Question about die cracks on PCGS graded coins

I already explained it above. A cracked die creates a die variety of a particular coin, not a flawed coin. Common sense, really.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Seriously?

 

Yes, of course. You speak to original intent as if there is a common understanding of what that means. But it hasn't been defined.

The production of a coin from start to finish is going to be a line of individuals for whom their original intent was changed by someone further down the line. Whose original intent are you talking about?

 

Technically, I agree with GDJMSP and Books. Die cracks and die polish lines were never intended to be transferred when the coin is first struck. Due to many reasons, cost, sloppy workmanship, these find there way onto coins. I too technically consider them flaws.

Now, that being said, I don't mind those flaws. In some cases, they enhance the coin, IMO. Here's one of my favorites. It's actually chocolate brown. I won it at a Scotsman Auction years ago.

1818 by jpcienkus posted May 8, 2018 at 6:51 PM

1818 reverse by jpcienkus posted May 8, 2018 at 6:51 PM

 

Come on, man... If you can understand the instances where the "intent (was) to strike coins with completely shattered dies", you certainly understand the intent to strike without.

 

I agree with @C-B-D. A die crack should not be a reason to downgrade a coin. A die crack creates a die variety, not a “flaw on the coin”.
If you had a 1955 LWC DDO, would you downgrade it because of the DDO? I doubt it. Same with the die crack.

 

That is a far distance comparison. Like saying if there were multiple cracks on all the devices and gaping holes on a coin, it shouldn't affect grading. Compare a single squeeze MDD cent with a die crack, and you may have something. If a coin with a die crack, started with a cracked die at hubbing, then I could support the idea of a variety, but if it developed as the coin production continued to near destruction, it is a die stage, not a variety. IMO Jim

 

A (recent) previous post by yours truly applies in this thread as well;

And to add;

I think all parties agree that there are times that die flaws, such as die cracks, add a positive visual interest to a coin.

Everyone agrees that grading is subjective, and eye-appeal is a factor in that grading process.

I think we can also agree that positive visual interest is equal to an increase in a coin's overall eye-appeal.

Using that theory, it would be possible for a 'flawed' coin (actually a coin minted from a flawed die), could grade higher then the same coin in the same condition (let's say acquired from the same hopper at the mint, and both coins handled and stored identically) minted from a different set of dies.

So the 'numismatic math' proves that a coin minted from flawed dies (polishing lines, cracks, doubled, clashed, mules, etc.) isn't really flawed, and can grade higher then the same coin without the 'flaws'.

But....

Because the very personal hobby of numismatics is guided by each numismatist's personal preference of what they like and don't like, the numeric grade really shouldn't matter much at all.

***SIDENOTE*** - I wonder if there is a coin where the highest graded of the series or a specific year or MM of a series is one which would be considered a 'flawed' coin by the definition of many in this thread.

My guess would be it is out there and most likely a Morgan. With all the VAM's out there, do we really know what a 'perfect' Morgan is supposed to look like?

 

Absolutely for bust coinage, as some years did not have a pristine die state. This is especially true if you include varieties.

 

Of course, but I meant in the context of identifying what is or is not a flaw. If a flaw is defined as a feature on the coin produced without intent, then defining intent is important. For example, look at any coin that was modified by the mint in its relief or design to address mechanical considerations. I'm sure if you asked the artist who produced the initial design if the coin matched their intent, they would say no and consider it flawed.

 

Now let's go way out into the theoretical.

There is a premise being discussed and defended that only coins minted without a flawed die can be flawless.

But what defines a flawless die?

Fact - The die's surfaces change on a microscopic level after each strike.
Fact - That change of the die increases after each strike
Fact - The continued changing of the die eventually leads to die deterioration on such a level that he die disintegrates

With those accepted facts (or even with just one of them), only a coin struck with a brand new, unused die, can be flawless.

There is no intent for the die to change after each strike, but it is an undeniable fact of the minting process.

So the only 'perfect' or 'flawless' coin can be first, and only first coin struck with a new die.

Expanding on that, there can be no, or very few, 'perfect' or 'flawless' coins in existence, as (I believe) there is always a test strike with a new die. And test strikes are not 'released' into the general coin population. And unless you're the likes of Sinnock, you're not getting one of the first strikes off a new die.

So based on the acceptance of undeniable facts, there are no 'flawless' coins, rendering all coins minted as 'flawed'. So where does the line get drawn between what is considered a 'perfect' coin vs a 'flawed' coin by the average collector? Is it what can be seen with the naked eye? But people have different level of vision, so there's that. Is it what a third party decides is a perfect coin? But which third party? We know all TPG's have different standards, so there's that. Is it a coin that looks like what the coin's designer/engraver envisioned it to be? Not likely, as typically their envisionment is altered by the powers that be.

So what's a perfect coin, and what's a flawed coin?