, is obvious. The end of the debate and thus the end of their articles would be the end of the paychecks they get for writing the kind of drivel you've forced us to endure.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
that a new man was on the job or a new man was about to be.
It is possible for these to have come from a different press and still only appear
together in their distribution but it would require that the press be in proximity
(I believe) and to start up and shut down at the same time. This, too, would
imply intent. It's easier to simply believe they were on the same press. The mint
has considered only one of these which is the one the operator noticed before
going for lunch and tagging out the machine. (which was running when he returned)
I'd agree that a similarity in cause is a virtual certainty.
It would simply seem that this cause was improbable to be accidental. OK, maybe
somebody inadvertantly damaged one and while checking to see that it was actually
his actions that damaged a die managed to damage a second one. These dies are hard
and not easily damaged accidently or otherwise. The similar gouges on other coins
proves it can happen but doesn't explain the "long shot" of having two dies appear
to have an "unofficial design".
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>JT's belief that they were intentionally added >>
Of course they were. I would have a hard time believing one of them could be produced by a perfectly placed, perfectly shaped die gouge. But I'm supposed to believe that TWO DIFFERENT perfectly placed, perfectly shaped die gouges occurred?
Actually four or five. One of the so-called "extra leafs" is two die gouges, plus there is a Roosevelt dime obverse and a Lincoln cent reverse that need to be dealt with. All semi-circular arcs, all near the center of the coin. And the last two they can in no way be thought to add to the design, wheas the Wisconson quarters with a certain amount of squinting, closing one eye, looking at the upside down, and ignoring the complete lack of details compared to the real leaves one may then be able to say they look something like a leaf, in the sense that the moon looks something like a baseball.
Besides, if two dies mean something is intentionally caused, what shall we say about the multiple 1970 "atheist" cents? Was there a mint worker then who took the establishment clause seriously? Or, was there something about the dies that caused them to break in predictable areas around the border? >>
Actually, there are two different Lincoln cent reverse dies with the semi-circular die gouges around the tiny Lincoln figure in the center of the Lincoln Memorial, plus the dime with the curved line near the ear. None of them look like leaves.
Strange things do happen at the Mints. I just got a Morgan dollar back from Bill Fivaz that has what appears to be an incomplete clip near the center of the obverse, but from a blanking punch intended for a dime! Bill agrees with me that that is what it appears to be, but can offer no explanation as to how it occurred. I can't offer one either.
TD
that is round can sustain if twisted under force. This is a very common phenomenon
and is frequently seen on coins. It is the root of counting and crimping machine
damage but can be imprted in many ways. Even a car tire rolling over a coin can
push it down and spin it leaving such marks.
It's not impossible that these dies are in a holder that goes in and out of the var-
ious locations in their manufacture. If they are removed from a machine or furnace
with a lot of force then they might snag on something and be marked and twisted.
The new die shop has not been extensively photographed so far as I know, but it
would be interesting to see.
It wouldn't be surprising if CaptHenway has toured it and can provide a few details?