I think i found 1966 sms Roosevelt dime with the 5 on cheek! What do you think?

First of all that is blind and blanketed statement. If you want to believe all of the nonsense and ridiculous videos on YouTube then be our guest. Just don't lump what is the truth and what is absolute nonsense and uneducated together.

What is spoke around here is that 99% of the videos are ill intended and meant to only gain subscriptions to make money from advertising on their channel.

The producers have zero knowledge of coins and will make a video only spreading mis information. They are ignorant to what they speak.

If you want to glean information that is pure nonsense then so be it. I can't stop you nor can any member here.
If you come here relaying the stupidity you heard we will shut you down.
We teach study and do our best to educate many of folks who come here uniformed. So that they can make educated decision. And do their homework before retaining the nonsense that the majority of you tubers promote.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't do the you tube thing, I also don't have a problem with folks that speak the truth and do their homework.

I watched I think 3 or 4 of your videos.
I didn't notice the usual projection and misleading information that I have seen from most in the past.

There is a few good channels on you tube and as long as the information is correct and not meant to leed someone astray then I and for the most part we don't have a problem.

Sorry if you felt lumped into the mass.
It seems that you are doing a good job and trying to spread good information.

 

KooKoox10
Hi, your my number ONE youtuber. My name is Roger Scott. I have been collecting coins for about 8 months. I know that's not long put this old man has had a great time. I had a stroke in Jan. 2010,Iam 69 yr old and I have trouble understanding the computer and I was very lucky finding KooKoox10.
When I leave Cointalk, I may not be able to find you again. Iam not looking for you to answer my post, but I would look for you in YouTube.
What I would like to know is :
I have several Franklin Half Dollar, does PCGS look for 7 lines on LIBERTY BELL reverse and 3 hairs in front of FRANKLINS right ear odverse to get FBL?
{Excise my SPELLING}
[edited]
Thank you Roger Scott

 

First, don't put your e-mail address on-line. Second, avoid youtube. Third, don't leave CoinTalk...

 

Sorry about reopening the discussion.

Is this what the big fuss is about?



or maybe this?



When does an error become a variety? 2 coins? 5 coins? 10 coins? Is it an arbitrary number?

Do we use NGC’s definition? Here’s what the experts there have to say on varieties.

“A variety is a coin that has characteristics specific to the die pair that struck it . . . In United States numismatics, a variety may be defined as a die or die pairing that offers some distinctive feature not a normal part of the design.” What is a Variety. https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/what-is-a-variety/.

There appears to be a few die markers that aren’t a normal part of the design. Regardless of whether this is or isn’t numismatic pareidolia, we can all agree that the “5” is not normal.

To educate, as is the goal here, pareidolia refers to an incorrect perception, not the actual perception itself.

Whatever we call it (a “5”, “lint mark”, etc.), the feature exists, and it’s existence appears to be the central issue, not whether this is a case of people suffering from pareidolia.

If we agree to this, and everyone concedes that it is simply a lint mark, is a lint mark normal to a die? Isn’t the term normally used with coins and not dies? And if so, wouldn’t the use of the term with dies be abnormal (not impossible, just unusual).

To continue with NGC’s definition:

”A variety is a coin that differs from its basic design type in some distinctive way and is thus differentiated by collectors.” Variety vs. Mint Error. https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1655/Variety-versus-Mint-Error/

Surely the lint mark is distinctive. It’s easy to differentiate. In fact, my fifth grade son spotted the one on the coin in the second picture.

For comparison, does the Superbird quarter actually have an “S” on it? Personally, I think not, but the “S” IS a distinctive feature, it differs from the basic design, and it is specific to a die pair that struck it.

I’ve seen a Superbird in person, and the “S” can take some effort to see (it’s also not in plain sight). In contrast, the “5” on this dime is much more pronounced and on an open portion of the design. To deny the mark exists is to be blind, either physically or willfully.

I am fully convinced that the “misplaced 5” (or as we like to refer to it, “a nickel on the dime”) exists because I have two in my possession. I believe it’s a lint mark on a die that produced several specimens with the characteristics specific to that die and its corresponding pair. In other words, I believe it is a variety.

I apologize for the length of this reply/mini-treatise, but I intended to convert a few doubters. I doubt I have convinced all. Either way, the two coins in the photos are for everyone to have fun debating.

 

Was it part of the intended design? Or a processing error?

 

From what I can gather, and from the evidence, it seems that it wasn’t intended as part of the design - I don’t think a mint worker etched a “5” into a die.

I think someone mentioned a lint mark on the die. This had to be accidental, and am thinking this occurred when the die was created, so an error in the process.

I don’t think it’s been discussed here, but my understanding is that a lint mark on a coin occurs when a piece of lint comes in between a die and a planchet. This creates an incuse mark on the coin.

I would imagine a lint mark on a die would occur when some lint or similar foreign object comes in between a hub and a working die, creating an incuse mark on the die? When this die strikes a planchet, the incuse mark will create a corresponding feature in relief?

