Mint Offering Intentional Error?

Having had collecting set aside from about 1990 until several years back, the explosion of interest in mint errors has been surprising and intriguing to me. The image below (copied from Google images) is probably among the most recognized mint error. The US mint was diligent for years about not creating collector coins. Well all that has changed since the introduction of the state quarter series and they now offer collector coins quite routinely. If the mint were to offer an intentional dramatically doubled cent like the infamous 55 in a similar fashion as the release of the West Point cents, would that attract new collector interest?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

"Intentional error:" Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

 

I think the proper term would be "money grabbing attempt"

 

If the process of creating a die included doubling then wouldn't that be the expected image? A coin without the doubling would be the error.

 

I don't know if that's a can of worms anyone wants to see opened! I never really did get in to the mint errors. My late wife did big time and I took a mild interest when she was still with me, but never did a whole bunch of studying on the subject. Will be interested to see what @paddyman98 has to say on this.

 

I don't disagree at all. Being a businessman, my mind tends to think like a businessman. "How can I maximize profit and create market interest". And considering the hobby has a huge interest in mint errors I just wonder if something like this could be any more interesting than any of the mundane offerings the mint has pushed on us in recent years.

 

The trouble is if it’s intentional, the interest goes out of it for most collectors. It certainly would for me.

To be technical, the 1955 doubled die Cent is not a mint error; it’s a die variety. Error collectors have corrected me about this misconception in the past

 

I think if a significant DDO occurred (“unintentionally”) during the minting process and then the mint decided to strike and sell <10,000, they would sell out.

 

I remember buying a couple of the 2008 CONECA 25th Anniversary Sets which included a pair of intentional errors. One of the medals was struck in silver.


When I decided to list one of the sets on eBay, it sold for $10. Nope! I don't think intentional errors are in too much demand.

Chris

 

It would have to be a "oops, how did THAT make it out of the mint!" kind of error. They may "accidentally" be placed in proof sets or other mint products.

It wouldn't immediately raise mint revenue, but would give collectors a reason again to order directly from the mint for a chance to receive one.

 

Im sure it will and people will monetize the market for error coins and there would be a fool that will fall for it.

 

If I were into errors, I am sure I would be kicking myself the rest of my life over a coin I saw for sale about 40 years ago. It was just like the OP pic, except it ALSO was an offcenter error. So, it might be the only 55 DD that is truly also a mint error. It was too much for me back then anyway, but I always remembered that coin.

 

Yeah, but who's Coneca ?

 

Actually.. World's most recognized Variety!

 

Sorry but I don't get the point of this thread.. Mint Errors and Varieties are not really intentional. Sounds like a Oxymoron.

 

This would be intentional..
From my collection -

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/my-1st-silver-bullion-bar-coneca-60th-anniv-of-1955-dd-cent.268889/

 

In the 1950's the US Postal Service accidentally made a stamp error. As we know from printing paper Dollars there are several prints made in order to print the entire bill. The same is true with stamps. Several different plates are used. In the stamp error I am referring to one of the plates was printed backwards. This left two white streaks through the stamp from top to bottom.

The white streaks were supposed to be buildings and the entire stamp had a yellow background. This created an error. Once word of this got out a frenzy was created. In order to control the situation the Postal Service deliberately printed tens of millions of this thing up with the white streaks. This was done intentionally, thereby making the original error worthless.

The only way to prove you had an original error was to have it canceled with the postmark. To this date all of the stamps are considered intentional errors and are only worth the value printed on the stamp.

Well it might be a nice idea to have the US Mint mint an intentional error on a coin it would render the coin at face value only. The Postal Service, the US Mint in the BEP do not like to be associated with errors. They are all parts of the government and as we all know the government does not make mistakes, intentional or otherwise.

 

Meow is thinking Dag Hammarskjold?