Help - Terminology Question

I need correct terminology for varieties.
The term "die variety" doesn't quite differentiate what I'm thinking about.

There are varieties such as "large date" and "small date".
Then there are varieties that go deeper and are covered by such identifiers as Overton or Browning numbers.

Is there terminology that lets someone know which is being considered?
Or do you just have to specify?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Overton and Browning numbers don't actually denote varieties. They refer to specific die marriages some of which happen to be varieties such as the 1812 O-101 better known as the "12/1 large 8" half.

 

I don't think everyone will ever agree on what a variety is. The CPG dumps everything into the same term, even die clashes.

 

Just draw the line in your own head between identifying specific die pairs, and identifying cool little features on a coin which don't necessarily consider what die struck them. A given error is either something publishable on its' own (to my mind, only suitable to those who don't want to think too deeply about their coins since they're discussing something unique to a specific die pair without the effort of actually noting that), or it's a die state of a specific die pair.

To generalize, the one gets you a Fivaz-Stanton Number and a nice writeup in the Cherrypicker's Guide. The other gets your own name permanently associated with the known research on the issue and becomes how variety collectors identify what they have.

However, both processes are in widely-accepted use, so you have to draw the distinction in your own mind.

 

IMHO it is not something that has black and white areas. There are a lot of gray areas that have not been set by the numismatic community as of yet. So you can see you may have to use whatever distinction you might want to use until the community sets the distinction.

 

Although the following does not hold true 100% of the time as recognized by the coin collecting community my rule of thumb is

Variety is an unintentional deviation in the coin design, composition, etc which is attributable to the die, planchet, etc manufacturing process. Any manufacturing process required to produce coinage except for the actual coin production manufacturing (Striking) process.

Type is an intentional deviation in the coin design, composition, etc which is attributable to the die, planchet, etc manufacturing process except for the actual coin production (Striking) process.

Error is an unintentional deviation which is attributable to the coin manufacturing (striking) process.

 

You guys always amaze me! Great conversation and information!

 

Not surprisingly my question came about because of my CBQ collection.
One date comes with large or small letters (die varieties?)
BUT
Within those large or small letters varieties there are varieties mostly based on the placement of the devices relative to each other.
In the case of the 1831 CBQ there are:
-- in the small letters variety 4 die varieties?/versions?
-- in the large letters variety 3 die varieties?/versions?

Sort of die varieties within die varieties.
I am just trying to see if there is terminology differences.
OR
When talking about them do I have to make clear which level of variety I'm referencing.
Like die variety vs. Browning Number.

 

For the most part I believe that "Justafarmer" hit the nail square on the head.
As far as variety coins go, when you consider die marriages yes true some can be confirmed by a certain variety aspects . But most deal with the pairing of dies that sometimes can be interchanged.
Somewhat like the term "Mule" and its definition as pertaining to numismatics.

 

I am not very familiar with the intricacies of the die manufacturing process of early coinage including CBQs. With that said addressing your problem on the surface applying my rule of thumb.

The was no error or unintentional deviation in the design of the coin that is attributed to the actual manufacture of dies that produced coinage with small letters or dies that produced coinage with large letters. Each transferred the intended design characteristics to the coinage they produced. Therefore small letters would be Type 1 and large letters would be Type 2 (or vice versa). Of course I am sure I am wrong - but that is how I would classify it.

 

In this case it makes sense to always refer strictly to Browning number, since there is more than one example of the lesser "variety" designator for a given variation. That's the whole point of identifying die pairings, to eliminate the grey area of generalized naming which could be differing coins. You either spend an entire paragraph describing the specific coin by features, or three keystrokes to nail it down completely.

 

I found this thread as proper place for questioning a coin, called "spitting horse" coin.

I've seen some coin pictures with "spitting horse" which is called error.. Okay, as for one also having engineering in background, i can say that there was a problem in tooling/die when forging those spitting horse coins, but, that problem was probably known by the mint engineers then and they probably let manufacturing continue, maybe, after the small crack in the die was realized. So, the product itself, spitting horse coin, can be considered "intentional", hence, it can't be considered as "error". Error is realized after the product is finished. Unintentional thing there is the crack in the die, due to its poor design of die or its overuse. Or, due to an accident. I don't think anybody here knows what really happened when manufacturing those "horse spitting" coins. If it is really an error, I'll reason it as "accident", but then, when the term accident enters into talk , fate/destiny too enters and it becomes somethings like "karma"... (that horse on the coin is spitting into our work, tying, not untying them...?)

 

We, the numismatic community writ large, define "error" as one class of die anomaly, certain departures from "nominal." Whether or not the Mint was aware of that "error" is not relevant, because the Mint does not define "error." Your same words, for instance, could be applied to most visible overdates.

It's easy sometimes to cram too much objectivity into numismatics. We're too subjective for that.

 

Your words, defining "error" like that, make someone in the Mint happy and someone in the Mint unhappy.
With such words, you are siding, sitting friendly next to what we call "desk design engineer" in the mint who will say "yeah, that error was not my fault" when he hears your word "die anomaly departing from nominal" while manufacturing engineer who is responsible in manufacturing "errorless" coin according to design of the coin will be unhappy as it's his error (according to your words.) So, it seems that numasmatic community, a community in history science field, is indirectly putting their nose into the works in the mint by defining the error like that, biased. Actually, that is being done when the word "intention" is added into the definition of error. If intentionally, it is not error - but, if unintentionally, it is error. But, then, how do you know the intention? It can't be known except by the only one who made "error". I see that numasmatics' reference for real/nominal piece is designed version of coin which is job of design engineer. Then, what if design engineer designed that spitting horse coin so that spitting line was in the design? We don't/can't know what his intention was. Anyway, if there is error coming out of the mint, either it is because of designer or manufacturer. Or, numasmatics are doing error, by not knowing things in the mint well enough.

Maybe, this question simplfies discussion that can end up a firm result.
What's their reference/correct coin of spitting horse coin for numasmaics to be able to compare/say "spitting horse coin is a coin with error"? Is there any same coin with the same date and same horse, but, without "spitting"?

 

Well, then we're wrong - ALL of us - and have been wrong for a few hundred years.

Our bad.

 

I take your this ironic word as confession and I too join "we" and say "yes, ALL of us have been wrong, however, not for a few hundred years only, but, for tousands of years."... I'm going to make my these words clear.

As "GDJSMP" said, among experts in numismatic, if there is no consensus as to what defines error, there is no "reference" coin, that's, there is no "errorless" coin to compare, to be able to say "this" coin is errorless and "that" coin is with error.. Maybe, we are looking at a wrong place on the coin. Lets look at these two coins in attached pictures (Delaware 1999 splitting horse coin and Sovereign coin). Ignore dates on them. I see a "same error" in both of them... In that sense, I take "spitting horse error" happily as it wakes one up about the existence of error, that is not done by the Sovereign coin which looks like perfect, errorless coin even though it Sovereign too has "same error" that Delaware 1999 coin and with many similar coins in the world have.

 

I am not sure, what the two previous " thumbnails" have in common. One is a stock photo of a sovereign that is about perfect in every way, and, the subject coin has a stressed/cracked die?
It took many a strike before it looked this way.
@ErolGarip
Here is a reference.
http://www.error-ref.com/