Need Help with definition

Are we only going to get face value or will we be able to get more from the mint ?!!!!

Speedy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, I know this discussion is about to "die" out, so I figured I'd "wear" it out ever further with my "two cents" on this "deteriorating" subject:

As always, whenever anybody asks about a definition, I like to turn to a little book known as the Merriam-Webster dictionary. And after reading all of your comments, I first off have to side with Huntsman53's definition of errors and varieties, though other numerous good points were made, too.

Here's what the dictionary says:

Error - 1. An act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should have rightly been accomplished. 2. Variation in measurements, calculations, or observations of a quantity of objects due to mistakes.

Variety: 1. The quality or state of having different forms or types (I take this to mean having differences in forms/types as accepted by the Mint, such as the variations in the 1982 Lincoln cents). 2. Something differing from others of the same general kind.

Oddity: (just throwing this out there for comparison!) 1. Differing markedly from the usual or ordinary or accepted.

Therefore, the conclusion that I draw from this information is that an error is any piece that comes out of the mint with a flaw such as a die crack, die break, machine doubling damage (MDD), hub doubling, actual die doubling, overpunching of dates and/or mintmarks etc., dropped lettering, removal of pieces of the coin's lettering and/or deisgn due to excessive polishing, etc., etc., etc. because such things are the result of the mint's accidental or ignorant overlooking of such mistakes in the quality control processes.

A variety, then, is a major design CHANGE, such as the 7 (or is it 8, now?) 1982 Lincoln cents, 1960 and '70-S small and large dates, the 1945-S Mercury dimes with the S and micro-S mintmarks, etc., etc., etc.

But before you go tearing into this post, just remember that this whole debate is really ALL semantics.... Anything can be classified as a variety, error, oddity, and Tribble for all anyone else cares. It all depends on your perspective. For example, several posts have indicated to me that anything of the definition of error/variety is "damage" to the coin. However, my definition is as above, and whereas I would find machine doubling and other "mistakes" to be collectable, others see them as damage. It really all just depends on the collector, and whether he or she sees such differences in coins to be of value. If such damage/error/variety/whatever gets a number of people excited about numismatics, I don't care what you call it! It makes it all the better either way!

Hope I haven't alienated too many people with this post, and thanks for a good read on this topic to everybody who shared an opinion!

~AJ

 

No you didn't alienate me, infact you hit the nail right on the head there with that. Semantics is everything in this argument.

It's all a personal viewpoint. What most of you guys call errors i would call damage.

The only errors i would include are ones that were already on the die before it was used. Spelling mistakes, missing design elements etc. Those i would include. Everything that is resulting from the striking process i would actively avoid.

 

Edited because I accidentally posted it twice! Post follows below!

 

Certainly, missing design elements, spelling mistakes, etc. are errors, there's not too much getting around that, but why wouldn't you consider die breaks, cuds, major die cracks, machine doubling, etc. to be errors on the part of the mint - mistakes, if you will? Certainly the mint has erred in releasing such coins with clear problems. It's been suggested that perhaps the '55 doubled die cent should be termed a variety because the mint was aware of it and purposely released it into circulation because of a shortage of coins - but I would deem it an error by my definition because the mint chose to ignore it, thus allowing a coin with a major design flaw to be released.

I guess you could say that if it leaves the mint with any design flaw, it should be deemed an error. Perhaps not a very collectable error, and perhaps even an "ugly" error, but an error nonetheless.

~AJ

 

aj,

Your last two posts have been really great and worth the reading! You, unlike most of us, went back to the basics of using the good old Dictionary which defines what is an Error and what is a Variety as they should be and not the mislabelling that some in the Numismatic World have long used!

I agree with you on your statement "why wouldn't you consider die breaks, cuds, major die cracks, machine doubling, etc. to be errors on the part of the mint - mistakes, if you will?"! If you are just a Collector, you might not want to collect them but to totally ignore them especially if your are a Coin Dealer/Trader, is not very wise! Many of these types of errors while not very valuable, are still fairly hot commodities, especially on eBay which is and has been for several years now, one of the most used gages for determining coin values. If someone wants to ignore these, then it is better for me, you and others who know that these are worth searching for. To coin a quote from one of my error coin buyers, "What may be junk to some, is Gold to others" was what he wrote me in requesting to purchase some of my insignificant error coins that I want to move to make room for better error coins. If I can pick up 10 rolls of Lincoln Cents at the Bank, spend an hour or more searching them and find a couple of error coins that I can sell for $1 each, then it really hasn't been a bad day! Heck, I can replace the two pennies, return them to the Bank and get my $5 back and sell the two error coins for $1 each for a profit of $1.98 minus the cost of the 2x2's! Sure, I would not sell these individually on eBay but would offer them as a lot deal with 10 or 20 other error coins but if my profit margine stays the same, then I haven't done too bad! Heck, if I found 10,000 of these in rolls from the Bank and sold them for $1 each then that comes to $10,000 minus the $100 I have in them for a profit of $9,900 minus the cost of the 2x2's and any fees (if any) I incur to sell them on an Auction Site. Whew, I wish I could do that everyday!