Sorry for the question marks, but this is where I’m uncertain and will have to defer to the experts on this forum.

 

I think Fred already explained what the deal with the cheek 5 was.
Try the search box to recover the thread.

 

Hi Michael, I believe you’re referring to post #88 where he states what caused it, and I agree. It is a lint mark on the die. I’m sure my post included that.

That may settle the issue of what caused the error on the die.

However, is this a variety or not? Do we use a major TPG’s definition? Or are experts only correct when we want them to be?

Note: This is an entirely rhetorical question because it usually devolves into political debates and I had enough of that in law school lol.

What’s more interesting to me is kind of a new twist. Every other version that I’ve seen has the lint mark. The most recent one we found though looks slightly different in that there is clear MD of the lint mark.

I would think that this would confirm that the mark is on the die and not a piece of lint stuck between the die and planchet (as appears to be the opinion of many posts I’ve read).

 

To assist others, I’ve included his response in full:

“Looks like I'm glad I was out of the office last week at the Long Beach Expo, and missed all of this.

The ANACS coin has a Lint mark on the die; that's why there's more than 1 of them. It is NOT a 5
(don't care what it looks like, it's not a numeral), but a piece of lint, on the die, that looks like a digit.”

Again, I agree. It’s not a 5, just like the Superbird has no S.

 

It is not a variety. It is an error, but not one worthy of added value.

 

Thank you enamel7!

I've read some responses saying that it is simply an error, but this is where I was hoping for some more discussion.

Here is a question I might posit: In your opinion, is the "S" on the Superbird an error or a variety?

It doesn't look like a misplaced mintmark to me and I think the most logical reasoning is that it's lint-related. Here are two possible answers:

(1) One supported by NGC, which by removing it from their VarietyPlus, seems to agree with Mr. Weinstein (Fred, we're not acquainted, hence the formality) regarding a lint mark theory or a mint-related error within normal mint tolerances. In fact, NGC's site states, "This is just a lint impression from a cloth used to wipe the die, something quite commonly seen on proof coins, though normally found without this coin's distinctive shape." See n.1

I believe NGC stopped attributing the Superbird in 2007 or so?

(2) One supported by PCGS and both Mr. Fivaz and Mr. Stanton, who have it as a variety. The latter listed it in their Cherrypickers' Guide as a variety and the former listed it with reference to the latter (as an FS-901). See, e.g., n.2; See also n.3. I don't have a recent Cherrypickers' Guide handy to quote the late authors, but PCGS doesn't list this as a Fivaz-Stanton exclusion and appears to continue to attribute Superbirds. See n.4

When two sets of experts disagree, who is correct?

I think this is where I find coins much more fascinating than the law. The former is inherently subjective, while the latter is impotently objective.

Apologies for the treatise!

Notes

1. Staff Writer. Washington Quarters 1952 25C PF. NGC Coin Explorer, n.d., https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/washington-quarters-pscid-38/1952-25c-pf-coinid-15984, retrieved Dec. 3, 2019.

2. Hernandez, Jaime. It's a Bird, It's a Plane…No It's a 1952 Superbird Quarter! PCGS News, Oct. 8, 2013, https://www.pcgs.com/news/its-bird-its-plane-superbird-quarter;

3. Hernandez, Jaime. 1952 Superbird Washington Quarter, PCGS News, Jul. 10, 2008, https://www.pcgs.com/news/1952-superbird-washington-quarter.

4. Staff Writers. PCGS Exclusions from the Fourth edition Vol. II and Fifth Edition Vol. I of the Cherrypickers' Guide. PCGS Services, n.d., https://www.pcgs.com/cherrypickerexclusions, retrieved Dec. 3, 2019.

5. Staff Writers. 1952 25C "Superbird" FS-901 (Proof). PCGS Coinfacts, n.d., https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1952-25c-superbird-fs-901/144443/66, retrieved Dec. 3, 2019.

 

I think that in order for something to be a variety it has to be a variant of an intended design attribute. Arbitrary anomalies, while perhaps interesting, are not intended (such as a piece of lint).

 

Hi Kevin!

I think I could live with that. If I'm correct, and just to clarify, you're speaking of mintmarks (RPM and the like), dates (when punched on older coins), and the actual coin design (such as doubled dies and mules)? I think this conforms with NGC's definition that "numerous doubled dies, overdates, repunched mintmarks and the like . . . qualify as varieties[.]" n.1

There's two possibilities where the lint could have came in, right?

(1) At the die making stage, where lint came between a hub and a die (unlikely, but possible). If so (just positing), this would make the resulting "5" an EDS marker, right? Over time, the lint mark would wear off - and other markers would indicate MDS or LDS. In this situation, would it still matter if it's an anomaly? I'll expand later.

(2) During striking, where a lint came between a planchet and a die. I've never held a die, but I imagine they're not that malleable. My understanding of physics is that if you have a hard object pressed against a softer object, and a soft piece of lint in between, the softer object will be indented (thinking Mohs scale).

