<< <i>I think the marks were placed on the dies accidentally. >>
Sean, you've convinced me. They both accidentally look like leaves to me. They both accidentally are placed precisely to be one with the design. It's all so simple. Your opinions will likely have greater gravitas in the future as a result of your analysis, I'm sure.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
It is the conclusion of a very well laid out independent scientific analysis, which was open to all possibilities. I have yet to see you actually prove or disprove anything. I have seen wrong comparisons and haughty-worded explanations, meant to impress, but without substance. I have seen indifference when you couldn't counter my claim.
Why do you continue to hold an indefensible position? Is there anything that would sway your opinion? Or do I need to convince Ken Potter so he will call you and say it's OK come off the "accidental worthless die gouge" position. It almost sounds like I am hitting a brick wall.
Now you're simply engaging in ad hominem attacks. Chris' analysis is almost worthless as it does not duplicate the conditions in the striking chamber. Other coins struck by damaged dies demonstrably prove that a hardened die can take an impression, something Chris' "scientific study" failed to show. Neither you nor Chris have proven anything beyond the already recognized fact that the "extra leaves" are die dents. For any claims beyond that I have simply expressed a position of suspended judgment. Contrary to your claim, I have never declared them "accidental worthless die gouges". At the same time, your conclusions -- that the extra leaves were intentionally placed in softened dies -- go well beyond what the available evidence supports.
Your position is that of a true believer. True believers embrace any evidence that supports their position and ignore, distort, or deny any evidence that contradicts their position.
At this point any further discussion will be fruitless. You are free to believe whatever you wish regarding these coins.
<< <i>No, it's not my "opinion".
It is the conclusion of a very well laid out independent scientific analysis, which was open to all possibilities. I have yet to see you actually prove or disprove anything. I have seen wrong comparisons and haughty-worded explanations, meant to impress, but without substance. I have seen indifference when you couldn't counter my claim.
Why do you continue to hold an indefensible position? Is there anything that would sway your opinion? Or do I need to convince Ken Potter so he will call you and say it's OK come off the "accidental worthless die gouge" position. It almost sounds like I am hitting a brick wall. >>
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.
By the way, when and where does Chris' finished study come out in print? I heard it was supposed to come out in The Numismatist. I've only seen Coin World's summary. It's possible that there's more to it than what Coin World says.
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.
Your position is that of a true believer. True believers embrace any evidence that supports their position and ignore, distort, or deny any evidence that contradicts their position.
Mike, that actually sounds like what you have been doing, but in reverse.
If Chris' result was that the WI Extra Leaf varieties could have been made during regular production, I would have accepted it and gotten behind it, because I am not interested putting out false or slanted information. I am not ignoring anything, distorting anything or denying any facts that are proven.
By publishing a counter-position in Coin World you should be willing to back it up with cold hard proof. Convince me! I've seen nothing that comes close to proof.
I am holding you to your words in Coin World. Prove what you claim, or don't put out any more foolishness in the national Coin Press, or Errorscope or Error Trends. Since you are now President of CONECA, you must be held to a high standard. Please live up to it.
It's clear you haven't read or paid attention to the previous posts. Let's take it step by step, using the arguments you seem to place some stock in.
Point 1: The curved ridges are too much like leaves to be accidental.
Rebuttal: This is entirely subjective. To many, they look nothing like leaves. I'm no botanist, but I'm pretty sure leaves don't sprout from cheese wheels (high leaf).
Point 2. The relief is too high to be accidental.
Rebuttal. No one has quantified the relief of the "extra leaves". The curved ridge on the 2000-D nickel might be just as high, but because it's broad it may only seem lower. Certainly cases of catastrophic die damage show dents and impact scars that go a lot deeper into the die face.
Point 3. The grooves could only have been punched into a softened die. A finished die is too hard.
Rebuttal: Numerous cases of die damage, including the 2000-D nickel, show this claim to be completely false.
Point 4. Two very similar curved ridges on two different dies can't be coincidental.
Rebuttal: A number of recent cents show nearly identical semicircular die gouges or die dents on the reverse. They're a lot smaller than the "extra leaves", but they are otherwise similar. And they are repetitive.
Point 5. The low leaf shows a pressure ridge, which indicates the die was soft.
Rebuttal: The high leaf shows no such ridge. I have not undertaken a study of a large sample of damaged dies to see the extent to which such ridges develop. But neither have you or Chris. Your supposition is entirely speculative. Also since a hardened die can be permanently deformed when a die dent is formed, it wouldn't be unexpected for a pressure ridge to also form on occasion.
Point 6. A curved ridge can only be due to a semicircular object being intentionally driven into the die face.
Rebuttal. Patently false. The 2000-D nickel, the recent cents I mentioned, and an eagle-reverse quarter in my collection all sport curved ridges.
Point 7. The absence of distortion of the design proves the die was in a softened state.
Rebuttal: You can't have it both ways. You say deformation of the die face (pressure ridge in low leaf) proves the die was soft. At the same time you claim LACK of deformation proves the die was soft. Furthermore, you haven't presented a comparison sample of die damage to prove your assertion. In my experience, distortion of the design is dependent on the severity and depth of the die damage.
Most of this was previously stated in one fashion or another.
<< <i>Your position is that of a true believer. True believers embrace any evidence that supports their position and ignore, distort, or deny any evidence that contradicts their position.
Mike, that actually sounds like what you have been doing, but in reverse.
If Chris' result was that the WI Extra Leaf varieties could have been made during regular production, I would have accepted it and gotten behind it, because I am not interested putting out false or slanted information. I am not ignoring anything, distorting anything or denying any facts that are proven.
By publishing a counter-position in Coin World you should be willing to back it up with cold hard proof. Convince me! I've seen nothing that comes close to proof.
I am holding you to your words in Coin World. Prove what you claim, or don't put out any more foolishness in the national Coin Press, or Errorscope or Error Trends. Since you are now President of CONECA, you must be held to a high standard. Please live up to it. >>
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.
<< <i>...And how about the fact that it is known from their distribution that they were made at the same time?
...This is especially interesting since it's known that one was made in the middle of the day while the operator was at luch. >>
Wouldn't that be coincidence in any case? If the dies were intentionally altered when soft, the "artist" would have no guarantee that the two dies would, down the line, be used at the same time.
Cladking: They were struck at the same time. The dies were in seperate presses and the coins went into the same hopper. We know this becase the coins were found intermixed together with regular coins. They had 5 presses running striking quarters. (single-die presses).
It is an important point. If there was debris that got struck into the die, it would have had to happen in two presses at about the same time. Do you think that would be a correct assumtion? One that would carry weight? If so, it also shows that it is quite a long stretch to say the marks are accidental.
Mike: I think you rewrote the meaning of some of my points. I'll clarify them if you like.
Wouldn't that be coincidence in any case? If the dies were intentionally altered when soft, the "artist" would have no guarantee that the two dies would, down the line, be used at the same time. >>
Granted, if he had no control over their installation and operation.
Both sets of dies started and stopped production at about the same time or they would not have been found only in the same rolls and bags. All of both these issues were apparently made during the oper- ator's lunch break which had one press tagged and out of service as he left.
