Why isn't "Machine Doubling" Considered an Error?

@JCro57

You win. Machine doubling IS AN ERROR.

Now PLEASE, let's move on and see the dozens of mislabeled TPGS error coins you have.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@Insider ~ This is NOT about "winning" anything. I was simply trying to have a POLITE, intelligent discussion as to why Machine doubling wouldn't be classified as a Mint error in terms of how they got created versus other error types that get formally recognized. I never said they were significant nor valuable (nor do I think they are), nor am I trying to "ruin" the hobby by pushing forth an agenda to legitimize machine doubling, nor stating TPGs should start certifying them. Let's calm down here for God's sake. I am promoting the hobby by trying to seek answers, not push forth an agenda here.

And yes, I have many, many mislabeled slabs. Several with the wrong error type listed. So do many other Mint error collectors. There are people who collect them! There are threads on this very topic right in this forum! As someone in the industry who certifies pieces for a grading company, I am puzzled as to why you think my claim is far-fetched. I also don't understand why you are talking down to me like I am someone who has no credibility or who is a proverbial liar, especially someone who has been a customer of yours more than once. Not really a smart business practice if you ask me.

Wrong-labeled slabs to come.

~JC

 

Here is one. The labels says it is a struck fragment. That implies it entered the chamber as a fragment; it did not. It is the floor of a die cap. Wrong error type.


Below is the link to Jon Sullivan's page, which is who I got it from.
https://sullivannumismatics.com/coi...cent-multi-struck-base-die-cap-ms65-rb?v=4790

 

I have 23 labels with wrong error types on them. A bunch are blanks labeled as planchets and vice versa. A few broadstrikes that are labeled as off-centers. Coins that are damaged that somehow got attributed, and a couple enhanced errors. I am not posting them all. Feel free to take my word for it or do not.

 

JCro57, posted: Here is one. The labels says it is a struck fragment. That implies it entered the chamber as a fragment; it did not. It is the floor of a die cap. Wrong error type.
View attachment 1016485

Below is the link to Jon Sullivan's page, which is who I got it from.
https://sullivannumismatics.com/coi...cent-multi-struck-base-die-cap-ms65-rb?v=4790

NOT GOOD ENOUGHT EXAMPLE!

You have left out the most important part of Mr. Sullivan's link:

"NGC 1989 Lincoln cent multi-struck on base of die cap. The coin is the central part of a die cap, that separated form the outer cap walls. NGC described it as a "fragment", which is [it] is, but it's more accurately described a being on a base of die cap."

Unfortunately, the labels on TPGS slabs are very small. In many cases, there just is not enough room to "cover all the bases" with a full description that "MORE ACCURATELY" describes the error.

Let's see the next TPGS label error. Sooner or later there MUST BE ONE ACTUAL MISTAKE (out of the dozens you have).

BTW, thanks for posting this one. First I've ever seen.

PS "You win" is just my way of saying that I don't care "why" most don't think it is an "error" although it is for anyone who wants it to be (because it is - LOL).

The best thing about this discussion is it gives all of us something to write about and may be helpful for beginners. However, as I requested, please keep posting interesting error coins as that will probably be of more educational use.

 

LOL, the PROOF is in the images. I'm not satisfied that you can " FLAME " all the TPGS's without them. So far, you are ZERO for dozens.

 

And yet, here you are in this thread TITLED Why isn't "Machine Doubling" Considered an Error?

Did you perhaps misread the title as "Machine doubling is obviously an error, let's fight"?

Edit to add: I've accepted that MD isn't considered an error. I'm still a bit puzzled by the rationale, though. "Because it happens after the coin is struck" seems to beg the question of when the coin is done being struck, and would also seem to eliminate double-struck coins. But I'm probably just a victim of too many logical-theory classes.

 

I am literally beside myself in amazement after reading this. I left absolutely nothing out. I made a claim, provided the link. Perhaps I am wrong, but to me and many other error collectors, a struck fragment implies it was a fragment before it entered, not that it was complete when it first entered and then became a fragment.

And of course it "is" a fragment, but terminology in one area doesn't mean the same in another. For example, a die variety arises from an error in how the die was hubbed if it was unintentional, but they aren't called "errors" because the term "error" in numismatics means something different.

As far as "not having enough room on the label," is there really not enough room to print "multi-struck die cap floor"???

 

I wrote that because many people on here routinely write that it is not considered an error. That's why.

 

I appreciate your "post it or it's not true" attitude. I must admit, I am the same way about things. But I have a good reputation on Cointalk and in my home town as someone who backs up what he claims to have on matters like this. The one example I showed you, you dispute as if what I argued was without a single shred of merit. What will you say when I show you coins struck on "blanks" that aren't blanks but planchets and vice versa? That they are just labeling errors? Will those not count either as you discounted my fragment strike? Will you disregard coins in holders that should be damaged because they were enhanced, or am I not qualified to make that case because I don't work at ICG?

