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

I know hub doubling is more desired and much, much less frequently seen on coins. But if mechanical doubling occurred at the Mint and results from an unintentional machine malfunction, why aren't they considered Mint errors?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sounds like you want to open up a can of worms


Edit.. "You did it.. You opened it!"

 

Strictly consider the definition- occurred at the Mint and results from an unintentional machine malfunction.
Is a scratch, ding, gouge, hairline considered an error if you apply the same definition?

 

But is it a malfunction? Or an acceptable side effect of a manufacturing process operating within accepted norms, as parts get older and wear?

 

Yep, you could say that actual errors occur from unintentional machine malfunctions at the mint. They all weren't made intentionally, right ?
I'd "GUESS" they are way too plentiful, and happen too often to call DDD, and such, actual errors.
My personal thoughts are... they (errors) should only be considered mint errors if the mint's QC dept. would pull said coin from circulating. (reject it) That would eliminate many of the so called errors though.
I've already said too much....
They'll be watching me now !!!

 

I have seen when it comes to identifying Morgan dollar VAMs, machine doubling can sometimes be used as a marker. So it isn't completely worthless.

 

Even though the inspectors see the MD/DDD, they don't reject it.
After all, the design of the coin is to make sure people that use it for commerce, identify them as proper denominations and authentic US Coins.

And what value would you give them when they are manufactured by the millions or billions with MD/DDD .. as they push the usage of dies longer and longer to reduce the overall price of manufacture. If they pulled all these coins, or more frequently replace dies and increase maintenance/machine inspection, they'd increase the cost of manufacturing which they are trying to reduce it, not increase it.

The US MINT has a higher regard to Proof coins to make them look nicer and attempt to not have defects in which they replace dies more often, have higher maintenance and a higher quality inspection.

The circulated coinage, well, it is what it is.

In short, inspectors attempt to reject hub doubling coins as too damaged for commerce for quick visual acceptance.

But they do not reject MD/DDD as it's just considered what it is in manufacturing.

 

I'd flip the question around. Why are so many other quality control issues considered errors instead of being mostly ignored like machine doubling is?

 

Sounds like in its own way every coin would be considered an error. In my book if it happens a lot then it's not an error but part of the manufacturing process.

 

Please, Joe, I'm begging you on bended knees! Please don't go there. We'd be getting 1,000 new members each day wanting to know how much their penny is worth.

Chris

 

Actually, it's not "from an unintentional machine malfunction."

They know it happens, and the let it happen as an "accepted" and thus "intentional" result of wanting to lower production costs for coins headed for circulation. The development of the Zincoln was to reduce the high price of copper usage. Testing showed long term problems which was "acceptable" in order to reduce production costs.

Every other option to increase the quality raises costs to an unacceptable level.

Look at all the threads about why does the US produce a penny or nickel as they lose money on every one produced? Canada and the Bahamas have stopped manufacturing pennies.

You have to look at the Economics of it, as they do.
Not from a "I collect circulated and damaged coinage" perspective.

 

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

Probably because it is not considered an error by knowledgeable error experts.

 

I am not talking about "value."

I am talking about the process by which a mistake occurred during striking.

 

from *your* perspective it's a "mistake"
from the US MINT's perspective, it's *not* a mistake.

If you are looking for more "perfect" coins, then you need to look at Proof coins which are designed *and* manufactured for that.

 

That doesn't mean that 10,000,000 other people won't.

Chris

 

I consider myself very knowledgable on mint errors, and I don't consider MD to be valuable at all. (And for what it is worth, sometimes "experts" are flat out wrong. I have dozens of slab labels from major TPGs that are not correct as to the error type.)

I am just simply trying to discern why the difference exists if it resulted from the minting process. Is it strictly rarity vs. common occurrences? Stuff like that.

 

You have many examples where doubling exists and isn't worth any additional value.
Enter ... the Single Squeeze era where the squeeze introduces fattening letters for a hub shift or an actually doubling from a kinda double single squeeze.

But, they let those go into circulation because they are still visually totally identifiable for commerce. So you have tons of them in circulation not really with any added value.


Can we see the

 

Well, that is what I am trying to open the discussion on.

 

My short reply: it's part of the minting process, like a Weak Strike coin.

We don't consider weakly struck coins errors, just weak strikes.

 

So... we would only get a couple of "EXTRA" newbies each day then ?