It is an important observation. And it does add some weight to the argument that the defects were intentionally created. However, it does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is actually what transpired. For example, did the semicircular die dents/gouges on the 2004 cents appear in close succession? I have no knowledge either way.
As far as the dies being damaged during a press run, I never made this claim and I have no evidence to indicate that this is what happened. Maybe they were damaged after hubbing, during final milling, during transport, storage, installation...anything's possible. We don't know what made the impressions, so it's all guesswork.
Feel free to clarify and correct any mischaracterizations I may have inadvertently produced in my point/counterpoint presentation.
<< <i>Cladking: They were struck at the same time. The dies were in seperate presses and the coins went into the same hopper. We know this becase the coins were found intermixed together with regular coins. They had 5 presses running striking quarters. (single-die presses).
It is an important point. If there was debris that got struck into the die, it would have had to happen in two presses at about the same time. Do you think that would be a correct assumtion? One that would carry weight? If so, it also shows that it is quite a long stretch to say the marks are accidental.
Mike: I think your rewrote the meaning of some of my points. I'll clarify them if you like. >>
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.
<< <i>... If there was debris that got struck into the die, it would have had to happen in two presses at about the same time. Do you think that would be a correct assumption? ... >>
If inadvertant; probably. Of course they could have been damaged accidently at the same time before installation. These dies were born, damaged, operated and retired at the same time in all probability assuming they were accidental.
If they were intentional then we only know they operated and retired at the same time. ...toward the end of the operator's lunch break.
My points are as follows: (and please rebut these not the ones you made up.)
You said that I said: Point 1: The curved ridges are too much like leaves to be accidental.
When in fact my case is: Point 1: It's great that they look like leaves, but the argument is that they were intentionally made. Because of the following reasons: a) The ridges were put on the die after the die was hubbed. Proof: There is a raised deformed area on the low leaf die (sunken on the coin). This could not have risen up if it happened during hubbing b) The ridges were put on the die before the coins were hardened. Fact: The die is soft enough prior to hardening to be able to accept a depression by hand to the depth seen on the WI Extra Leaf varieties. Fact: The die is too hard after hardening to be able to accept a depression by hand to any reasonable depth. c) The dies were striking coin in different presses at the same time. Observation: We saw high leaf, low leaf and regular quarter mixed in original rolls. No solid rolls.
Edited to add: We are left with two choices They were accidentialy damaged during this time or someone purposly put the mark there. Here we have to use Ocham's razor as stated above. I think the "on purpose" choice is much easier to explain.
You said that I said: Point 2. The relief is too high to be accidental.
When in fact my case is: Point 2: The relief is too high to have been made during regular production. a) The look at the SEM level at a softened die mark and a hardened die mark will show a difference, I believe. As to the depth, I don't think I ever claimed it was relevant to proving whether it was accidental or not.
You said that I said: Point 3. The grooves could only have been punched into a softened die. A finished die is too hard.
Point 3: See point 1, unless I'm missing something here.
You said that I said: Point 4. Two very similar curved ridges on two different dies can't be coincidental.
When in fact my case is: Point 4: The Extra Leaves are too close to be coincidental. a) Proof: They are the exact same curvature. This was shown on the SEM images, which can show both coins at exactly the same magnification. b) Proof: The two marks on the Low leaf show repeating marks from the object that impressed the die.
You said that I said: Point 5. The pressure ridge in the low leaf shows a pressure ridge, which indicates the die was soft.
When in fact my case is: Point 5: The pressure ridge on the low leaf indicates the die was marked after it was hubbed. This is the correct interpretation of the importance of the pressure ridge. See point 1.
You said that I said: Point 6. A curved ridge can only be due to a semicircular object being intentionally driven into the die face.
That's really stretching my statements to fit your answer. Let's go to court on that one!
You said that I said: Point 7. The absence of distortion of the design proves the die was in a softened state.
When in fact my case is: Point 7: The marks on the low leaf show that that whatever made the mark was harder than the die. a) Observation: The low leaf shows an overlap of the extra leaf and the regular design with no additional marks higher into the die. b) Observation (I have not seen the coin personally): The marks on the 2000-D nickel show the object deforming into the die, which means that the die was harder than the object struck into it. - it was made during coin production.
Now, that's a bit clearer. I think I see where you are making your errors. You are not reading my posts clear enough.
My points are as follows: (and please rebut these not the ones you made up.)
Your said that I said: Point 1: The curved ridges are too much like leaves to be accidental.
When in fact my case is: Point 1: It's great that they look like leaves, but the argument is that they were intentionally made. Because of the following reasons: a) The ridges were put on the die after the die was hubbed.
Agreed.
Proof: There is a raised deformed area on the low leaf die (sunken on the coin). This could not have risen up if it happened during hubbing
Agreed.
b) The ridges were put on the die before the coins were hardened.
Unproven.
Fact: The die is soft enough prior to hardening to be able to accept a depression by hand to the depth seen on the WI Extra Leaf varieties.
Agreed.
Fact: The die is too hard after hardening to be able to accept a depression by hand to any reasonable depth.
Possibly. But we don't know for a fact that they were produced by hand. Also, the shallow indentations that comprise the hand-engraved "AW" on the 1944-D half dollar were tapped in by hand. It's doubtful that tremendous force was used, since the engraver had to maintain careful control. Who knows how deep the tool could have gone with a forceful blow.
c) The dies were striking coin in different presses at the same time. Observation: We saw high leaf, low leaf and regular quarter mixed in original rolls. No solid rolls.
That seems to be the case.
Edited to add: We are left with two choices They were accidentialy damaged during this time or someone purposly put the mark there. Here we have to use Ocham's razor as stated above. I think the "on purpose" choice is much easier to explain.
Occam's Razor cuts both ways on this issue. I don't see either scenario as being far more likely that the other.
Your said that I said: Point 2. The relief is too high to be accidental.
When in fact my case is: Point 2: The relief is too high to have been made during regular production.
What do you mean by "regular production". The die-making process? We don't know for a fact exactly when the defects appeared or what generated them. Therefore this conclusion is rather a stretch.
a) The look at the SEM level at a softened die mark and a hardened die mark will show a difference, I believe. As to the depth, I don't think I ever claimed it was relevant to proving whether it was accidental or not.
This should be true, provided the force remain the same.
Your said that I said: Point 3. The grooves could only have been punched into a softened die. A finished die is too hard.
Point 3: See point 1, unless I'm missing something here.
Your said that I said: Point 4. Two very similar curved ridges on two different dies can't be coincidental.
When in fact my case is: Point 4: The Extra Leaves are too close to be coincidental. a) Proof: They are the exact same curvature. This was shown on the SEM images, which can show both coins at exactly the same magnification.
I haven't seen the overlay, but I'll take your word for it. The curved die dents/gouges on the several 2004 cent dies also could be said to be "too close to be coincidental". But no one has suggested they were intentionally created.
b) Proof: The two marks on the Low leaf show repeating marks from the object that impressed the die.
Agreed.
Your said that I said: Point 5. The pressure ridge in the low leaf shows a pressure ridge, which indicates the die was soft.
