Options
Is a Die Clash an Error?
seemyauction
Posts: 3,655 ✭
I have seen TPG tags that list a Die Clash as an Error, my question is does the collector consider Clashing and Error?
0
seemyauction
Posts: 3,655 ✭
I have seen TPG tags that list a Die Clash as an Error, my question is does the collector consider Clashing and Error?
Comments
But if it was clashed from flying eagle cent onto a quarter, then I would say yes.
1857 quarter clashed with flying eagle cent reverse
Andy Warhol
<< <i>Clash marks are (mint errors) They are where the dies have hit each other and then transfer these marks to the coins. >>
Agree. They are errors and they are also die varieties. Unless the mint intentionally clashed their dies, which would be absurd, then you must conclude that they are errors. Since they mark the dies, coins struck from those dies can also be considered varieties.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Voltaire: Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero.
But if it was clashed from flying eagle cent onto a quarter, then I would say yes.
1857 quarter clashed with flying eagle cent reverse>>
I could consider an ordinary clash an error. The mint did not intend that to happen.
The cent quarter clash has so much help behind it, I hesitate to call it an error.
Nor, are they even die varieties. They are perfectly normal coins struck from a die at a particular stage of that die's life.
Edit for typo.
It is not what the mint intended.
<< <i>Clashed dies are considered errors.
It is not what the mint intended. >>
You are right. The dies are errors. The coins struck from them aren't, however. They are exactly what the mint intended a coin struck by that die at that die stage to look like--and it was the coins that the OP refered to.
http://www.teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=2783&lot=2783
Andy Warhol
...yet ofter sellers not familiar with the series will tout such coins as a "rare mint error". I have never seen or heard of one that was labeled as a mint error by TPGs.
-Paul
A die variety would be more along the lines of date placement or mintmark placement, a die clash would be more considered a "die state"
<< <i> I have never seen or heard of one that was labeled as a mint error by TPGs. >>
<< <i>Clashed dies happened so often in the minting of Gold Dollars that to find a coin "without" clashmarks can be unusual.
...yet ofter sellers not familiar with the series will tout such coins as a "rare mint error". I have never seen or heard of one that was labeled as a mint error by TPGs. >>
Many mint errors are common (die clashes, die cracks, die gouges, etc) and are not particularly valuable. But, they are still mint errors.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Voltaire: Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero.
<< <i> Many mint errors are common (die clashes, die cracks, die gouges, etc) and are not particularly valuable. But, they are still mint errors. >>
Bingo, just because they are common does not mean they are not considered mint errors
These are considered mint errors and can be sold as such.
<< <i>I disagree, clashes are die varieties. Errors are unique coins. >>
I totally disagree. Varieties are coins produced from dies as they were made and put into service (whether all of the characteristics on the die were intended to be there or not, such as overdates, RPMs, gouges, polishing lines, etc.) Clashes were not there when dies were made and put into service. Clashes cause damage to dies and are a normal, predictable, and common event in the life of all dies, just like cracks, cuds, and erosion/wear are. I do not consider coins produced by them to be either varieties or errors, but various die state examples, just as DMPLs and PLs are.
From a collector's standpoint, I think it really depends upon the extent of the die clash after understanding that the bottom stroke of the hammer die is adjustable (meaning not all dies will come together should a blank not be fed into the coining chamber) and not all die clashes are the same.
Some are significant while others are relatively minor and quite common.
The name is LEE!
A clash die is not intended. Thus, it is an error.
edited to add: If the die is subject to any of the above as well, its a mint error.
Also, I believe even small mint errors should be noted if paid for during submission.
I vote error
<< <i>Yes. I define mint error simply as this... If, in the production of a coin something happens to any aspect of that coin, while striking, and changes that coin, and was not intended, its an error.
A clash die is not intended. Thus, it is an error.
edited to add: If the die is subject to any of the above as well, its a mint error.
Also, I believe even small mint errors should be noted if paid for during submission. >>
That's just it, though. Nothing happened to a coin with clash marks that wasn't intended to happen. It shows the exact imprint that it should show. A coin struck from clashed dies which DOESN'T display that clash mark is the actual error coin as it is the coin that isn't what the mint intended when (whether mistakenly or not) that particular die continued to be used.
