The 1937-D 3-Legs Buffalo nickel. I know someone overpolished die clash marks, and that's why the leg is missing. However... 1. Is a die clash a "die stage" or a "die abrasion," or both? 2. Is a "die stage" seperate from a "variety?" Or is a die stage a type of variety?
A die clash is caused from the dies striking, with no planchet in them . Obverse goes on reverse and reverse goes on obverse . A die stage start when the new dies first strike a coin ( stage A ) . During the life of the dies, is when the stages start ( B, C and so on ) ..
Let me try to take a stab at this using my poor sense of logic! A die clash would be a particular stage in the lifespan of a die. Prior to the occurrence, the die might be considered flawless with some, or possibly no wear. After the clash, the condition of the die would continue to deteriorate, thus creating additional stages in its life. A die abrasion is something distinctly different from a die clash, but it still identifies a particular stage in the life of a die. While both may be considered a variety because they have altered the intended design, that is not always the case. The "42 over 41" dime can rightly be considered a variety because it was intentionally altered at the Mint. The same can be said for the "O over CC" Morgan. However, the 2005-S KS Silver SQ was originally considered a Mint Error, a "die gouge", and remained that way for about 7 years until it was changed to a "die dent" and became a variety listed in the CPG in 2012. Why? Don't ask me! Chris
A Die Clash initiates a new Die Stage. The clash should be visible on the coin produced, and is distinct from those that came before it. Any visible and distinct change should be a new Die Stage, although sometimes very minor changes are not distinguished. A new die crack or a die crack that gets distinctly worse (for example, becomes a retained cud, etc) would be a new die stage. Realistically, die stages are not widely collected with the exception of a few popularly studied series. A Die Clash is not a Die Abrasion, according to the definition here: http://www.error-ref.com/accidental-die-abrasion/ And finally, a Die Stage is definitely distinct from a die variety. For example, take Overtons in the Capped Bust Half series (the one I'm most familiar with): The Die Variety would be O-101 - based on the positioning of the letters, stars, devices and such. Every single coin struck from that pair of dies will be the same variety. However, coins struck very early in their life will have one appearance, a few thousand later there will be a crack or a clash and that will be a different die stage, and late in life there will be a whole bunch of cracks. So, one die variety can make many die stages. In the Capped Bust series, for example, this is denoted with letters - O-101, O-101a, O-101b. Some people try to collect all of the recognized die stages (and some of them are *considerably* rarer than other die stages.
1920 Pilgrim FS-901 ... This variety doesn't start, if memory serve me right, til the die break begins .
Here is what my understanding was before I asked: A die stage is when there is some sort of trauma to a die - a die clash, a die crack, a shattered die, and damage that causes a cud. A die state is the level of wear on a die from repeated striking. (Sharp details from the first coin, and getting progressively weaker as the dies are in use for subsequent coins.) A die abrasion is when something other than a planchet or another die makes contact with a die causing the fields or designs to be scratched, worn off, or missing (a die hitting a feeder finger, over polishing a die, or hitting a staple or piece of wire for a strike through). As such, I figured the 1937-D 3-legged Buffalo nickel was either a die stage or die abrasion (especially since the missing leg was caused by overpolishing to correct a die clash). Technically, the 3-Legs is not a Mint error as it was the die that had the problem. Regardless of how it occurs, any change to the original die itself (be it trauma/accidental or a slight intentional change like a new number style) is a variety. What needs to be corrected here?
Die State is a bit of a continuous spectrum with ethereal meaning.... It's hard to define or categorize. I can relate "early" to "late", but its really hard to clearly define which is which. Die Stage is distinct - this happened, and I can see it. There is a crack, or clash, or whatever, and that is a new stage. Die Abrasion is a very rarely used term, but it describes certain things which may have happened to a die. A 3-legged buffalo is is die stage, in the most technical sense. It isn't really a die abrasion in that you don't actually see the abrasions (die abrasion refers to something like a gouge that you can see, rather than a polished die). I would not consider a 3-leg a mint error, although it probably depends on how you define "mint error." A clash is an error, a polished die is not an error (a 3-leg is simply due to a polished die). However, the 3-leg effect was not intended, and so could be considered an error. The confusion in 20th century coinage comes from the fact that none of them are collected by die pairing. There is not much variance between dies, and the mint created a far more uniform product. Theoretically, you could find the die pairings that created 3-legs, and early die stages would have all 4 legs. If you could identify that die, you would be able to trace the progress of strikes over it's life. But, that is highly impractical.
I say a die stage, which is a type of die variety (unintended flaw on a die caused by overpolishing.)
Interesting question.. Yes.. An overpolished Die issue is correct. But it was an error of a Mint Employee to allow it to be abriaded too much. So It's in between both definitions IMHO But the fact is that the TPG's don't label it on the slabs as a Mint Error.. None of the any known varieties.
Both it and say the 1955/55 DDO are similar in that a mint employee ( unknowingly) produced the die that struck them. One by accidentally removing the leg portion on the 5 cent and the other by accidentally rotating the second squeeze when it was being put on the die. Coins were then struck from both. What ever you call one , should apply to the other. The confusion is really much worse when referring to 'single squeeze' ( IMO of course) where the movement in the single stroke to produce the die can do all sorts of wiggle,slip,slide, vibrate stuff with no worker error necessarily being the cause. Jim
I personally hold to a narrower scope in defining a variety. I hold to the rule that a variety must trace its origin to the die manufacturing process which the 3-legged Buffalo does not.
It is done to the die in the mint before the die struck the first 3L buffalo and then multitudes after that. Any time a mint employee does anything to the die ,which is then used to mint thousands of that coin, it is part of the die manufacturing and a variety, IMO. Jim
If the die was polished to remove a clash then it was already a finished working die (finished good so to speak) and placed in service producing coins before the leg was removed. But I guess the die could be considered a re-manufactured die.
If the die was polished to remove a clash then it was already a finished working die (finished good so to speak) and placed in service producing coins before the leg was removed. But I guess the die could be considered a re-manufactured die.