When in fact my case is: Point 5: The pressure ridge on the low leaf indicates the die was marked after it was hubbed. Is the correct interpretation of the importance of the pressure ridge. See point 1.
If that is your point, then I agree.
Your said that I said: Point 6. A curved ridge can only be due to a semicircular object being intentionally driven into the die face.
That's really stretching my statements to fit your answer. Let's go to court on that one!
Fine, I'll retract that one.
Your said that I said: Point 7. The absence of distortion of the design proves the die was in a softened state.
When in fact my case is: Point 7: The marks on the low leaf show that that what made the mark was harder than the die.
Possibly. But catastrophic die damage and "floating die clash" errors show that broken pieces of die steel can seriously damage the intact portion of the die face. It's also possible that the dies were accidentally damaged while in a softened state, during the first stages of tempering.
a) Observation: The low leaf shows an overlap of the extra leaf and the regular design with no additional marks higher into the die.
So what's your point? It only means that the die dent is shallower than the design.
b) Observation (I have not seen the coin personally): The marks on the 2000-D nickel show the object deforming into the die, which means that the die was harder than the object struck into it. - it was made during coin production.
I'm almost sure it occurred during production. But it does not follow that the object driven into the die was softer than the die. Your conclusion makes no sense to me. If the die was harder it should have resisted deformation.
Now, that's a bit clearer. I think I see where you are making your errors. You are not reading my posts clear enough.
Anyway, at this point, I think your strongest points are:
1. The identical curvature, size, and shape of the the grooves. Well, maybe not quite identical. There is a clear interruption in the concave border of the low leaf which is far less pronounced in the high leaf. But this could be simply due to the angle at which the object/tool was driven into the die face. But again, more than one 2004 cent features nearly identical semicircular die gouges/dents on the reverse face.
2. That the two dies were installed and run at the same time.
3. The the damage either occurred before installation or shortly after installation. The sheer abundance of these errors is quite different from what we see in most accidental die damage, where you're lucky to find a few examples. An exception to this general observation would include the "speared bison" die dent, which is also abundant and which no one has claimed is intentional.
I would not be surprised if the "extra leaves" were intentionally placed on the dies by a mischeivous mint technician. But I don't think this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
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.
3. The the damage either occurred before installation or shortly after installation. The sheer abundance of these errors is quite different from what we see in most accidental die damage, where you're lucky to find a few examples. An exception to this general observation would include the "speared bison" die dent, which is also abundant and which no one has claimed is intentional.
That's not my point, that's your point. My point is that it was made prior to being hardened.
I agree that it is conjecture that "someone must have made it", but that is the whole reason for this exercise. If we can narrow down the possibilities and eliminate what it cannot be, we come to as close to a conclusion as we can. If you look at it that way, you may agree with me, however if you are trying to prove what it is by other means (weak comparisons, setting too high a hurdle to prove, ignoring certain facts) you may never get your mind to accept the possibility. It'll call it uber-skeptacisim.
Now, to refresh, here is what you wrote in Coin World.:
THEORY UNCERTAIN
I need to throw some cold water on Chris Pilloid's assertion that the 2004-D Wisconsin quarter dollar "extra leaf" defects were intentional and were placed on the dies when the latter were in a softened state(Coin World, March 5). Let me say at the outset that I agree with Chris and Tom DeLorey that the defects were produced by the impact of a circular or semicircular object. Beyond that, there are no certainties. Whether this object was a tool, machine part or piece of hardware cannot be determined. Whether the damage was intentional or accidental cannot be determined. Exactly when the damage was inflicted cannot be determined. While the defects might have appeared before the dies received final tempering, there is no guarantee of this. Even a hardened die is vulnerable to damage. Case in point is the 2000-D Jefferson 5-cent coin whose images are shown. The coin shows a strong, slightly misaligned die clash produced at a time when the obverse die was shifted about a millimeter to the left. Strong clash marks by themselves show the potential of hardened dies to take an impression. But even more compelling is the die damage located on the left side of the obverse and reverse face on the 2000-D 5-cent coin. These raised, sharply defined, slightly curved ridges are the result of a hard object being caught between the two dies when they came together. Whether the die damage occurred before, after or simultaneous with the clash cannot be determined. For the record, this coin was purchased from Christian Merlo. One other observation: I see in the magnified image of the "low leaf" quarter (top right of the original article) that fine striations in the field are interrupted by the two ridges. If these striations represent metal lines, their interruption may indicate the the dents in the die were produced after the dies started striking coins. I guess we're back to square one when it comes to these quarters.
Mike Diamond President, CONECA
I think much of what was said was unnesessary and not to the point of the argument. It is not a popularity contest (or an oppertunity to bash people who have bought WI Extra Leaf Quarters), it is trying to come up with the truth. Perhaps were can co-write an article about the Wisconsin Extra Leaf (er, excuse me... WI quarters with extra curved mark) Quarters. Perhaps as a point - counterpoint type of article.
ps. The term Extra Leaf Quarters was put forward to PCGS by Q. David Bowers. It was after I sold him one of the first sets at the 2005 FUN Show when he submitted it to PCGS. I was there when David Hall asked what him what it should be called.
I agree that it is conjecture that "someone must have made it", but that is the whole reason for this exercise. If we can narrow down the possibilities and eliminate what it cannot be, we come to as close to a conclusion as we can. If you look at it that way, you may agree with me, however if you are trying to prove what it is by other means (weak comparisons, setting too high a hurdle to prove, ignoring certain facts) you may never get your mind to accept the possibility. It'll call it uber-skeptacisim.
I don't require 100% certainty. That is seldom attainable. I simply require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think the evidence reaches that level. However, you make a cogent case the bears serious consideration.
Now, to refresh, here is what you wrote in Coin World.:
I think much of what was said was unnesessary and not to the point of the argument. It is not a popularity contest (or an oppertunity to bash people who have bought WI Extra Leaf Quarters), it is trying to come up with the truth. Perhaps were can co-write an article about the Wisconsin Extra Leaf (er, excuse me... WI quarters with extra curved mark) Quarters. Perhaps as a point - counterpoint type of article.
It was never my intention to bash anybody. I think all the points I raised in my article were valid, at least in response to Coin World's summary of Chris' findings. I'm not sure what you mean by a popularity contest, but I doubt I garnered much popular acclaim for my position. As far as an article, that might be fun.
ps. The term Extra Leaf Quarters was put forward to PCGS by Q. David Bowers. It was after I sold him one of the first sets at the 2005 FUN Show when he submitted it to PCGS. I was there when David Hall asked what him what it should be called. >>
I have no problem with the nickname. They all tend to be evocative and whimsical. It helps you remember it better.
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.
<< <i>Errormavon do you have any sets for sale? >>
Nope. Although I've examined some, I've never owned any. I don't plan on plunking down the kind of money that they currently trade for. For an intentional modification, I much prefer the 1944-D half dollar with re-engraved "AW". There's no question about the status of that variety.
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.
<< <i>Errormavon, cool ,ok what do you think they are worth as just "dents"? >>
If they were ever to be shown to be accidental die dents, I could only compare their value to other die dents of similar size. The 2000-D nickel cost me $60 on eBay. However, they've taken on a life of their own and I doubt that such a revelation would seriously affect their current high market value. After all a pedestrian die polishing error like the 1937-D buffalo nickel commands astonishing prices, even though pretty much everyone except a total novice is aware of its nature and origin. Far more severe die polishing errors can be had for a few bucks.
