I hope this is the right forum. I ry to collect single examples of each error type and, generally, I'm not concerned with date or denomination. Anyway, can someone give me some guidance on the best buy on a no mint mark (where the mint actually failed to put it in the die) U.S. coin. Thanks......
It depends on what you mean by "best buy." Probably the least expensive is the 1982 no P dime. You can get a superb gem for somewhere in the neighborhood of $300. Relative to rarity, it might be the 1968 no S proof dime (if you can find one and afford it -- only a few are known and they sell for several thousand dollars), or, more accessibly, the 1983 no S proof dime. Probably around 2000 of the 1983's are known, and you can obtain a nice example for around $800-$1000. Edit: The 1990 no-S proof cent is also somewhat available. You can find it for a few thousand dollars, so it falls in between the 83 no S dime and the 68 no S dime.
By "best buy" do you mean cost vs. scarcity/popularity/potential/value etc, etc? Is it safe to assume the 1982 dime is not to be included?
You definitely want the 1982 no P dime, then. They exist in grades from F12 to MS68, and are quite affordable.
I'd disagree with that. IMO, errors happen accidentally while varieties happen intentionally. Forgetting to apply the MM punch to the die is definitely an error.
Well, I guess you can argue that with Fivaz, Stanton, Potter, NGC, PCGS, ANACS & ICG. However, I'd also argue your claim that varieties are intentional. How can you claim that FORGETTING to apply a mintmark is intentional? I'd like to see you prove that! Was the '55 DDO intentional? Chris
Depending on what you're looking for I'd consider the 1922 Lincoln cent. It has style, grace and age. Can be had for under $1000 in a nice XF or less for lower grades. 1922 Lincoln Cents were only made in Denver that year. This date also offers a weak D variety if that is to you liking. Too many choices.
You've got it twisted around. I'm defining varieties as intentional and errors as unintentional. That makes 55 DDO an error, as well. Wexler calls them intentional and unintentional varieties, which I suppose I could live with as well, because it acknowledges unintentional varieties as errors, which is what I was getting at.
Just in my opinion, i define an error as a one of a kind coin cause no two errors are identicle. Whereas a variety is a slight change in design that differs from the original design, intentional or not, that can be found on a number of any given coins of the same year and mint. An exception to this i guess could be the dollar/quarter mule coins which are classified as errors but 13 exist that pretty much are identicle.... This is how i define it but not everyone thinks like me.... yet.
So, you're saying that a Mint employee got ticked off and intentionally put a dent in the die of the 2005-S Silver PF SQ. Is that right?
Varieties aren't intentional. A 2000 cent with the reverse of a proof wasn't done intentionally. There are intentional error coins out there though.
Some consider the 2004 D double ear dime, intentional same as the low leaf and high leaf reverse Wisconsin Quarter