Frank

 

Error to me means human error, if it's a caused by a mint employee during the die preparation stage then it's an error. Anything that happens afterwards is normal routine wear and tear or incidental grease matter getting into the die, this is not a human mess up, it's just normal proceedure. Coin dies will deteriorate, grease will get in, die cracks will appears. To me this is fundametally the way it works and therefore there is nothing wrong or erronous about coins that come out imperfect due to die deterioration. They are anything but errors, they're late die stage strikes.

 

Interesting take on it, and I hope you'll forgive me, but I'm a nitpicker by nature: I do indeed agree that such things like die cracks/breaks, and all that other stuff is normal wear and tear on the dies, but I would like to clarify that I see the human error part of this aspect of it in the quality control processes, not the actual minting process. If the mint employees allow something with these "errors" to get in with circulated coins, I would consider that an error. If it doesn't get waffled and is put into circulation, the mint has erred in my opinion.

Same thing with proof sets; if the mint allows an imperfection like the above mentioned items (easier to say than trying to name them all again!), then I would consider the mint to have erred by encapsulating that coin in a proof set.

Just wanted to clarify what was a bit of a confusing part of my post. Though, as I also stated, it's all semantics and I can at least see your point, though I disagree.

~AJ

 

sylvestor,

With the extensive and strict Quality Control Program that the Mints have for every part of the minting process from producing and punching the planchets, making the Dies, minting the coins to the finished product, anything that gets by the Mint workers, should be classified as an error as human error allowed these coins to pass the Quality Control process! I can somewhat agree with you when it comes to minor "struck through grease" errors, extra metal and/or doubling due to Die deterioration and even some minute, insignificant Die Crack errors! However, even most of these, should have not passed through the Quality Control process at the Mints.


Frank

 

I think you and I posted the same thing at the same time, Frank!

 

Perhaps we are at cross purposes here because of one factor we have not taken into account.

What period of coins do you collect? 19th/20th century?


I when dealing with machine made coins exclusively focus on the 17th/18th centuries where Quality Control was pretty much non existant and thus in that context the above wouldn't be errors at all.

Erorrs to me are errors made by the designers and the people working on the dies, quality control is neither here or there. It's not an error they let it out, it's just them not doing their job properly. Also how do you know they made the error of releasing it unspotted?

What happens if they saw it but though "oh what the heck as if any of my bosses are going to notice", or what about employees that smuggle these 'error' coins out to sell later at a profit? Did they let them out by accident? You bet not...

 

Excellent point. I collect all denominations of US coins from 1900 to 2000; a 20th century set, if you will. Your point is well made that the quality control processes were nearly nonexistant in the time period you have chosen to focus on, and my comments remain strictly for the time frame that I'm working on.

I would say that the mint employees not doing their jobs properly is an error on their part for failure to catch coins with what I would deem errors. Also, if they are purposefully allowing them to go out because they decide to be lax in their QC, I would deem that to be ignorance on their parts. Ignorance is, in the dictionary definition, one of the factors making something an error. As for employees smuggling out "error" coins, I would see it as being "an act that through... deficiency [on the part of the employees to be honest and on the part of mint employers to catch them]... fails to achieve what achieve what should be done [i.e. not making said errors]."

Wow.... I really do wound like a lawyer. I'm incollege right now and all my friends and family keep telling me I ought to be a lawyer someday! Although, I am going into politics, so that isn't much better!

 

You think i'm being an error myself here?


Be warned i do play devil's advocate, and i enjoy a good debate. It's boring when everyone agrees, i also like to back the losing side of any argument. Generally i'd have to grudgingly agree with you but only so far as the 20th century goes.

I still stand correct on my time frame. Same when collecting medieval coins, all coins could be errors. The definition is fluid and changes with each era.

 

And I was beginning to think that I was the last of my kind! LOL!!!! Heck, my co-workers and even my Supervisor know not to send me an email with any sort of criticism at the end of their shift and workweek and they have two or three days off! I then have two or three days to think about and fume over the criticism and write my response which can be anywhere from three to ten pages long.

Frank

You make a very good point about coins minted up through about 1900! They (the minters or Mint workers) neither had the knowledge, experience or time to really quality control most of the coins that they minted. It was a very slow, time consuming and tedious process to make the Dies, mold, roll or hammer out the planchets and produce coins with the primitive tools and equipment that they had to work with!

Frank

 

One time, I was in speech and debate class, and the topic was "Could Santa Claus be Real?" We had to debate this question. Obviously, all the class (besides me!) said "no," but I said yes. To make a long story short, I took the position that Santa Claus could be real if you were referring to the metaphorical Santa Claus (the idea that giving is better than recieving). By the time the day was out, I had gotten the rest of the class to admit that Santa Claus could be real! It was a heck of a lot of fun!

Absolutely no argument here. I've seen some medieval coins - no two are exactly alike! But for 20th century coins, and many 19th century coins, I have to stand by my definition.

I'll be honest, I didn't think of collectors collecting only 17th and earlier century coins when I made my case. Thanks for bringing that up! Excellent point!

~AJ

 

Well i do collect some 20th century coins but it's very limited, i tend to focus almost exclusively on 18th century and before.

 

That's definitely a cool collection, and one I'd love to look into for myself later on, but for now, it's a little out of my range!

~AJ

 

Id love to pick a side but everything is mentioned and it would be a repeat.