Regardless of their origin, the "extra leaf" die dents are unusually strong and clear and deserve a measure of respect from that standpoint alone.
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.
<< <i>I would not be surprised if the "extra leaves" were intentionally placed on the dies by a mischeivous mint technician. But I don't think this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. >>
I said in early 2005 when we were going back and forth on this that you and other naysayers would hide behind the mint's predictable silence on this, and in effect take a position that could not be DIS-proven, no matter how ridiculous and improbable. But to what end, and for what cost to your credibility?
Anyway, I grade your effort against Rick an F. You don't debate as much as pontificate. You provided no evidence against the intentional origin theory while asserting that you did. You will not propose any theories as to how it happened twice. You merely invokes meaningless, unrelated "comparisons" and call apples oranges.
I stand by my charge that you intended from the beginning to take a stand that although absurd, could not be disproven, and thus provoke an endless debate. Your statement above is your "out", but your performance will be remembered.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
The population numbers are in for last week's grading of Wisconsin Extra Leaf Variety Statehood Quarters. Combining the two rare coins together: PCGS graded a grand total of only 8 coins while NGC graded a total of 50. Most of NGC's coins were the more common Low Leaf Variety. The totals do not seem to be growing in leaps and bounds !! The 2007 George Washington Dollar missing the edge lettering is a different story. PCGS and NGC have graded a total of 38,182. so far !! Have a great day !! Mark.
The one of only two Wisconsin Extra High and Low Leaf and Regular State Quarters sets graded by NGC as MS 68 sold at the Heritage Galleries Coin auction yesterday, May 11, 2007 for $14,000 + commissions. Was this the same set that sold at auction at Charolette, NC earlier this year ? The $14,000+ sale price isn't too shabby of a realized price for a couple of die gouge machine made quarters !! I wonder if someone knows more about the coins' origin than the likes of coin experts: Ken Potter , Arnie Margolis and we can't leave out the President... Mike Diamond !!! This is only Food For Thought !!! Have a great day !! Mark.
<< <i>The one of only two Wisconsin Extra High and Low Leaf and Regular State Quarters sets graded by NGC as MS 68 sold at the Heritage Galleries Coin auction yesterday, May 11, 2007 for $14,000 + commissions. Was this the same set that sold at auction at Charolette, NC earlier this year ? The $14,000+ sale price isn't too shabby of a realized price for a couple of die gouge machine made quarters !! I wonder if someone knows more about the coins' origin than the likes of coin experts: Ken Potter , Arnie Margolis and we can't leave out the President... Mike Diamond !!! This is only Food For Thought !!! Have a great day !! Mark. >>
Well, a single (accidentally) abraded die coin three grades down can sell for almost twice as much. I don't think you can make any sort of good argument from price to cause and hopefully you weren't seriously offering one.
PCGS's tally of their graded Wisconsin Extra Leaf Quarters (both High and Low) only went up a whopping "ONE" last week. Where are all of the 50,000 Extra High Leaf Wisconsin Quarters that the GOA office reported were made in late 2004 ???? The Mint is always correct !! Have a great day collecting coins. Mark.
Conclusions: This is indisputable proof that the leaf-like die dents (or gouges) on the Wisconsin quarters (referred to as "High Leaf" and "Low Leaf") could have easily been entered into the dies while they were in either their soft or hardened state. Earlier studies that suggested that impressions in a die of this or similar depths, had to be accomplished while the die was still in a softened state are in fact incorrect as has been demonstrated here.
First of all, to conclude anything you have to determine the hardness of the die. Just becuase it is a die does not mean it is hardened to the same strength as a Mint die. Chris did the same test with a Mint die and could not make a mark on it. The Mint sells discarded dies and Ken has access to them. Why does he choose to use a medal die?
"indisputable proof" Ha!
"Earlier studies that suggested.." You mean "proved", don't you.
Also when Ken posts his "Proofs" a web site like this, no one can reply unless the author allows it.
I have converted this thread into an article for Coin World and have sent drafts to Mike, Ken Potter and Arnie Margolis to incoroprate their thoughts.
I live in Austin, one of the areas where they were originally found. I look for this variety in circulation every day, and it's been a long time since I've even SEEN a Wisconsin quarter in circulation around here. I think, variety or not, they are being saved in quantity. The media here was all over these varieties, and I'm betting that's behind it.
--Christian
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
My interest in the subject has wavered back and forth on these variations over the past couple years but I must admit that at this point I'm finding them more interesting than I did initially if for no other reason than the mystery behind them.
This, it seems is, a genuine statement. I was begining to think that Ken could not be convinced. Perhaps there is still hope for him. I totally agree that the mystery is the most interesting thing about the varieties.
All of Ken's statements were "genuine". I detected no insincerity with any of them. However, it does seem he's now approaching more closely my position of suspended judgement.
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.
NGC graded only "One" Wisconsin Extra Leaf Quarter for both the High and Low Leaf Varieties combined last week !! The same had been reportd by PCGS for last week. South Texas coin dealers are saying that the influx of additional quarters has all but ceased !! Very Interesting !!!! Have a great day collecting coins !! Mark.
Basically he is saying that there are die varieties and die errors. He said that die varieties include the following: Design Changes. Mintmark Styles. Doubled Dies. Repunched Mintmarks. Repunched Dates. Misplaced Digits. He says - "... which are known to be on the die from its initial use and are for the most part cataloged by die."
He labels Die Errors as: Die Cracks. Die Chips. Die Breaks. Die Cuds. He says - " These are errors which for the most part happen after the die is put into use."
He then says that the WI extra Leafes Quarters are Die Errors because -"...even though some die damage errors are known to have been on the die when it was first used (the WI quarters are the perfect example), they are still considered Die Errors, because the Die Varieties category is restrictive and most die damage occurs after the die is placed into use."
I think the WI extra Leaf Quarters are properly called die varieties, not die errors. Any thoughts?
The term "die error" has been around for awhile. I generally agree with James Wiles' definition. It's how I usually employ the two terms.
If it can ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the "extra leaves" were intentionally placed on the two Wisconsin dies, I would call them die varieties. Just as I would call any intentional modification (government-approved or otherwise) a die variety. And I wouldn't necessarily demand that the alteration be pre-installation. I consider the 1944-D half dollar with restored initials a die variety, even though the modification was almost certainly made after the die had been in use.
Likewise, if it could ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the "extra leaves" represent accidental mechanical damage, I would characterize them as die errors.
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.
Being the future of Numismatics I would like to know what difference it actually makes. Being at least 25 years younger than other posters on this topic I think you are all arguing over B.S. The fact of the matter is that the Wisconsin Quarters were only made for 1/5th of the year and only one Mint had the errors. Out of say 300 million quarters only 20,000 had the error. And of the 20,000 more that half are low leafs. I could care less if a talking mouse made them, fact is that the mint produced them, checked them, and sent them to be used as legal tender. So regardless of your thoughts about the series or how they came to be the fact is there are 3 different varieties of Denver mint quarters period.
