I came across this picture and decided to comment on it . I've noticed how Error collecting has become so Micro . Back in my day the 1955 DD was king along with other major errors. The Numismatic community has become so Micro, for what ? That's my question. Then you have people like myself looking for anything and everything looking for what's called an error . What has the error coin and Currency community become ? I collect al ot of Colonial era coins and I've found a ton of error coins (some mine, some others ) and no extra premium. Why ? Just the way it is unless drastic. Look at the working conditions . Working in a sweaty pit with a stinky Ox(or people) above you ,not my dream job. Unless I was pocketing some of the coins, just the bad ones even then. lol.
So let me try to understand your statement. Your making a point that the picture of the old minting process which also produced errors is considered less important than the way modern coins and errors are produced? If I'm wrong can you explain your point better? It's easier to search for modern mint errors because of the coins we currently use. We no longer use colonial coins Not everyone has the means to acquire them.
Just trying to say how times have changed. Back then it was common for errors and people ( most) just spent it . It was just as important . Just that their minting process was so crude. Also, I just thought the pic was sort of funny. I saw one where they used Oxen to swing the top around creating the pressure to mint the coins.
I also collect Colonial coins. With the primitive minting conditions errors are pretty common. Many collectors, myself included, would rather have a coin without the errors. Off centering where some of the design is lost, planchet voids, weak strikes are things I try to avoid.
I really don't understand people's desire to find sub-micron errors on circulated coins especially since the MINT's objective is to create as many as fast as possible with a low quality threshold for circulated coins. And that's even before they are actually circulated and dinged up.
I'm thinking the same thing but I didn't want anyone to object. There are way too many small what people are calling "errors". I would say more than half of the double die pics are MD,DD,or AD (abrasive doubling ) . Some are significant but a lot are what I call "small ticks " .
I say more like 99% of the threads shown here on CoinTalk.. Remember it is called a Doubled Die not double die
I agree with Sal in that the scrutiny and imagination of folks looking for "errors" is beyond sensible. If someone is using a microscope to find errors, many will be discovered. What is next? Using electron microscopy?
To me, microscopes aren't the problem. I've found lots of cool stuff snooping around at 40x. Attributing most VAMs require at least 15x. The problem is thinking your "new discovery" is immediately valuable. This notion comes from all the "get rich from pocket change" type stuff. People want to go straight from the microscope to being fabulously wealthy without any of the work, like educating yourself. There's over 100 2009 1c "formative years" DDR varieties on Wexler that you need serious magnification to see, and it's great that the documentation is out there, and if someone wants to collect them all, great. Do it because it's fun, not because you think you'll get rich quick.
