Opinions on this barber dime.

My take is, they're an interesting component, and some people may offer more. When they're recognized by the so-called "experts," i.e., categorized, i.e., given some arcane number, people will offer more.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks again guys. I do like the coin aswell and yeah the seller knows it has the clashes. He also believes it unc. I can buy the coin for a decent price. But really don't know what a 92 barber AU details coin with these die clashes would be worth. I know the seller well and he alway gives me a fair price. Would this coin be worth have slabbed due to it having a mint error even though it may be a detail coin ??

 

It's not a mint error.

 

Isn't it something that occurred during the process of the coin being minted ?

 

There wasn't a coin being minted when it occurred, lol, that's in fact the reason it occurred. Why it's not considered a mint error, I'm not entirely sure.

 

no added value, just a fun find.

 

Not sure but I always thought that a die clash came from the dies clashing together with no coin there to strick leaving imprints from the dies clashing therefore coins struck after that had happen would have imprints from one die or the other and sometimes both. So would that be considered a mint error of some type?

 

You can ask anyway you want; it's not a mint error.

 

We'll your a really friendly guy . Here I am just trying to ask and learn a little. Then here comes mr tommy boy . When I couldn't care less if it is or isn't a mint error . If all you have to say is little comments like that. Then I sure there's other post just waiting for a know it all to come drop a smart A line.

 

I'll let my body of work speak for me.

 

What if one of the dies cracked when they violently smashed together and a piece was cut out of that die leaving a cud on the coins subsequently struck with the die? Is that cud a mint error?

 

An error is what occurs to a single sometimes 2 coins during the striking process. Something that happens to the dies is considered a variety because those details from the dies are carried over to subsequent coins.

 

It is true circulated coins can have contact marks from clanging against other coin for years but that does not occur systematically all going one direction. Just my two cents.

 

The one i see making the snide comments is not Dr.Bush, You received an answer to your question, did not like the answer so then you reworded your question hoping for a different answer . You can ask your question a thousand different ways but will receive the same answer (atleast from someone knowledgeable)


And no not an error

 

Not an error.

 

Thing is I wasn't concerned about the coin being an error or the coin having die clashes. I was asking opinions about the coin being cleaned. Everyone here that commented seem to be focused on the coin having the clashes. Then when I start taking about the clashes. I wasn't trying to reword anything . I simply described what I thought caused clashes and thought it may be considered a error . More less lack of knowledge about die clash coins. Then I've got one being in my opinion smart about it. Then another riding to his rescue. When more than likely Tom misunderstood me stating what I thought a clash was as me trying to reword it to suit me. Tom has since gave me very helpful advise on another coin and I believe we had just misunderstood each other.

 

An old fashioned hazing; good fun!

@Barber dime 94s
You are getting a subtle yet gruff lesson on numismatics from Tom. As @jtlee321 explains above, very well I may add, a clash is not categorized as an error (unique), but rather as a variety(more than one identical anomaly is likely).

The event of clashed dies creates a variety.

Errors are not synonymous with varieties, and some people take the time to spell it out while others drop a hint for you to grasp as you pursue the answer on your own.

You will find similar staunchness when referring to a US cent as a penny, again from some more than others.

 

AU details cleaned