Collector of Modern Sprockets!
Don't hate on Moderns. Your Kids and Grandkids are going to pay out the A$$ for them when they're your age!
Yes, they do exist, but as you can see by the posts in this thread there is disagreement on the nature of the variety (Sorry, I'll always call them varieties, not errors)
When the 1955 Doubled Dies came out there was confusion about their cause. Some called them double struck and shift cents. Now everyone loves them as the doubled die which ignited a whole category of collecting.
The WI Extra leafs do not fall squarely into any other variety category previously known, at least that's what I'm trying to show. There are those who argure that they should be lumped in with all the other die damage varieties. That's what were are talking about, not whether to collect them or not.
Personally I feel these varieties were created on purpose. Because why else would they be on the left side of the corn where you have space to place them? If anything the picture of that nickel would support it. Look at the location of that mark, its in a totally random place. (BTW the nickel is a bad comparison to the quarter) Since the extra leaves look placed instead of random I say some mint employee had a little fun with a die or two, otherwise that is one magical direction changing leaf. But what about the Kansas Humpback Bison? Most have the hump on the back while there are some with the hump on the nose, wouldn't there have to be some Wisconsins out there with the leaf in other places if its wasnt placed (random)?
Collector of Modern Sprockets!
Don't hate on Moderns. Your Kids and Grandkids are going to pay out the A$$ for them when they're your age!
<< <i>I think you hit the nail right on the head. Whatever the reason they are a good coin to have. >>
There's no doubt that many collectors are always going to consider these coins intentional and want them on that basis. Even among other collectors many will desire specimens be- cause of their noteriety or scarcity.
Comments
<< <i>I think the marks were placed on the dies accidentally. >>
Sean, you've convinced me. They both accidentally look like leaves to me. They both accidentally are placed precisely to be one with the design. It's all so simple. Your opinions will likely have greater gravitas in the future as a result of your analysis, I'm sure.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
It is the conclusion of a very well laid out independent scientific analysis, which was open to all possibilities. I have yet to see you actually prove or disprove anything. I have seen wrong comparisons and haughty-worded explanations, meant to impress, but without substance. I have seen indifference when you couldn't counter my claim.
Why do you continue to hold an indefensible position? Is there anything that would sway your opinion? Or do I need to convince Ken Potter so he will call you and say it's OK come off the "accidental worthless die gouge" position. It almost sounds like I am hitting a brick wall.
Your position is that of a true believer. True believers embrace any evidence that supports their position and ignore, distort, or deny any evidence that contradicts their position.
At this point any further discussion will be fruitless. You are free to believe whatever you wish regarding these coins.
<< <i>No, it's not my "opinion".
It is the conclusion of a very well laid out independent scientific analysis, which was open to all possibilities. I have yet to see you actually prove or disprove anything. I have seen wrong comparisons and haughty-worded explanations, meant to impress, but without substance. I have seen indifference when you couldn't counter my claim.
Why do you continue to hold an indefensible position? Is there anything that would sway your opinion? Or do I need to convince Ken Potter so he will call you and say it's OK come off the "accidental worthless die gouge" position. It almost sounds like I am hitting a brick wall. >>
<< <i>or deny any evidence that contradicts their position. >>
What evidence? Must have missed your evidence.
And the painstaking analysis is "worthless"?
CONECA, that's your president.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
It is like Pluto, is it a planet? Who knows? Who cares? It is what it is.
San Diego, CA
What evidence? Must have missed your evidence.
And the painstaking analysis is "worthless"?
By the way, when and where does Chris' finished study come out in print? I heard it was supposed to come out in The Numismatist. I've only seen Coin World's summary. It's possible that there's more to it than what Coin World says.
Mike, that actually sounds like what you have been doing, but in reverse.
If Chris' result was that the WI Extra Leaf varieties could have been made during regular production, I would have accepted it and gotten behind it, because I am not interested putting out false or slanted information. I am not ignoring anything, distorting anything or denying any facts that are proven.
By publishing a counter-position in Coin World you should be willing to back it up with cold hard proof. Convince me! I've seen nothing that comes close to proof.
I am holding you to your words in Coin World. Prove what you claim, or don't put out any more foolishness in the national Coin Press, or Errorscope or Error Trends. Since you are now President of CONECA, you must be held to a high standard. Please live up to it.
Point 1: The curved ridges are too much like leaves to be accidental.
Rebuttal: This is entirely subjective. To many, they look nothing like leaves. I'm no botanist, but I'm pretty sure leaves don't sprout from cheese wheels (high leaf).
Point 2. The relief is too high to be accidental.
Rebuttal. No one has quantified the relief of the "extra leaves". The curved ridge on the 2000-D nickel might be just as high, but because it's broad it may only seem lower. Certainly cases of catastrophic die damage show dents and impact scars that go a lot deeper into the die face.
Point 3. The grooves could only have been punched into a softened die. A finished die is too hard.
Rebuttal: Numerous cases of die damage, including the 2000-D nickel, show this claim to be completely false.
Point 4. Two very similar curved ridges on two different dies can't be coincidental.
Rebuttal: A number of recent cents show nearly identical semicircular die gouges or die dents on the reverse. They're a lot smaller than the "extra leaves", but they are otherwise similar. And they are repetitive.
Point 5. The low leaf shows a pressure ridge, which indicates the die was soft.
Rebuttal: The high leaf shows no such ridge. I have not undertaken a study of a large sample of damaged dies to see the extent to which such ridges develop. But neither have you or Chris. Your supposition is entirely speculative. Also since a hardened die can be permanently deformed when a die dent is formed, it wouldn't be unexpected for a pressure ridge to also form on occasion.
Point 6. A curved ridge can only be due to a semicircular object being intentionally driven into the die face.
Rebuttal. Patently false. The 2000-D nickel, the recent cents I mentioned, and an eagle-reverse quarter in my collection all sport curved ridges.
Point 7. The absence of distortion of the design proves the die was in a softened state.
Rebuttal: You can't have it both ways. You say deformation of the die face (pressure ridge in low leaf) proves the die was soft. At the same time you claim LACK of deformation proves the die was soft. Furthermore, you haven't presented a comparison sample of die damage to prove your assertion. In my experience, distortion of the design is dependent on the severity and depth of the die damage.
Most of this was previously stated in one fashion or another.
<< <i>Your position is that of a true believer. True believers embrace any evidence that supports their position and ignore, distort, or deny any evidence that contradicts their position.
Mike, that actually sounds like what you have been doing, but in reverse.
If Chris' result was that the WI Extra Leaf varieties could have been made during regular production, I would have accepted it and gotten behind it, because I am not interested putting out false or slanted information. I am not ignoring anything, distorting anything or denying any facts that are proven.
By publishing a counter-position in Coin World you should be willing to back it up with cold hard proof. Convince me! I've seen nothing that comes close to proof.
I am holding you to your words in Coin World. Prove what you claim, or don't put out any more foolishness in the national Coin Press, or Errorscope or Error Trends. Since you are now President of CONECA, you must be held to a high standard. Please live up to it. >>
they were made at the same time?
...This is especially interesting since it's known that one was made in
the middle of the day while the operator was at luch.
