I have a 1853 half dime graded NGC XF 45. on the grading label it only mentions that it has a reverse lamination. what is not mentioned is the MAD and the multiple obv rev clash marks. so my question is this...if I wanted to have the label to say everything that there is would I have to go through the whole process of submitting a new coin with attributions and everything else?
Pictures would help! However, from my experience, NGC does not list everything that might be wrong on the insert. The misaligned die might be very minor. The same might apply to the clash marks. But, most importantly, there are the space limitations on the insert that must be considered as well. Chris
here is my previous post for photos. https://www.cointalk.com/threads/18...d-obv-rev-clash-good-buy.302053/#post-2837433
Labels are limited to a certain number of characters/spaces. If the 2nd and 3rd errors are considered minor, or common, they usually won't, or can't, be noted on the label. Unless the MAD was major, it wouldn't be on the label, if there was a more noticeable error. Same with the Die Clashes, which is very common on this type coin.
You're looking at this the wrong way. A clash is not an error. No feature that is present on the dies themselves (as with clash marks) can produce an error coin. This will instead produce either a variety or simply serve to indicate the die stage if a variety is otherwise determined. Have you considered requesting variety attribution on the coin? The clash and MAD may both be indicative of a specific variety.
Hi Jason, I wish to add a bit of my own flavor on this topic, and I expect push-back from others. I agree that varieties address many noticeable differences between coins struck with the same dies, however I place clashes squarely in the error column. Small die cracks, chips and cuds are often the natural result of dies fatiguing over many normal strikes. Because the damage takes place over a very large number of strikes, any evidence that it is taking place is imperceptible, and likely goes unnoticed until some other event occurs which demands inspection / replacement of the dies. While more pronounced die damage usually results from the neglect of dies as minor damage progresses to major, it may also result from striking hard obstructions between the dies, such as hardened hand tools. This latter sort of damage occurs abruptly, and is unlikely to go unnoticed by an attentive press operator. The audible change alone should draw sufficient attention to detect damage to the dies. The same may be said for clashing of the dies in the absence of a planchet. Both the striking of a tool between dies and the clashing of dies are abnormal strikes and, in my mind, should qualify as errors. Like I wrote earlier, I expect some differences of opinion here . . . - Mike
I agree that clashes are noticed by the mint, and perhaps with ultra-moderns they quickly catch such defects and remove the dies from service, but the early mint did not have the luxury of switching out dies when they clashed. I have examples in my collection of multiple denominations produced up through the late 1860s where the dies were deliberately pressed into considerable use even after completely shattering, let alone having been clashed. In that case you have a pair of dies employed deliberately in that state to produce a group of coins with those same characteristics that are as-struck. This is by definition what makes a variety and not an error, and is moreso true with clashes, as unlike with cracks that progress between strikes, the clash is either there or it is not. I consider the line to be very clear between what is an error and what is not. An error is an unintended defect on a particular planchet or an unintended occurrence during the process of striking a coin, that leads to the creation of an example that is an aberration. You can have multiple coins with the same type of error, but they will each have been produced individually by a similar type of mistake.
Your point is well taken, however the industry has already established precedents by classifying die breaks, cuds, misaligned dies and rotated dies as errors, despite the fact that many virtually identical coins will eject from the press after the error occurs, unless and until the anomaly is detected. I lean toward characterizing errors as differences in coinage which emerged suddenly rather than gradually, and which should have been noticed and corrected in real-time. On the "flipside", I view varieties as differences in coinage which took a great deal of time to manifest themselves, drawing less attention, and likely going unnoticed until after the press run was completed and the dies were taken down. Extreme varieties such as shattered dies being the exception, of course.
That's technically true, but in practice it only happens from time to time. I'm sure ANACS for example would be happy to take someone's money to label a coin as a die break error, but people aren't really slabbing or selling coins with die breaks as errors in general. For early coinage, some series have so many die breaks as to make it an unusual die state to have a pristine coin (with some varieties having no pristine state at all). I agree with you, but your definition here also describes die crack progression nicely as well.
No doubt about the pristine coin in some series being unusual, but my observation is that none of the big three shy away from classifying major die breaks, cuds, misaligned dies or rotated dies as errors. Minor ones, yes, but I think the same could be said about them shying away from attributing minor varieties, could it not? Actually, I view it differently. A die crack typically starts at a stress concentration, progresses imperceptibly with each strike over many strikes until so little cross section of the die remains that crack propagation eventually accelerates and finally breaks the die. The die crack in that case is not an abrupt failure . . . . it's sort of like watching grass grow . . . only the terminal die break is an abrupt event.
thank you everyone. what I thought would be an easy question is obviously a lot more involved then I realized. I never looked at the difference between an error and a variety as I have never had a coin graded. this was very educational for me and I thank you all again.
