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

scratches, dings, gouges, etc are acceptable outcome for circulated coinage.

During the entire minting process, coins headed for circulation are handled and moved in BULK where they can get scratches, etc.

After they are stamped, they are ejected by the (a) metal fingers, down a (b) metal slide, into and (c) piled up in a metal holding bin for inspection, then released into (d) gigantic bags where they continue to get hit by the ones falling on to them. at least from my understanding.

It's called bag marks.

It's intentional, and accepted.

Of course, in order for YOU to get the coin .. it then goes to processors who further damages them. To Banks for further damage, and circulation.

If you've ever watched some videos, one showed them using metal shovels to move some coins around. I'm sure that damages some of them. lol But it's intentional, and accepted.

Proof coinage is handled completely differently.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In the coining process, how many times each day do you think the dies move back and forth at a high rate of speed? 100,000 times? 500,000 times? One million times? More? Add to that number, the thousands of tons of pressure that are required to create each coin. Don't you think that "stopping the presses" every so often just to check would add even more to the cost of making every coin? What would Henry Ford think of this?

Chris

 

I believe they use hundreds of tons of Pressure, not thousands. 600-800 tons ???

 

I've been meaning to write up a recent book purchase -- it's a book on error collecting from the mid-1960s. This post is more of a reminder to myself for when I'm home and have it in hand.

It's relevant to this thread because the book does appear to consider machine doubling an error, and in fact lists quite a few examples of machine doubling with premium values.

I need to look up the book and author, and see whether either was ever respected in the community.

 

If it's a Frank Spadone Book, it's virtually worthless.

Doctored photos, and it lists lots of the minor errors he
had in stock, and was selling.

A few good photos of a few major errors, but in general, worthless.

 

Every manufacturing process has variations. In every process there are several different acceptance criteria: Design Acceptance Criteria, Manufacturing Acceptance Criteria, Customer Acceptance criteria and Management Acceptance Criteria. These criteria addresses Fit, Form and Function - everyone must recognize it as a US Dime; it must fit in other devices designed for dimes; it is manufactured within the costs assigned by management; the finished product represents the desires of the producing authority (it looks good).

It doesn't take much from this process to release something that fits all these criteria until you get to the Customer Acceptance Criteria. In the case of the collectors (customers), we have determined what the criteria is as related to errors. We define errors as we see fit. The US Mint cannot produce 10 coins out of a production run that look exactly like the design drawing. Therefore, the process variances will typically be represented by a normal curve and most will be within given tolerances. Otherwise every coin would have some degree of "error".

The issue now is what deviation should be given enough weight to be referred to as an "error"? That can get very busy if we don't put some additional controls on it. So, you cannot say everything outside of design is an error if it can be shown that it is within the Design Acceptance Criteria.

 

That book was part of the Sears Coin Collector's Kit that I got for Christmas when I was 8 or 9. I loved that book and used to read it all the time. It was one of the editions from the early 70's and the binding was poorly done, so the book fell apart. Too bad, it would be fun to read today.

 

I'm aware, just considering the question from a different wording

 

How can it be an error if it is deemed acceptable by the manufacturer ?
If Quality control deems it acceptable it shouldn't be labeled an error. IMO.

 

That's the same thing I was going to mention!

 

Typo! Sorry!

Chris

 

I guess because it did not come out how it was designed to look.

 

Give it time. I consider single squeeze 'doubled dies ' as per many recognized authoritative sources as 'Mechanical doubling ' also, as the process is not a doubled anything or process, so it should not be a doubled die. Only the surface of the coin shows the effect ~ exactly like machine doubling.

Money talks , common sense walks. So TPG and variety dealers can keep going and NEWbies can die poor.

The basis for a doubled die should end after the second pressing ( squeeze) of the die. Anything after that is machine induced. IMO only as many will disagree for their reasons. Jim

 

I hope everyone understands, as I tried to make clear, that I do not personally see the value of machine doubling.

I am also NOT making the case or advocating that machine doubling should be considered and accepted as a Mint error.

I was trying to figure out the mechanics of why one error that occurs during the striking process (machine doubling) differs from a more valuable type like double/multi strikes or a die variety like a doubled die. Both double strikes and machine doubling were not intended, and both occurred because of faults during the striking process. I asked this to help myself understand it better, pure and simple.

 

If it's within established tolerance/parameters, and will circulate without issues, they (QC) would consider it good to go. An error "IMHO" is a coin that is outside the established parameters, and they (QC) would reject it. (remove from circulation) This is an error to me.

 

I prefer to call them phat letters.

Chris

 

The die-making process is totally different from the coin-making process.

Chris

 

If some one laid coins in the exit from the mint parking lot and an exiting mint truck or auto left producing road rash, would the defdam coin be a mint error?

 

This was actually cent blanks .... how does one define this ?

 

I am

I am well aware of that