<< <i>...And how about the fact that it is known from their distribution that
they were made at the same time?
...This is especially interesting since it's known that one was made in
the middle of the day while the operator was at luch. >>
Wouldn't that be coincidence in any case? If the dies were intentionally altered when soft, the "artist" would have no guarantee that the two dies would, down the line, be used at the same time.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
It is an important point. If there was debris that got struck into the die, it would have had to happen in two presses at about the same time. Do you think that would be a correct assumtion? One that would carry weight? If so, it also shows that it is quite a long stretch to say the marks are accidental.
Mike: I think you rewrote the meaning of some of my points. I'll clarify them if you like.
<< <i>
Wouldn't that be coincidence in any case? If the dies were intentionally altered when soft, the "artist" would have no guarantee that the two dies would, down the line, be used at the same time. >>
Granted, if he had no control over their installation and operation.
Both sets of dies started and stopped production at about the same
time or they would not have been found only in the same rolls and
bags. All of both these issues were apparently made during the oper-
ator's lunch break which had one press tagged and out of service as
he left.
As far as the dies being damaged during a press run, I never made this claim and I have no evidence to indicate that this is what happened. Maybe they were damaged after hubbing, during final milling, during transport, storage, installation...anything's possible. We don't know what made the impressions, so it's all guesswork.
Feel free to clarify and correct any mischaracterizations I may have inadvertently produced in my point/counterpoint presentation.
<< <i>Cladking: They were struck at the same time. The dies were in seperate presses and the coins went into the same hopper. We know this becase the coins were found intermixed together with regular coins. They had 5 presses running striking quarters. (single-die presses).
It is an important point. If there was debris that got struck into the die, it would have had to happen in two presses at about the same time. Do you think that would be a correct assumtion? One that would carry weight? If so, it also shows that it is quite a long stretch to say the marks are accidental.
Mike: I think your rewrote the meaning of some of my points. I'll clarify them if you like. >>
<< <i>... If there was debris that got struck into the die, it would have had to happen in two presses at about the same time. Do you think that would be a correct assumption? ... >>
If inadvertant; probably. Of course they could have been damaged accidently at the same time before installation. These dies were born, damaged, operated and retired at the same time in all probability
assuming they were accidental.
If they were intentional then we only know they operated and retired at the same time. ...toward the end of the operator's lunch break.
You said that I said:
Point 1: The curved ridges are too much like leaves to be accidental.
When in fact my case is:
Point 1: It's great that they look like leaves, but the argument is that they were intentionally made. Because of the following reasons:
a) The ridges were put on the die after the die was hubbed.
Proof: There is a raised deformed area on the low leaf die (sunken on the coin). This could not have risen up if it happened during hubbing
b) The ridges were put on the die before the coins were hardened.
Fact: The die is soft enough prior to hardening to be able to accept a depression by hand to the depth seen on the WI Extra Leaf varieties.
Fact: The die is too hard after hardening to be able to accept a depression by hand to any reasonable depth.
c) The dies were striking coin in different presses at the same time.
Observation: We saw high leaf, low leaf and regular quarter mixed in original rolls. No solid rolls.
Edited to add: We are left with two choices They were accidentialy damaged during this time or someone purposly put the mark there. Here we have to use Ocham's razor as stated above. I think the "on purpose" choice is much easier to explain.
You said that I said:
Point 2. The relief is too high to be accidental.
When in fact my case is:
Point 2: The relief is too high to have been made during regular production.
a) The look at the SEM level at a softened die mark and a hardened die mark will show a difference, I believe. As to the depth, I don't think I ever claimed it was relevant to proving whether it was accidental or not.
You said that I said:
Point 3. The grooves could only have been punched into a softened die. A finished die is too hard.
Point 3: See point 1, unless I'm missing something here.
You said that I said:
Point 4. Two very similar curved ridges on two different dies can't be coincidental.
When in fact my case is:
Point 4: The Extra Leaves are too close to be coincidental.
a) Proof: They are the exact same curvature. This was shown on the SEM images, which can show both coins at exactly the same magnification.
b) Proof: The two marks on the Low leaf show repeating marks from the object that impressed the die.
You said that I said:
Point 5. The pressure ridge in the low leaf shows a pressure ridge, which indicates the die was soft.
When in fact my case is:
Point 5: The pressure ridge on the low leaf indicates the die was marked after it was hubbed. This is the correct interpretation of the importance of the pressure ridge.
See point 1.
You said that I said:
Point 6. A curved ridge can only be due to a semicircular object being intentionally driven into the die face.
That's really stretching my statements to fit your answer. Let's go to court on that one!
You said that I said:
Point 7. The absence of distortion of the design proves the die was in a softened state.
When in fact my case is:
Point 7: The marks on the low leaf show that that whatever made the mark was harder than the die.
a) Observation: The low leaf shows an overlap of the extra leaf and the regular design with no additional marks higher into the die.
b) Observation (I have not seen the coin personally): The marks on the 2000-D nickel show the object deforming into the die, which means that the die was harder than the object struck into it. - it was made during coin production.
Now, that's a bit clearer. I think I see where you are making your errors. You are not reading my posts clear enough.
Your said that I said:
Point 1: The curved ridges are too much like leaves to be accidental.
When in fact my case is:
Point 1: It's great that they look like leaves, but the argument is that they were intentionally made. Because of the following reasons:
a) The ridges were put on the die after the die was hubbed.
Agreed.
Proof: There is a raised deformed area on the low leaf die (sunken on the coin). This could not have risen up if it happened during hubbing
Agreed.
b) The ridges were put on the die before the coins were hardened.
Unproven.
Fact: The die is soft enough prior to hardening to be able to accept a depression by hand to the depth seen on the WI Extra Leaf varieties.
Agreed.
Fact: The die is too hard after hardening to be able to accept a depression by hand to any reasonable depth.
Possibly. But we don't know for a fact that they were produced by hand. Also, the shallow indentations that comprise the hand-engraved "AW" on the 1944-D half dollar were tapped in by hand. It's doubtful that tremendous force was used, since the engraver had to maintain careful control. Who knows how deep the tool could have gone with a forceful blow.
c) The dies were striking coin in different presses at the same time.
Observation: We saw high leaf, low leaf and regular quarter mixed in original rolls. No solid rolls.
That seems to be the case.
Edited to add: We are left with two choices They were accidentialy damaged during this time or someone purposly put the mark there. Here we have to use Ocham's razor as stated above. I think the "on purpose" choice is much easier to explain.
Occam's Razor cuts both ways on this issue. I don't see either scenario as being far more likely that the other.
Your said that I said:
Point 2. The relief is too high to be accidental.
When in fact my case is:
Point 2: The relief is too high to have been made during regular production.
What do you mean by "regular production". The die-making process? We don't know for a fact exactly when the defects appeared or what generated them. Therefore this conclusion is rather a stretch.
a) The look at the SEM level at a softened die mark and a hardened die mark will show a difference, I believe. As to the depth, I don't think I ever claimed it was relevant to proving whether it was accidental or not.
This should be true, provided the force remain the same.
Your said that I said:
Point 3. The grooves could only have been punched into a softened die. A finished die is too hard.
