Mint Director James Ross Snowden's Comments On Varieties

An absolutly priceless picture of the thinking in 1860.

1860!!!!!

Although I am a collector of Morgan VAMS (Varieties), I find it fascinating that Mint Director Snowden was pooh-poohing the interest in die varieties( including cracked dies, extra berries etc) as early as 1860.

This is absolutly fascinating!!!! I am unaware of this, and happy to have this information!!!

Thanks HOBO!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

davidh wrote:

"When you consider that the Bust Half series with a 29 year run and with no mint varieties has a total of 453 recognized varieties ( http://www.busthalfdollar.com/ ) then I think things have gotten a little out of hand."

Hmmmmm,.......
No mint Varieties?

This series is the "Poster Child" of varieties. Hand Made Dies. Hand Struck one by one on a screw press. Overdates (two and sometimes 3 overdates (1824 O-103, 1824 over various dates) are common.

Of course we know these aren`t errors. They are varieties.

You do not have to collect every single die marrage to have a very nice and substantial collection of the major varieties of the Bust Halves.....

 

In my opinion, collecting by die variety adds nothing. Die studies, of course, do. Take the 1861-O half for example, precise dating would not have otherwise been possible. Think of it this way - what has been added to the corpus of knowledge by you purchasing a coin? Nothing. What has been added to the corpus of knowledge by you publishing a book on die varieties of bust half dollars? Tons.

I'm an odd case - on one end, I find that minor varieties such as the date are unimportant and boring to collect, thus my interest in ancients. On the other end, I have a date complete collection of US-Philippino coinage, and I've started on die varieties. In any case, it doesn't matter. If someone desires an extra berry and is willing to pay big bucks for it, then they have every right to. There's nothing I can say or do to encourage or dissuade them.

 

It matters what you do with the coin after you have acquired it. A person who collects die varieties might go on to contribute little to nothing. It matters how you approach it. I doubt most people who collect die varieties publish a book on them any more than other collectors publish books on those coins they collect.

In the end, like you say, people will collect as they wish and more power to them. I dont have to agree that its worthwhile for it to be so.

 

True, perhaps "publishing a book" was a bit over the top. Howabout posting to a database? Can we all agree to that?

 

I think that varieties as obvious and as interesting as this should be considered very collectable and worth the premium

But crap like this is just ridiculous

 

Snowden had a lot in common with that night watchman as he was not above restriking rare dates and pattern coins for sale or trade to collectors inorder to acquire more Washington pieces for the mint collection. (Collecting Washingtonia was a BIG fad at the time and Snowden wanted the Mint collection to be second to none. He later wrote a catalog of the mint collection and all of the varieties it included.)

But in order to do the die study the first thing you have to do is identify all the die varieties. The two go hand in hand. And the precise dating is only important because it allows you to determine which die varieties were struck by which government. Sure you could just identify varieties and then discard them back inot the market, but putting together a reference set of the die varieties makes it much easier to establish emission sequences, and die state information. This is much harder to do without collecting the die varieties.

 

Let's not forget $$$$$$

So you're relatively new to the hobby, everyone has figured out the keys and semi-keys. What to do to be different? What to do to make some money?

Cuds, chips, misalignment and cracks become your friends!

 

But these are errors, not varieties.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the majority of die studies done from multiple preexisting collections?

 

To clarify it in my mind, is the 55DD, for example, an error or a variety? It seems the differences are somewhat blended and fuzzy.

 

The 1955 DDO is a variety. The mistake that produced the variety was in the preparation of the obverse die. Every coin produced by that die has that mistake.

 

I think I'm learning but I'm still not sure. If I understand what you're saying -

An error is a one time or very limited thing like a broken die, incorrect planchet or an off center pressing.

A variety is something on a regular production run that doesn't match the rest of the run, such as die differences, repunched dates or lettering/date size differences.

What I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around is, for instance, the 55DD cent. If the die was prepared in error, why isn't the coin produced by that die also an error?

Also, the planchets for the new Presidential Dollar coins with lettering missing from the rim were prepared in error so does that make the coins a variety, or an error as they are universally described?

(As a related aside, why has the 55DD reached such an exulted position with collectors when there are several other DD cents which are rarely mentioned? And don't have their own holes in albums.)

 

That's pretty close. I am far from an error expert but I'll try to explain the differences between an error and a variety (as I understand it).

An error is created during the minting process (e.g., blank and planchet preparation, coin press operation, etc.) and (for the most part) is unique. A variety is usually created outside of the minting process (e.g., die design or preparation) and is reproducible (so many identical coins may be produced).

From The Error Coin Encyclopedia by Margolis & Weinberg:

By my definition this is a variety because a number of identical coins were made from these dies. Others disagree. Margolis & Weinberg say:

The planchets were not prepared incorrectly. The edge lettering is missing because the coins did not go through the edge-lettering step of the two-step coining process for these coins.