Take play dough and a mold - if lint came in between it, the plastic mold wouldn't have an indentation, but the play dough would? Alternatively, if they were both of equal hardness, the lint would press into both (thinking die clashes or a diamond scratching a diamond), right?

However, assuming the pressure is enough and a lint mark occurs, wouldn't the resulting lint mark be a die dent error? n.2

If so, then isn't the hoof-shaped dent in the Kansas silver quarter an error, and not a variety? NGC's diagnostics require "[a] hoof-shaped dent in the die appears at the bison's hip." n.3

What's particularly damning (especially for lint naysayers) is this evidence:

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

The 1962 "D" on Bell Franklin half dollar proof.

In order to receive the attribution as a Fivas-Stanton, FS-901, NGC requires a "D" on the reverse of a 1962 proof 50 cent, SPECIFICALLY noting that "[a] lint impression from cleaning of the die or some other impressed object created the illusion of a letter "D" on the bell to the right of STOW." n.4

Side comment: For those without pareidolia, the Misplaced "5" (Nickel on the Dime, sorry, I like my son's term!) and Superbird "S" are MUCH more clear than the "U" (I don't even remotely see a "D") on the 1962 variety.

Where NGC appears to contradict itself is in its comments, writing that "[t]his is a similar variety to the "Superbird" quarter of 1952." n.5

But didn't NGC discontinue its attribution of the "Superbird"??? n.6

I didn't check all of the FS-901 varieties on NGC's website for "lint impressions", but that one was one of the first I saw.

Are there others?

Notes

1. See Staff Writer. What is a Variety? NGC Variety Plus, n.d., https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/what-is-a-variety/, retrieved Dec. 4, 2019 (emphasis added).

2. See Staff Writer. Die Errors: Die Damage: Die Dent. Error-Ref.com, Pt. IV, n.d., http://www.error-ref.com/die-dent/, retrieved Dec. 4, 2019.

3. Staff Writer. NGC Attribution: KANSAS - DENTED BISON. NGC Variety Plus, 2019, https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plu...territorial-quarters-1999-2009/816775/?page=1, retrieved Dec. 4, 2019.

4. Staff Writer. NGC Attribution: 1962 "D" ON BELL FS-901 50C PF. NGC Variety Plus, 2019, https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plu...ranklin-half-dollars-1948-1963/820299/?page=1, retrieved Dec. 4, 2019 (emphasis added).

5. Id. (emphasis added).

6. See, supra, post 54.

 

Partially disagree, not an error as it would repeat on every coin. Since it is a feature of that specific die, I think it could be considered a variety, but I agree not worth of added value unless you can get a large group of people who all want to collect all the die varieties of Roosevelt dimes .

 

One thing for those confused by lint marks

And for those seeking "expert" opinion, here's NGC's research director's take on the "Superbird" from 2004:

"The "Superbird" variety is the result of a lint impression. The proof dies were periodically wiped with a soft cloth to clean them, and small pieces of lint sometimes remained on the die face. These caused an impression on the coins struck from these dies. In this instance, the piece of lint settled on the die in the shape of a letter 'S' and transferred this figure to the coins struck from it.

NGC has been certifying this Cherrypicker variety for several months, and you'll find more than 40 examples in our Census." n.1

I disagree with Mr. Lange over his explanation of how the mark on the coin is created. The "lint" (or whatever) is PART of the die, not ON the die. Please note that whether it was created during the die making process or forced onto the die during strikes is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The issue is whether the 1966 SMS "5" and Superbird "S" were created from pieces of lint (or some other object) raised on a coin or from something that became part of the design of the die (creating a depression on the die).

Please correct me if I am wrong. Here's a logical flow through:

(1) The lint remains on the die.
(2) The lint would are a raised figure on the die
(3) Raised figures on a die create incuse impressions on a coin. n.2
(4) The Superbird "S" and the 1966 SMS "5" are in relief
(5) An incuse die depression must have formed the "S" and "5" on the coins
(6) The lint could not have settled on the die because it is raised
(7) The lint (or other object) must be part of the die. n.3

Notes

1. Lange, D.W., Director of Research. What is the superbird quarter? information please. NGC Forums: US, World, and Ancient Coins, Sept. 16, 2004, https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/topic/29508-what-is-the-superbird-quarter-information-please/.
2. Contra, e.g., Wexler, J. Doubled Dies. Wexler's Die Varieties, n.d., https://doubleddie.com/58222.html, retrieved Dec. 4, 2019.
3. See, supra, post 54.

 

Thank you Conder, my son said you helped him greatly with understanding coin concepts (I sent him on here to ask questions and learn; I figured there were many experts on here that could teach him better than I could).

 

Bmmartin, I see a very bright, philosophical mind at hard work here! You are really impressive. You'd be a great help in coin groups on Facebook. For what it's worth, I recommend both Mike Diamond and Ken Potter for the error niche. They're as elite as it gets.