Point 3: See point 1, unless I'm missing something here.
Your said that I said:
Point 4. Two very similar curved ridges on two different dies can't be coincidental.
When in fact my case is:
Point 4: The Extra Leaves are too close to be coincidental.
a) Proof: They are the exact same curvature. This was shown on the SEM images, which can show both coins at exactly the same magnification.
I haven't seen the overlay, but I'll take your word for it. The curved die dents/gouges on the several 2004 cent dies also could be said to be "too close to be coincidental". But no one has suggested they were intentionally created.
b) Proof: The two marks on the Low leaf show repeating marks from the object that impressed the die.
Agreed.
Your said that I said:
Point 5. The pressure ridge in the low leaf shows a pressure ridge, which indicates the die was soft.
When in fact my case is:
Point 5: The pressure ridge on the low leaf indicates the die was marked after it was hubbed. Is the correct interpretation of the importance of the pressure ridge.
See point 1.
If that is your point, then I agree.
Your said that I said:
Point 6. A curved ridge can only be due to a semicircular object being intentionally driven into the die face.
That's really stretching my statements to fit your answer. Let's go to court on that one!
Fine, I'll retract that one.
Your said that I said:
Point 7. The absence of distortion of the design proves the die was in a softened state.
When in fact my case is:
Point 7: The marks on the low leaf show that that what made the mark was harder than the die.
Possibly. But catastrophic die damage and "floating die clash" errors show that broken pieces of die steel can seriously damage the intact portion of the die face. It's also possible that the dies were accidentally damaged while in a softened state, during the first stages of tempering.
a) Observation: The low leaf shows an overlap of the extra leaf and the regular design with no additional marks higher into the die.
So what's your point? It only means that the die dent is shallower than the design.
b) Observation (I have not seen the coin personally): The marks on the 2000-D nickel show the object deforming into the die, which means that the die was harder than the object struck into it. - it was made during coin production.
I'm almost sure it occurred during production. But it does not follow that the object driven into the die was softer than the die. Your conclusion makes no sense to me. If the die was harder it should have resisted deformation.
Now, that's a bit clearer. I think I see where you are making your errors. You are not reading my posts clear enough.
Anyway, at this point, I think your strongest points are:
1. The identical curvature, size, and shape of the the grooves. Well, maybe not quite identical. There is a clear interruption in the concave border of the low leaf which is far less pronounced in the high leaf. But this could be simply due to the angle at which the object/tool was driven into the die face. But again, more than one 2004 cent features nearly identical semicircular die gouges/dents on the reverse face.
2. That the two dies were installed and run at the same time.
3. The the damage either occurred before installation or shortly after installation. The sheer abundance of these errors is quite different from what we see in most accidental die damage, where you're lucky to find a few examples. An exception to this general observation would include the "speared bison" die dent, which is also abundant and which no one has claimed is intentional.
I would not be surprised if the "extra leaves" were intentionally placed on the dies by a mischeivous mint technician. But I don't think this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The the damage either occurred before installation or shortly after installation. The sheer abundance of these errors is quite different from what we see in most accidental die damage, where you're lucky to find a few examples. An exception to this general observation would include the "speared bison" die dent, which is also abundant and which no one has claimed is intentional.
That's not my point, that's your point. My point is that it was made prior to being hardened.
I agree that it is conjecture that "someone must have made it", but that is the whole reason for this exercise. If we can narrow down the possibilities and eliminate what it cannot be, we come to as close to a conclusion as we can. If you look at it that way, you may agree with me, however if you are trying to prove what it is by other means (weak comparisons, setting too high a hurdle to prove, ignoring certain facts) you may never get your mind to accept the possibility. It'll call it uber-skeptacisim.
Now, to refresh, here is what you wrote in Coin World.:
THEORY UNCERTAIN
I need to throw some cold water on Chris Pilloid's assertion that the 2004-D Wisconsin quarter dollar "extra leaf" defects were intentional and were placed on the dies when the latter were in a softened state(Coin World, March 5).
Let me say at the outset that I agree with Chris and Tom DeLorey that the defects were produced by the impact of a circular or semicircular object. Beyond that, there are no certainties. Whether this object was a tool, machine part or piece of hardware cannot be determined.
Whether the damage was intentional or accidental cannot be determined. Exactly when the damage was inflicted cannot be determined. While the defects might have appeared before the dies received final tempering, there is no guarantee of this.
Even a hardened die is vulnerable to damage. Case in point is the 2000-D Jefferson 5-cent coin whose images are shown.
The coin shows a strong, slightly misaligned die clash produced at a time when the obverse die was shifted about a millimeter to the left. Strong clash marks by themselves show the potential of hardened dies to take an impression.
But even more compelling is the die damage located on the left side of the obverse and reverse face on the 2000-D 5-cent coin.
These raised, sharply defined, slightly curved ridges are the result of a hard object being caught between the two dies when they came together.
Whether the die damage occurred before, after or simultaneous with the clash cannot be determined.
For the record, this coin was purchased from Christian Merlo.
One other observation: I see in the magnified image of the "low leaf" quarter (top right of the original article) that fine striations in the field are interrupted by the two ridges.
If these striations represent metal lines, their interruption may indicate the the dents in the die were produced after the dies started striking coins.
I guess we're back to square one when it comes to these quarters.
Mike Diamond
President, CONECA
I think much of what was said was unnesessary and not to the point of the argument. It is not a popularity contest (or an oppertunity to bash people who have bought WI Extra Leaf Quarters), it is trying to come up with the truth. Perhaps were can co-write an article about the Wisconsin Extra Leaf (er, excuse me... WI quarters with extra curved mark) Quarters. Perhaps as a point - counterpoint type of article.
ps. The term Extra Leaf Quarters was put forward to PCGS by Q. David Bowers. It was after I sold him one of the first sets at the 2005 FUN Show when he submitted it to PCGS. I was there when David Hall asked what him what it should be called.
Maybe so, Rob. But you don't have to read it. I find it very interesting.
I agree that it is conjecture that "someone must have made it", but that is the whole reason for this exercise. If we can narrow down the possibilities and eliminate what it cannot be, we come to as close to a conclusion as we can. If you look at it that way, you may agree with me, however if you are trying to prove what it is by other means (weak comparisons, setting too high a hurdle to prove, ignoring certain facts) you may never get your mind to accept the possibility. It'll call it uber-skeptacisim.
I don't require 100% certainty. That is seldom attainable. I simply require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think the evidence reaches that level. However, you make a cogent case the bears serious consideration.
Now, to refresh, here is what you wrote in Coin World.:
I think much of what was said was unnesessary and not to the point of the argument. It is not a popularity contest (or an oppertunity to bash people who have bought WI Extra Leaf Quarters), it is trying to come up with the truth. Perhaps were can co-write an article about the Wisconsin Extra Leaf (er, excuse me... WI quarters with extra curved mark) Quarters. Perhaps as a point - counterpoint type of article.
