Coin Definition Help!

In doing some coin research, I am seeing that some definitions tend to overlap, are misused, or are confusing as multiple sources tend to use these differently.

Am I correct with these definitions?

SERIES: Basically, this refers to a general coin type (buffalo nickel, liberty nickel, shield nickel)

TYPE: This can either mean (a) a synonym for series as mentioned above OR (b) a major design or compositional change. (Lincoln Wheat cent, Memorial, Shield reverses; also going from copper/bronze to steel to zinc)

VARIETY: A minor design alteration that (a) is planned (Liberty nickels that have the word "Cents" and those that don't) OR (b) is an unplanned / accidental flaw to a die (1955 doubled die, die cracks, overdates, VAMs); these are technically not "Mint errors."

I ask because some reputable sites use these interchangeably. Are mine OK?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Your terms are fine with me.

 

I have no problem with those.

 

I think "series" and "type" are often used interchangeably.

However, to get a little more technical, there are often various "types" within a "series." For example, within the Buffalo nickel series, there are Type 1 and Type 2 based on design changes. Same with Standing Liberty Quarters, Shield Nickels, etc.

So, a "series" set would just get one Buffalo, whereas many "type" set collectors would want one of each major design type.

Your example of the Liberty nickel with Cents or without Cents is sometimes considered a variety, sometimes considered a type. I don't consider it a variety; a variety is more accurately a one-die variation. Varieties are sorta like errors, with the exception that varieties are a die issue - all the coins from that die are going to make that variety. The 1942/1 Merc is a variety. The 1955 DDO Lincoln is a variety. An error is a one time issue - completely unique, because only that coin is going to have that error. The major design change of adding a word to the reverse of the nickel is more accurately considered a type.

 

Your points are exactly why I asked. PCGS, on different parts of their website, call the change in "CENTS" on a Liberty nickel as a "type" on one part, and a "variety" on another part of their site. I guess exactly what changes are considered "minor" can be debated by some.

I just want to make sure nothing I wrote is definitely wrong as I am working on a book. Thank you, Physics!

 

I think a lot of people don't pay a whole lot of attention to their use of the words. You'll hear various people use them interchangeably, as mentioned earlier. I think it's partly because people are lazy, and partly because people don't really think about the differences. But, if you are writing a book you want to try to be as technically accurate as possible. Good luck with the writing!

 

For me, the interesting distinction between these terms is in the background of what's going on at the time. Was change of design made for this coin, from which new dies will be made? Is a die being fixed after some damage? We a bunch of coins made from a damaged die? Was a coin made while there was a problem in the minting process? Knowing all those options first, then applying names to them, seems to be the correct order of things.

 

...i say tomato...

 

Most series have only one type, therefore there is most often no distinction as to the group of coins referred to by using either term. However, the words type and series never mean the same thing in definition.

What gets confusing is how types are defined. You'll note your definition of type states "a major design or compositional change". Well, what is major exactly? People don't seem to agree. In truth, any time the mint makes a deliberate design change within a series, it creates a new type. Some types are very minor though and people discount them. But where is the cutoff? For example most people will tell you the Barber quarter series only has one type. Others will tell you it has three. For Standing Liberty Quarters, there is disagreement as to whether to count the series as having two types or three (I say three!) etc..

 

I see the same problem with the words blank and planchet. Even ANACS, which is supposed to be the go-to place for different error and variety types, has messed up the difference on dozens of labels I have seen. A blank has no rim. Period. Why can't they get that right as it is got to be one of the easiest definitions?

 

Ok. How about this...

SERIES: A specific denomination's basic design over a period of time. (Lincoln cents, Franklin halves, Buffalo nickels, etc.)

TYPE: Intentional alterations to the basic design within a series. (Wheat/Lincoln Memorial/Union Shield reverse designs for Lincoln cents; copper, steel, zinc cents; flat mound vs. Raised mound for Buffalo nickels; clad, clad proof, silver and silver proof Ikes)

VARIETY: Unintentional alterations/flaws to the die within a series. (1955 Doubled Die; die cracks; RPMs; 1942/1 overdate)

 

Yes, JCro, those definitions are good.

And, as Doug mentioned, this is *exactly* why we have to be very precise in our use of terms. Even if it sounds funny, and even if people disagree with us and fight us, we have to uphold the meaning of the words. I will correct people all the time when they use the wrong words. Some will argue it is semantics - some will argue that the very foundation of communication is at stake!

 

Ok, perfect. I am really trying to be professional and accurate. I don't like people who are too lazy to verify things or do research. I can't tell you how many articles I read to get a better understanding of even simple terminology. (I have to say Fred Weinberg's book on the 100 Greatest Mint Errors was the best to help solidify what I already knew and was written in very clear language. I can't possibly recommend it any more highly as it was not only informative but entertaining to see so many fantastic pieces all in one publication.)

My goal for the book I am writng about error coins is to explain things in such a way that a non-collector (or non-error collector) can read it and have an understanding of what happened to cause an error. (What causes rolled-thin/thick planchets, broadstrikes, off centers, wrong planchet, missing or struck clad layers, wrong metal, wrong stock, unstruck planchets, etc.)

To do this right, I had to read dozens of articles on how they are made from the coiled rolls of unpunched metal right to the point of being packed in rolls to be shipped to federal reserve banks. In reading the many resources, I noticed many wrote under the assumption that one knows terms, and some were being used interchangeably, which became very frustrating. (Again, Fred's book is one publication where nothing confused me and terms were used consistently throughout.)

So for my book, I wanted to fix those problems. I ask questions right in the text that an observer might be thinking to himself/herself and then I provide an answer. I show clear, high-definition photographs and use arrows to direct the attention of the reader (if the error isn't blatantly obvious) and in many cases I even provide comparison photographs of non-errors. Important terms to know that will help them understand are in bold print. Basically, I assume the reader knows nothing.

Some of the things I try do includes clearing up terms that people confuse. For example, the difference between clad and alloy coins, blanks and planchets, rims and edges, obverse and reverse, fields and devices, varieties vs. errors, and coin series vs. types among many other terms. I also diagram information on slab labels, provide anatomy of coins with easy-to-understand obverse and reverse photographs, how the Sheldon scale works, and why assigning grades and condition is much more difficult and subjective for error coins than for non-errors.

It started out just with me just wanting to catalog my error collection and then it quickly morphed into a photographic reference book. I contacted Heritage auctions and they gave me permission to use many of their non-error photographs to show comparisons.

I'm hoping to have this done before Thanksgiving as it took a lot longer than I expected.

 

It took me 5 years to write my book, so there's no rush at all!

 

What book did you write? A coin book?

 

Yes, it is linked in my signature below.

 

I am sorry, but I don't see it.