<<That's just it, though. Nothing happened to a coin with clash marks that wasn't intended to happen. It show the exact imprint that it should show. A coin struck from clashed dies which DOESN'T display that clash mark is the actual error coin as it is the coin that isn't what the mint intended when (whether mistakenly or not) that particular die continued to be used. >>
But the die was changed, and thus changed the intended design of the coin. If a coin doesnt show clashing from clashed dies, why doesnt it show?Its more than likely due to the clashing wearing down to fading into the intended design? If so, then its as intended by default I guess.
By definition it IS A MINT ERROR.
PERIOD.
<< <i>There are definitions and then there are opinions ....
By definition it IS A MINT ERROR.
PERIOD. >>
On the contrary, by definition the coin ISN'T a mint error. It is exactly what it should be. Through common USAGE it may be considered one, but actually THAT is exactly where opinion rather than definition enters the arguement.
<< <i>
<< <i>There are definitions and then there are opinions ....
By definition it IS A MINT ERROR.
PERIOD. >>
On the contrary, by definition the coin ISN'T a mint error. It is exactly what it should be. Through common USAGE it may be considered one, but actually THAT is exactly where opinion rather than definition enters the arguement. >>
Ok , you are right.
All of the error experts are wrong. All of the books on error coins are wrong. The TPG's are wrong. The error websites are wrong.
And you are right ...........
NOT!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There are definitions and then there are opinions ....
By definition it IS A MINT ERROR.
PERIOD. >>
On the contrary, by definition the coin ISN'T a mint error. It is exactly what it should be. Through common USAGE it may be considered one, but actually THAT is exactly where opinion rather than definition enters the arguement. >>
Ok , you are right.
All of the error experts are wrong. All of the books on error coins are wrong. The TPG's are wrong. The error websites are wrong.
And you are right ......... >>
Now you got it!!!!
Let's see, I'm looking at a nice clashed Ike with a big Talon Head, Hair Lip, Volunteer and other images:
--- that no planchet was present was an error,
--- that the dies came together was an error (more often due to excessive play in the hammer arm than to mal-adjustment, I would guess),
--- that Gasparro allowed an element of the reverse die to extend above the die's field was an error, BIG TIME error, a major no-no,
--- that the repairative abrading did not fully erase the clash images in the fields was an error.
But the die setter's decision to re-hang the clashed dies with their partial abrading repairs, was that an error, or was he told to do exactly this by the suits who were hell-bent on meeting production quotas (or maybe THIS decision by the suits was an error?)?
One is left with the need for clarity based on reasonable definitions as the above discussion would not fit on any TPG's tag.
Therefore ErrorsOnCoins is correct IMVHO.
(Good Lord, this thread reminds me of theological arguments. . .)
Rob
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
<< <i>That's just it, though. Nothing happened to a coin with clash marks that wasn't intended to happen. >>
Except that the US Mint did not intend for those clash marks on the face of those dies and as soon as it is noticed, the dies are pulled and reworked.
If the clashing is severe enough, the coins will get pulled as well in an effort to not let the "error" into circulation.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>(Good Lord, this thread reminds me of theological arguments. . .) Rob >>
Or worse yet the "circulated" vs "uncirculated" arguments.
The name is LEE!
We've had this discussion a million times
before.
The term "error coin" can, and has, cover
both mechanical errors and die varieties.
Then,more recently, the term is broken down to:
Mechanical Errors - double strikes, off centers,
off metals, clips, clad layer
missing, and yes, die clashes
Die Varieties - VAMS, RPMs, Doubled Dies, etc.
Die Clashes are the result of a Mechanical Error -
there was a mis-feed of the planchets being fed
into the striking chamber and collar; the dies clashed
together due to than mechanical failure; the coins
struck from those dies are the result of this mechanical
error malfunction.
Yes, die clashes are on the dies - but what caused that
to occur? A Mechanical Error/Malfunction.
That's just my opinion, of course
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022