It was never my intention to bash anybody. I think all the points I raised in my article were valid, at least in response to Coin World's summary of Chris' findings. I'm not sure what you mean by a popularity contest, but I doubt I garnered much popular acclaim for my position. As far as an article, that might be fun.
ps. The term Extra Leaf Quarters was put forward to PCGS by Q. David Bowers. It was after I sold him one of the first sets at the 2005 FUN Show when he submitted it to PCGS. I was there when David Hall asked what him what it should be called. >>
I have no problem with the nickname. They all tend to be evocative and whimsical. It helps you remember it better.
<< <i>
Maybe so, Rob. But you don't have to read it. I find it very interesting. >>
I don't. I have 2 sets. In fact, I bought one set from you
<< <i>Errormavon do you have any sets for sale? >>
Nope. Although I've examined some, I've never owned any. I don't plan on plunking down the kind of money that they currently trade for. For an intentional modification, I much prefer the 1944-D half dollar with re-engraved "AW". There's no question about the status of that variety.
<< <i>Errormavon, cool ,ok what do you think they are worth as just "dents"? >>
If they were ever to be shown to be accidental die dents, I could only compare their value to other die dents of similar size. The 2000-D nickel cost me $60 on eBay. However, they've taken on a life of their own and I doubt that such a revelation would seriously affect their current high market value. After all a pedestrian die polishing error like the 1937-D buffalo nickel commands astonishing prices, even though pretty much everyone except a total novice is aware of its nature and origin. Far more severe die polishing errors can be had for a few bucks.
Regardless of their origin, the "extra leaf" die dents are unusually strong and clear and deserve a measure of respect from that standpoint alone.
<< <i>I would not be surprised if the "extra leaves" were intentionally placed on the dies by a mischeivous mint technician. But I don't think this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. >>
I said in early 2005 when we were going back and forth on this that you and other naysayers would hide behind the mint's predictable silence on this, and in effect take a position that could not be DIS-proven, no matter how ridiculous and improbable. But to what end, and for what cost to your credibility?
Anyway, I grade your effort against Rick an F. You don't debate as much as pontificate. You provided no evidence against the intentional origin theory while asserting that you did. You will not propose any theories as to how it happened twice. You merely invokes meaningless, unrelated "comparisons" and call apples oranges.
I stand by my charge that you intended from the beginning to take a stand that although absurd, could not be disproven, and thus provoke an endless debate. Your statement above is your "out", but your performance will be remembered.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/2005S25cAgKSBisonVariety.htm
Mike, that link doesn't work.
<< <i>The one of only two Wisconsin Extra High and Low Leaf and Regular State Quarters sets graded by NGC as MS 68 sold at the Heritage Galleries Coin auction yesterday, May 11, 2007 for $14,000 + commissions. Was this the same set that sold at auction at Charolette, NC earlier this year ? The $14,000+ sale price isn't too shabby of a realized price for a couple of die gouge machine made quarters !! I wonder if someone knows more about the coins' origin than the likes of coin experts: Ken Potter , Arnie Margolis and we can't leave out the President... Mike Diamond !!! This is only Food For Thought !!! Have a great day !! Mark. >>
Well, a single (accidentally) abraded die coin three grades down can sell for almost twice as much. I don't think you can make any sort of good argument from price to cause and hopefully you weren't seriously offering one.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>Mike, that link doesn't work. >>
article
That's wierd. Works every time for me. Try it again.
http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/2005S25cAgKSBisonVariety.htm
--Mike Diamond
<< <i>I've seen pictures of that Wisconsin quarter but not the cent. Could you tell me the date? Thanks.
--Mike Diamond >>
1999
Regards,
Billy G. Crawford
Of course, I'm as skeptical of the Mint's statements as you are.
By the way, here's another article of interest from Ken Potter that he just posted:
http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/HappyHollidaysDieDamage.htm
Conclusions: This is indisputable proof that the leaf-like die dents (or gouges) on the Wisconsin quarters (referred to as "High Leaf" and "Low Leaf") could have easily been entered into the dies while they were in either their soft or hardened state. Earlier studies that suggested that impressions in a die of this or similar depths, had to be accomplished while the die was still in a softened state are in fact incorrect as has been demonstrated here.
First of all, to conclude anything you have to determine the hardness of the die. Just becuase it is a die does not mean it is hardened to the same strength as a Mint die. Chris did the same test with a Mint die and could not make a mark on it. The Mint sells discarded dies and Ken has access to them. Why does he choose to use a medal die?
"indisputable proof" Ha!
"Earlier studies that suggested.." You mean "proved", don't you.
Also when Ken posts his "Proofs" a web site like this, no one can reply unless the author allows it.
I have converted this thread into an article for Coin World and have sent drafts to Mike, Ken Potter and Arnie Margolis to incoroprate their thoughts.
--Christian
http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/HappyHollidaysDieDamage.htm
He got the same result with a defaced die from the U.S. Mint.
This, it seems is, a genuine statement. I was begining to think that Ken could not be convinced. Perhaps there is still hope for him. I totally agree that the mystery is the most interesting thing about the varieties.
Die error
This from James Wiles.
Basically he is saying that there are die varieties and die errors. He said that die varieties include the following:
Design Changes.
Mintmark Styles.
Doubled Dies.
Repunched Mintmarks.
Repunched Dates.
Misplaced Digits.
He says - "... which are known to be on the die from its initial use and are for the most part cataloged by die."
He labels Die Errors as:
Die Cracks.
Die Chips.
Die Breaks.
Die Cuds.
He says - " These are errors which for the most part happen after the die is put into use."
He then says that the WI extra Leafes Quarters are Die Errors because -"...even though some die damage errors are known to have been on the die when it was first used (the WI quarters are the perfect example), they are still considered Die Errors, because the Die Varieties category is restrictive and most die damage occurs after the die is placed into use."
I think the WI extra Leaf Quarters are properly called die varieties, not die errors.
Any thoughts?
If it can ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the "extra leaves" were intentionally placed on the two Wisconsin dies, I would call them die varieties. Just as I would call any intentional modification (government-approved or otherwise) a die variety. And I wouldn't necessarily demand that the alteration be pre-installation. I consider the 1944-D half dollar with restored initials a die variety, even though the modification was almost certainly made after the die had been in use.
Likewise, if it could ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the "extra leaves" represent accidental mechanical damage, I would characterize them as die errors.
Don't hate on Moderns. Your Kids and Grandkids are going to pay out the A$$ for them when they're your age!
Thanks for adding your comments.
Yes, they do exist, but as you can see by the posts in this thread there is disagreement on the nature of the variety (Sorry, I'll always call them varieties, not errors)
When the 1955 Doubled Dies came out there was confusion about their cause. Some called them double struck and shift cents. Now everyone loves them as the doubled die which ignited a whole category of collecting.
The WI Extra leafs do not fall squarely into any other variety category previously known, at least that's what I'm trying to show. There are those who argure that they should be lumped in with all the other die damage varieties. That's what were are talking about, not whether to collect them or not.
edited for spelling, as usual
Don't hate on Moderns. Your Kids and Grandkids are going to pay out the A$$ for them when they're your age!
100 (I always wanted to do that.
<< <i>I think you hit the nail right on the head. Whatever the reason they are a good coin to have. >>
There's no doubt that many collectors are always going to consider these coins intentional
and want them on that basis. Even among other collectors many will desire specimens be-
cause of their noteriety or scarcity.