I will get more proof Jello is one of them that read this I don't want to mention that many names here on the forum I don't think that is a proper thing to do , I told you ,and why would I tell a fib especially about Mike diamond. he did state that and it is truthfull about his comment i don't need to lie and have enemies on this forum so please believe me he did say that. I will try and find the thread ,but you know how differcult it is to do that i don't even know what the title of the thread is. Well if you can't take my word for it I'm very sorry about that. Jazzcoins Joe JC
Glad to see the site up again!! Does that mean that if a coin was damaged in the mint such as a ding or any other mark produce at the mint, would this be an error?
Never mind, I'll answer my own question; Here's a statment that Mike made on another forum; "On the question of what does and does not constitute damage, I regard anything created by coin-to-die or die-to-coin contact an error (with the possible exception of ejection impact doubling). However, coins can get crushed, bent, folded, cut, abraded, and generally mangled well after the strike but inside the mint's machinery. I consider this to be damage".
Well I have to say i do consider machine doubling an error the machinery is strking down and hitting the coin and producing a form of doubling especially extreme MD doubling the mint should have a way to try and catch these errors or correct or adjust the machinery , so the doubling does not occur on the coin ,because it;s not suppose to be there in the first place an error in my mind and a mistake by the mint too.Mistake is an error. Jazzcoins Joe
Mike notes this exception as not being an error "(with the possible exception of ejection impact doubling)".....fancy wording for machine doubling. Thanks, Bill