 

jeffB, posted: "And yet, here you are in this thread TITLED Why isn't "Machine Doubling" Considered an Error?

Did you perhaps misread the title as "Machine doubling is obviously an error, let's fight"?

Edit to add: I've accepted that MD isn't considered an error. I'm still a bit puzzled by the rationale, though. "Because it happens after the coin is struck" seems to beg the question of when the coin is done being struck, and would also seem to eliminate double-struck coins. But I'm probably just a victim of too many logical-theory classes."

Answered many times in the discussion. Once more and thankfully last time from me : A machined doubled coin (or a weakly struck one for that matter) is not the way the coin was intended to look. THEREFORE, if anyone wishes to consider it an error of some kind, fine. However, the Mint does not care what you do and what you wish to discuss. Either do many numismatists. Since the OP has said that is not his position - he understands the consensus opinion posted here - I apologize for keeping this part of the thread alive.

@JCro57 posted: "I am literally beside myself in amazement after reading this. I left absolutely nothing out. I made a claim, provided the link. Perhaps I am wrong, but to me and many other error collectors, a struck fragment implies it was a fragment before it entered, not that it was complete when it first entered and then became a fragment. And of course it "is" a fragment, but terminology in one area doesn't mean the same in another. For example, a die variety arises from an error in how the die was hubbed if it was unintentional, but they aren't called "errors" because the term "error" in numismatics means something different."

I agree with your argument! Hopefully you can get the full attribution on your label. If you were here, I'd give you a quarter to call someone who cares - NGC?

Now, let's please see some of the OTHER (over a dozen) MISTAKES you claim to possess. So far, I've seen ZERO! I'm wondering if they even exist and why you have not gotten the TPGS to correct all their mistakes you claim to have.

 

Actually in the tens of tons, 40 tons for the cent and dime, 75 tons for the quarter, small dollar and possibly half dollar, the five cent somewhere between. The old large size dollar and probably silver eagle are in the 15 ton range. Gold coins of imilar sizes were lower because gold was a softer metal.

Hubbing pressures on the other hand are significantly higher because tool steel it tougher than coinage metals.

Actually they don't Hub doubling creates a variety not an error. (The die could be considered to be an error, but the coins from it are varieties not mint errors.)

 

This got slabbed as a "40% split layer obverse" by PCGS. Clearly, this was a clamshell that someone took a sharp tool to pry off, but the layer broke off. You can see the scratch marks all over. At 2 o'clock, you can see where the tool likely first went in, then makes its way to the center of the planchet. You also see bending and raised metal along the vertical line - evidence that it was bent with force. I feel strongly someone wanted this to detach as a whole piece because a fully separated obverse layer, and the remaining planchet now missing the obverse layer, are worth more than a clamshell usually.

This should have been rejected or slabbed as damaged and was an attempted enhancement and was damaged after the fact.

I will sit back and wait to be insulted...again...

 

I like seeing the entire slab

0.17 grams ... missing most of itself

 

That should do it!

 

This is another die cap floor multi-strike but with a strike clip. Not a single one of these is mentioned on the label. And it isn't a 'shell' if it is half the weight AND there is clearly zinc left on it. A "shell" should mean copper ONLY.

 

JCro57, posted: "I appreciate your "post it or it's not true" attitude. I must admit, I am the same way about things. But I have a good reputation on Cointalk and in my home town as someone who backs up what he claims to have on matters like this. The one example I showed you, you dispute as if what I argued was without a single shred of merit. What will you say when I show you coins struck on "blanks" that aren't blanks but planchets and vice versa? That they are just labeling errors? Will those not count either as you discounted my fragment strike? Will you disregard coins in holders that should be damaged because they were enhanced, or am I not qualified to make that case because I don't work at ICG?"

Let's see 'em. You have already shown me that you are a very advanced and "Ex-Pert" error authority with a fantastic collection just by posting only one coin! I assure you that YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT ERROR COINS THAN I CLAIM TO! It is not my field of expertise and I never said it was.

You have made a statement about TPGS errors that you own. Now I'm begging you to please SHOW THEM! Thanks my friend.

 

Not a blank. Edges are SMOOTH. Rim is RAISED.

 

THANKS! Now we are getting somewhere.

I've never seen one of these either. @Fred Weinberg

I'm going to lunch and cannot wait to read what you and Mr. Weinberg have to say.

 

4 are posted: the fragment (which you dispute); the Kennedy half; the nickel on cent, and the copper shell cent. That makes 4. I am not posting anymore.

This is also not one of those "put down TPG" threads either. I am not here to attack TPGs....just to show even experts are wrong...sometimes...and believe me, I am wrong sometimes as well and a lot more often than the experts.