Error Kennedy halves

A struck through is considered an error, and does not directly have to do with a mechanical mishap.
I suppose I would consider die breaks and cuds still as errors, as they are a "malfunction" in the integrity of the dies. Sure, they are common and occur on many coins, but they are still the result of a mishap in the minting process. The dies broke...I think that would count as a "mishap".

Foundinrolls, do you have a source that states that the US Mint considers die clashes as normal?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A broken die is not a mechanical minting malfunction. it is a broken die. The press operated normally while a broken die was mounted therein. A broken die is a stage in the dies life.

 

I suppose that is certainly one take on it and I respect that.

Do you have a link where the US mint something along the lines of die clashes are not errors? I would be interested in reading it.

 

Fron NGC's website:

"NGC does not recognize as Mint Error coins those with minor die chips, breaks, rotations, etc., that fall within our interpretation of mint tolerance. "

When I asked NGC about die clashes several years ago, they informed me that they did include die clashes under the etc. part of this statement on their website, indicating that they fall under Mint tolarances that are acceptable. (Some exceptions such as the odd die clashes on some coins dated 1857) They considered it as within Mint tolerance at least up to that point. I have not specifically asked them that question recently.

 

Ok, so just for clarification, this is NGC saying it and not the mint?
I guess part of the issue is it is all in the interpretation of an "error". There are different sources that categorize different anomalies as errors, and unless the US Mint has their own full checklist of what they count as "not within tolerances", I suppose there will not be an end-all be-all answer.

 

The only other thing that I can lay my hands on is not in print. It is from a personal interview with Mint staff when I toured the floor of the Philadelphia Mint in 1990. The press operator told me that they have instances of die clashes all the time and they barely pay any attention to them as they consider them normal. I was told that at the speed that the presses operate, they couldn't tell if a die clashed unless it broke. That seems like it's a normal part of the work day to me.

That's as close to the Mint as I could get

If I can find something written by the Mint , I'll post it but don't anyone hold their breaths. It's not a high priority as I can work from personal knowledge without too much trouble

 

I missed this one. A struck through is an error because it actually is a mechanical mishap. Something that didn't belong there gets between the dies. It could be as simple as a glob of lubricant or it could be as complicated as a planchet, another coin, a stack up of planchets, etc. It's an error for that reason as something between the dies is not normal.

 

Kinda sorta like if a 'mechanical' malfunction failed to feed a planchet and the dies clashed?

"minor" it is a matter of degree, and relative, an issue of magnitude, not either or. And as Simon pointed out not a mint statement.

If I understand correctly this statement "Just the fact alone that the Mint considers die clashes as normal precludes the label of "error". " is based only on your say so of your recollection of what you claim some tour guide said regarding what the mint considers?

"but we don't consider it " <--- you got a mouse in your pocket or you work at the mint?

"effected " <--- has not affected this at all.

Where does a wide AM fit into this? Some one at the mint goofed up and used the wrong reverse, at the mint, in that building where they squeeze the metal.

"normal part of the work day " What does that even mean? Just like when they don't don't notice clipped planchets, and all those other errors that slip past them.

what about wrong planchets or laminations?

We need a good reference on what is and is not an error or a variety.

 

folks I do believe a die clash coin should be considered as a error coin. the mint workers don't overlook a clashed die .in a way I wish they did but they don't . we would have some truely awesome die clash coins if the mint workers had not ground the major clashed dies to remove some of the die damage .
some times the grinding and polishing created another error from the clashed dies like say the scarce ulta detached leg 2005 bison coins as one example . I have had it confirmed that the die that created the 2005 peeing bison clashed die coins was ground and polished and this created the ultra detached leg bison coins. I have some of both types of these coins that were made from the same die .

 

It ends up being a matter of semantics and who thinks what. There are still major dealers, collectors and authors out there that call die varieties errors and vice versa. Let's put it this way. Some folks like it one way and some the other. It's not worth the time to convince one side or the other which is which.

It just is what it is, I guess

 

You surrender