The 1955 DDO Lincoln Cent was one of the most dramatic doubled-die varieties to leave the Mint. And it was the first major variety (or error as you wish) to attract the attention of the coin collecting public. It was (and still is) one of the most widely know variety coins in existance.

 

Thanks. That clears things up a bit. I think.

 

Here's a perfect example of how variety works for collectors:






I purchased this on Ebay and it was listed as a 1803. I examined the date in every way possible and cannot confirm the date by the date (still can't). What it takes to confirm the date, is the reverse. The left stem on the wreath is extra long and not a normal attribute of DBC's and a dead give-away for variety but another thing, if you look really close at the fraction :kewl: there's another interesting feature that further gives it away.

Once I figured this out, there was a feeling of satisfaction that other aspects of coin collecting doesn't give and anyone that collects varieties knows what I mean. hya:

So, as for Mr. Snowden's comments, I can only surmise that varieties helped to highlight the fact that his organization couldn't manage to produce coins without all kinds of flaws/variations and that hurt his pride and he struck out the best way he could, he blasted the collector for being so picky and as to being selfish, I have one thing to say to him about that - he can't have my coins . . . they're mine . . . all mine . . .

Ribbit

Ps: When this arrived from the seller, I knew within a couple of minutes it wasn't a 1803 and I messaged the seller and told him it wasn't and he offered to take it back but I told him that for the price I paid for it, it wasn't worth sending back and was actually worth keeping no matter what the date was. I got it way cheap so why would I send it back?

Pps: I also have a 1795 CBHC C-6a that I would not know the date of it if it wasn't for variety. :thumb:

 

You make a good point there Mr. Toad.

 

BTW - the DBC in the picture is a 1802 S-228 with a 1/000 error fraction. See if you can tell it's a 1802 by the obverse date? But if you compare the attributes of the reverse to a S-228, you'll know it's a 1802 with no doubt.

I love varieties! :thumb:

Ribbit

 

I don't want to step on any toes here but, in the case of this coin you identify as an 1802 and which was purchased as an 1803, if the identification is so iffy that it takes a microscopic examination of the reverse to verify the date, what's the point? I wouldn't consider this coin (with a very generous grade of About Good, and harshly cleaned) even useful as a filler (with the caveat that I am not a collector of the type), and the money spent on it could probably have been spent on something else more useful.

Using the identification that it has the 1/000 error (which, to me is no more clear that the date itself), what is there that makes it an 1802 S-228 and not an 1803 S-249 (or an 1801 S-220 or S-223)? I don't have a Sheldon picture book of the differences at hand but do all of the letter sizes and allignments match your description?

just my $.02

 

Why it isn't a 1802 S-249:

Left stem is too long
Stems do not line up properly with corresponding legend letter
"1" of 1/000 fraction is too low
Leaf tip at "M" in AMERICA is too high
ONE CENT is located differently
Many berries do not match up
LIBERTY has different position

Why it isn't a 1801 S-220

Left stem is too long
Stems do not line up properly with corresponding legend letter
Leaf tip at N in UNITED does not match up
UNITED itself is located lower
Leaf tips at STATE do not match up
Leaf tips at AMERICA do not match up
Distance from hair to LIBERTY is less

Why it isn't a 1801 S-223

Reverse is practically identical except the fraction bar appears to be slightly different but due to corrosion, the fraction bar difference cannot be confirmed. The only way to tell it isn't this date/variety, is the date itself and the spacing of LIBERTY above the hair. The first "1" on a 223 is further away from the curl and LIBERTY isn't as close to the hair.

This was clearly a ground find and as to being harshly cleaned, I cannot confirm, however I do see what appears to be steel brush marks on the reverse and while the condition isn't great, it is a 1802 S-228 and does fill a hole in my collection until such time as I can obtain a better example and given the fact that in order to have the complete collection, minus the NC varieties, it takes approximately 176 pennies, so the 20 I currently own are just a beginning of my DBC collection. I still have a lot more to get. :headbang:

Furthermore, this just further proves my original point, which was, with all of the minute differences (aka: varieties), being able to attribute this is possible.

Ribbit

Ps: The 1802 S-228 is Common so getting a better example won't be hard but I paid 5 bucks for it so I didn't get hurt and that's why I went ahead and bought it, even though I could not confirm date nor variety prior to buying it. It also was awesome practice for attributing. It took me quite a bit of time to finally confirm what it was and while I was disappointed it was so Common, I was still happy I managed to attribute it.

Pps: A 1802 0/100 books at around $80.00/$150.00 for a G-4 so 5 bucks for this was actually a pretty good deal. Once I get a better example, I can sell it on Ebay for more, with the proper attribution.