LOL!!!!!!! In reality, there are Errors that have been designated as Varieties and there are Varieties that have been designated as Errors! What constitutes either one has been and still is the subject of many arguments and debates between many Coin Experts and in many forums. One would think, that the Coin Collecting Community would finally get together and settle this matter once and for all! However, if they ever did so, then most of the Reference Books on both as well as on coins, would have to be re-written. Like that is ever going to happen!:bigeyes::whistle: Frank
Ok, I am very confused now,(not hard to do ). I say lets make coin books for no errors, varieties, die states ect. and then make another book for only errors, varieties, die states ect. This would make it easier for the easily confused or finacially weak. (like me )
As for my own opinion, I could care less if you call it an error, a variety, both, or neither. They are not standard issue. Whichever name you decide to put on them is semantics to me.
I have to debate the semantics of the 22 plain strong reverse. I contend it is in fact an error. The dies clashed and workers excessively polished the obverse die and replaced the reverse die. Coins produced from this new die pair did not have the D mint mark, since it was removed in error by the mint. These coins ARE error coins since the mint made a mistake and produced them.
Thad, If my memory serves me correctly, the scenario that you stated is not the reason for the Plain "No D" 1922 Cent! The reason for the "No D" Mint Mark is because the Mint Mark became clogged (filled) with grease, grime and probably coin planchet debris. If the Mint workers had ground or polished the Mint mark from the Die, then there would be a large high spot beneath (below) the Date since it would take quite a bit of grinding and polishing to remove the Mint Mark completely from the Die. Frank
Sorry Frank. What you are describing are dies #1, #3, and #4. Die #2 (i.e. strong reverse as was specified by Thad) was the result of a die clash. See http://lincolncentresource.com/1922Ddievarieties.html for any additional info desired.
Regardless of why or how the 22 no D was created it has no place in an Album as far as I'm concerned. And my Whitman also has a slot for the 55 Double Die, 72 Double Die, all types of the 82's and the 95 Double Die. And what about that silly large and small 70S? Or the man large and small 60's. What ticks me off about this is if you purchase those books by Coppercoins you would see that there are double dies for almost every year that coin has been produced so why just those in albums? Same with the 3 Legged Buffalo in the Whitman Album or the 18/17. Why just those coins? And as to the Mercury Dimes 42/41 and 42D/41 I think I've heard way to many stories about why those were made. Same with tons of other coins with one date over another. REGARDLESS of the reasons these are not standard types of coins and should not be in coin Albums. Organizations like Whitman, Dansco, etc are creating the values of some coins by putting a slot in thier albums or folders for them. I have a Whitman Album with a slot for the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel. And although I've looked and looked and looked I just can't find one anywhere.
If I might be contrarian, I like the "impossible" spaces. It keeps the account open so to speak. My lincoln collection still has the 1909 SVDB empty even though I can readily fill it. Maybe soon, as I have added many other "holes" to my album, including over 50 more Double dies, Major RPMs, Need a few more of the 1972 varieties. A collection should never be completed IMO. Jim
The creation of the dual dated die was an error (As was the creation of the 55 DDO die). The coins created from this die are varieties not errors since every coin from tht die are the same. Yes therewould be a high spot IF you just ground out the mintmark. But if you grind down the entire field surface of the die (As you would to remove clash marks.) then there is no high spot and the relief of the de is reduced and you get weak and strong letters etc just as are found on the 22 "P" cents
Yeah, why does my Indian Cent album have a spot for the 94/94 but not the 73 open/closed 3? The 1865 plain and fancy 5? Some of the albums do drive me nuts
Works for me, that was my contention all along - until you changed it for me that is. Glad it has been changed back
We all know that opinions are like *** holes - everyone has one and they all stink. I don't care to be drawn into an argument or discussion of the nuances of meanings or of how my opinions may differ from others'. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; here's mine. Every coin has a designer who sets out what the final product should look like. This design is often refined to fit the requirements of the minting processes, but at some point a final design is designated for production. If, at any step in the production, something happens that results in the designer's design not being faithfully executed, then the resultant coin is an error. Whether there are one, or one hundred or one hundred thousand coins produced with the same characteristics are produced is immaterial in their designation of being errors. Thus, the plain 22D Cent (whether it resulted from a filled die or an over polished die is immaterial - it wasn't produced as designed) is an error, as are the 55DD Cent and the 42/41 Dime produced from improperly prepared dies. Also errors are any coins produced with dies polished, or filled with a foreign substance (grease) to the extent that any design details have been lost or altered. Varieties are a different animal that rarely exist in modern coinage newer than 30 years old. Back when dies were produced by hand, it was common for small details to vary by small degrees. This was not done to change the designer's intentions but simply happened because it's impossible for two separately produced dies to be identical. Thus, elements such as lettering, stars or numbers stamped by hand can show variations and are considered varieties if they are significant enough. The only major "modern" varieties that I can think of offhand (I know there must be many more) are the large and small dated cents and the Eisenhower Dollars with lettering and globe representation differences. These weren't done to change the designer's intentions, but rather for production reasons or to enhance the design. Another modern variety would be the business strike cents struck with reverse dies intended for proof coins, and proof coins struck with business strike dies. Although it was an error to use the incorrect dies, it didn't change the intended design of the coin and they are therefore varieties.
22 Plain Lots of fun banter here.....but, I am surprised no one has chimed in with the thing that bothers me most about the 1922 plain.......THAT IT WAS NOT MINTED IN PHILLY........ I have found there are never perfect solutions My next best option is to get the unmarked cents dansco and go that way. 144 holes. Then I thought that would be a cool set to have a date set of all P mint cents from Flying eagle to date. Unfortunatly that is 159 cents (1 copper and 1 zinc 82).....you can build a custom with blank pages, but that drives up the cost. decisions, decisions......maybe I will just move on to a US Type set.
And dont forget the 1960 D/D DDO small date over large date Lincoln. It is an error ( used 2 different hubs ) and RPM ( Variety).:whistle: Jim
IMO the manufacturers of coin albums should NOT include spaces for the "unusual" coins (1922 Plain, 1955 DDO, 1972 DDO, etc.) Why? Because I suspect a significant number of collectors will not have a raw coin to fill the space. Most of those coins will be in slabs. Right off the top of my head I can think of 4 empty spaces in my Lincoln cent album that will never be filled because those coins are slabbed. Again, why? Because those coins are now authenticated, graded reasonably accurately and better protected. My 1931-S may soon be joining them.
