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

Then, why should it be so hard to understand the difference between hub doubling and machine doubling?

Chris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Interesting topic and points on both sides are valid but isn't the purpose of collecting is to find that one out of 10,000,000? And if so there has to be a criteria established so that the interest is maintained so that the euphoria of discovery is never deminished and it also can lead to other discoveries that may have been unknown.
I'm not even a novice but the information and expertise I have received in this forum has helped me personally from purchasing coins from say ebay that are advertised as a doubled die or error that aren't and saved myself and probably many others alot of money and anguish...just saying.

 

So why then, is Hub doubling considered collectable variety, but machine doubling is not considered an error or variety? I think that's what Joe was trying ask in his OP, and I think it was a great observation and question.

I think that machine doubling falls under the Non-error category, but I can't articulate a good reason why. In general, I feel that the "slop" in the machine allowing for the die movement is part of the normal process variation, not a quality mistake. Best I can do.

I don't think this question has a right or wrong answer. The responses have been interesting to read.

 

Hub doubling occurs when the unfinished working die must be heat-treated more than once and the working hub is not realigned correctly with the working die.

Chris

 

And machine doubling is not considered an error/variety because...…?
(don't answer "because it's not hub doubling", we know that)

Playing devil's advocate, if MD is caused by a loose die shifting during the strike due to inattention of the technician, equipment wear, etc, then why would a weak strike be an error if the planchet that meets the thickness spec? Wouldn't that be due to operator/equipment non-conformances as well?

Remember, I posted that I don't think MD should be classified as an error/variety. I also believe weak strikes are an error, but I'm enjoying the discussion so far. Can someone come up with a convincing argument why Chris and I are wrong?

 

Fred weinberg in an earlier post stated weak strikes are not errors.

Its a machine compression adjustment issue.

 

IMHO, The process up to when the Human operator has completed the process of transferring the image to the die that will strike the blank piece of copper is the crossing point for varieties, after that it is machine damage, even if a human is operating the machine incorrectly, their job is to press the on button and collect the output.

If a computer makes the image and grinds the design into the design into a die and then sticks it into a machine, the whole design is machine caused, and if it is smeared design looking different, it is machine doubling damage.
IMO. If people want to collect such, that is OK.....someday the robots will the only humanoids around and they will probably prefer to collect the early machine chatter coins of their own species. Jim

 

They'll pour oil over the waffled coins to eat their young. Lol

 

Why do you think I don't? Why are you not understanding what I am trying to get at?

 

Apparently, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Would you like to start over again?

Chris

 

Let me try my hand at the question.

Hub doubling happens during die preparation. Everyone agrees that it's a mint error.

Off-center strikes, double strikes, capped dies and brockages -- all happen during the strike, and don't affect the die. Off-center and double strikes can affect a single coin in a run.

Machine doubling happens during the strike, and doesn't affect the die.

So why is it that off-center strikes, double strikes, and capped dies are considered mint errors, but machine doubling isn't?

My answer is that machine doubling is common and not especially spectacular, and that's why it's generally not collectable. But I think it's goofy to say it's not a mint error.

 

Bingo.

I'm still glad I got it. It was very cheap at a used bookstore, none of the money went to Spadone (assuming he's still around), and it won't fall into the hands of a gullible newbie. I'll haul it out from time to time whenever someone complains that YouTube is filling new collectors' heads with garbage, and they miss the good old days.

I also see that we had a thread on the guy some time ago.

 

Ok, here I go again.

I like to ask the many experts in this forum questions, mainly to get their opinions and explanations on why and how they classify things.

In this example, I am trying to listen to others on why some things are considered Mint errors, like a double-struck coin, yet mechanical doubling is not considered so.
I am not advocating or disputing anyone. I am just here to listen.

Here is why I ask: Both a double-strike and machine doubling are errors involving the striking process resulting in doubling.



Now, I know one is much more rare and desirable, the other common and unwanted. But why is mechanical doubling not considered an error if the die comes lose resulting in push doubling like that 1957-D cent? I mean, a die is loose to create misaligned die strikes, and those are considered Mint errors. Below is my misaligned die strike.



So, what is it that negates machine doubling as a Mint error? By definition, it is a striking error, is it not? Is it not considered a Mint error only because they aren't desirable and are just so common? Or is there a more concrete reason?

Hope that helps.

 

It IS a mint error.

 

Im glad Im not knowledgeable enough to give an opinion on this...its hard enough just following what IS the established rules/criteria.

 

Not to start a different line but, as mechanical doubling is related to doubled dies which is usually considered a variety, not a one-off-er that is considered an error. And errors are not a variety as hundreds or thousand of a specific variety are commonly produced by the mint, but exact identical errors or close to it seem to be more seldom.

Errors start as a die strike malfunction , so yes, they are mechanically produced damage, but collectible if the person likes.

IMO as many will disagree I am sure,

Jim

 

JCro57, posted: "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.)"

JCro57, posted: "Well, that is what I am trying to open the discussion on."

You have. It has been discussed and answered. Now, what you or anyone else considers a minting error is your personal choice - sometimes very knowledgeable "ex-perts" are wrong.

BTW, since this discussion is probably no longer of any interest to many of us, HOW ABOUT POSTING IMAGES OF SEVERAL DOZEN ERRORS YOU OWN THAT WERE MISATTRIBUTED in slabs? Then, please explain the TPGS error. I'll be waiting to learn more from you.

 

I agree. The best thing about numismatics is folks can collect anything. A hard goal to reach would be a complete Lincoln set 1909 to 2019 with strike doubling "mint errors" on each coin!

 

JCro57, posted: "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."

This has all been explained BECAUSE IT DOES!

Fred Weinberg, posted: "If it's a Frank Spadone Book, it's virtually worthless."

I have a nice copy in my hand right now and have just looked through it for the first time in several years. At one time (early 1970's), this book and the coins in it was an initial attempt to list varieties and ODDITIES seen on our coins. Back then, it was not worthless!

I consider this book my introduction to "coins that were different" and a forerunner of the variety field as it exists today. Knowledge builds on past contributions.

 

This is only ONE reason a coin may appear with a weak strike.