Here are the revised pics for GDJMSP to look over, or whom everelse wants to try to give me a grade. I am looking for a PCGS grade. Thanks .
The error is that coin is a business strike with a W mint mark. It was struck with unfinished Proof dies. IMO - MS67.
Error and variety are terms that are often misused - depending on who you ask of course. But in this case, I think error is the correct term. The dies that were used, never should have been used to strike this coin - thus an error. If on the other hand the dies were the ones that were normally used and yet they had something different - then it would be a variety.
Thanks for the info. I was guessing MS 67 or MS68. Do you guys think I should slab it and is it worth keeping for about 2-3 years? GDJMSP did you see the spots I was talking about? Is that common for this type of coin?
I see nothing unusual with the coin. As for whether it is worth keeping or not - well we'd need a crystal ball for that and mines in the shop right now
I think you should absolutely hang onto it. It's already got value way in excess of its bullion value, and I believe it would hold its value with fluctuating gold prices far better than a generic bullion piece. With the new gold buffalo coming out, there may be an increased interest across all modern gold series. It's a neat modern rarity. There's probably no reason to slab it at this point, just make sure you store it carefully so that it is preserved in its present state. My question to you is, why wouldn't you keep it? Is there a particular concern you have about it?
Then again, it could be another one of those low mintage types that, discovered early on, is widely saved and kind of lingers in price. Who knows.
I just thought with a couple of spots and a nick here and there the coin wouldn't be as desirable as a MS69 (which of course that is obvious). I did notice it has an excellent strike on both sides. The reason why I want to slab with PCGS is if I ever had to sell it, I felt I would get more money instead of it being raw. The buyer would have a better idea on the quality of the coin. I also want to start having all of my coins in PCGS to just say I have coins slabbed and to me I feel more comfortable that way. To me it seems more professional or how could you say status symbol, etc.
Hi, The term would be variety, like the wide AM cents from 1998, 1999 and 2000 the reverses were struck with dies intended to be used on proof coins. That creates a variety. The other thing that lets you know it's a variety is that every coin struck is from a particular pair of dies. Errors are mishaps in the actual minting process. While it is confusing as loading up an incorrect die is human error, the coin struck is not an error but a variety. Thanks, Bill
ok, so following this logic the 55 ddo cent is a variety and the 55 "poorman's doubled die" is an error since it is caused by die deterioration? Correct?
It is my humble opinion that since this is the first modern error to exist on the AGE series, I feel it will be noted as the "key" to the collection. There are estimates out there that say an ~ number minted was <20,000 pieces (I do not know the exact mintage, nor does anyone else) but one day it very well may play an important role in the series. Look at the 1995W Silver AE....30,000 minted and it is upwards of 4K each. This does not mean that the 1/4 oz or the 1/10 th oz errors will outpace the ASE...but as a comparative it may hold promise. Again, my opinion only!! KEEP IT !!! RickieB
Technically, that is correct. With this afterthought. Varieties can always be traced back to particular dies. The 1955 "Poorman's Double" in the past was very popular as a collectible and since it was given a name, it is really an error in the purest sense of the word as it is really the result of die deterioration but it's popularity sorta pushed it into a realm where some folks might consider it a variety. Since theoretically, you could study reverse and obverse dies to determine die marriages, Theoretically, you might be able to attribute particular coins to particular dies on the "Poorman's Dobles" so it theoretically could be a variety as well. There is some fuzziness to the error variety category in some instances. In general though, errors are coins that are mishaps in the minting process. Things that are particular to an individual coin. Things like overstrikes, incomplete planchet coins, Off-center strikes, wrong metal strikes, capped die strikes, etc.. Each coin has unique characteristics on an error. The type of error may be the same, but each coin is inherently different. Varieties can be attributed to particular dies. Like the 1955 DDO you use in your example, every coin goes back to the one die that was incorrectly prepared. While the act of creating a bad die might be considered an error, The coins struck from those dies constitute a variety. Even within the clasification of a variety, there are variations labeled based upon the state of the die, Early State, Mid State, and Late State. With varieties, for example, certain die markers(small imperfections in a die) can be used to attribute the variety as they are identical on every coin struck. I think it's the 1972 DDO cent (The big one , not one of the smaller DDOs) that had a small gouge in the die above the D of UNITED on the reverse, That gouge produces a small raised, fingerlike projection from the rim toward the top of the D on every genuine examples. You can't attribute an error that way. So, again, generally, an error is a mishap in the actual, mechanical minting process. Generally a variety can be attributed to particular dies. The 1955 "Poorman's" is an example that has some possibilities of of being an error and a variety associated with it. I hope this helps and just doesnt muddy the waters Have Fun, Bill
Oh, Since the gold coin being discussed was struck by dies that can be identified, the process of someone loading the wrong dies into the press was human error, but the coins struck will be a variety. Have Fun, Bill
As I said - "Error and variety are terms that are often misused - depending on who you ask of course." Now then Bill, over the years I've read countless explanations just like yours in this thread. Some of them have taken the same side of the issue as you have. Just as many others have taken the opposite side. And it's always a name that's well known in the numismatic community - on each side. So - my point is, who's right ? I mean after all, the issue of what constitutes a variety and what constitutes an error has been debated for decades. And I have yet to ever see anyone, on either side, be willing to give in and acknowledge the other side was right or wrong. I seriously doubt we ever will. And don't take this the wrong way - everybody here knows that I don't know diddley squat when it comes to error coins - most of all me. But for the benefit of the others who read this I thought it should be noted that this isn't an issue that has been, shall we say - exactly decided. encil:
