Pardon my ignorance on the matter but it seems to me rather duplicitous to claim, as some gentlemen experts have, that mechanical doubling should be viewed as a form of damage and command little if any premium; yet, on the other hand, interpret off-center strikes as a fine example of collectability and refuse to call it damage at all, or at least, refuse to use the term damage explicitly. When in reality, off-center strikes are the most egregious forms of damage that could possibly occur during the minting process, as they have nothing to do with the die at all. Now, one may argue that mechanical doubling is far more common than off-center strikes. That may be well reasoned, but the experts who write these books should replace the misnomer they have created with a more accurate word.
Interesting point...what term(s) do you feel would be more accurate? I was thinking about this a while back and tried to classify error coins as... 1. Machine Error (machine doubling, off center, grease filled, clips, etc) 2. Human Error (doubled die, strike through, wrong planchet, etc) 3. Die Error (cracks, cuds, deterioration, etc) Question: Would you consider off-center strikes or rotated dies "Human" error or "Machine" error? ...or either?
More to your point...I find that most collectors are either Numismatists, Historians, or Treasure Hunters...or some combination. I'm probably 20%/30%/50%. Most people I run into are Treasure Hunters. Mint altered items of value are call "Errors" while mint altered items of no value are called "Damaged". I recall a time when toned coins were considered "Damaged"...not anymore! Even coins that are clearly Post Mint Damage (PMD) such as Love Tokens or Hobo Nickels aren't called "Damaged" if they are marketable. In such cases, they're just called "Beautiful", "Interesting", or "Historic".
It's interesting that you point that out. The experts call mechanical doubling "damage" and some experts I've read even use the word "worthless" to mean that the coin is worth only face value. I find it hard to believe that mechanical doubling adds no value when you consider the prices on eBay for the simplest of doubling, which the sellers label "errors". Mechanical doubling certainly adds value, according to empirical observation. It would be misguided to label those bidding "ignorant" collectors. I believe they are collecting them knowingly.
@HenryKnox Planchet clip, planchet missing a clad layer, improperly annealed blank, wrong stock blank, sintered blank and adjustment mark are just a few of the mint errors that have nothing to do with the die either. So, maybe they should be declassified as mint errors. Chris
But that would mean that mechanical doubling would now be in the same class with the coveted errors. That would be uncouth to the numismatic elite.
It's interesting that you mention "the simplest of doubling" but you mustn't blame the sellers for those attributions. I've been saying for years that the so-called experts who attribute these errors are responsible for this. Yes, it's ridiculous when they are found acceptable just because they can be identified with a USB scope at 50-200x magnification. I'd much rather see these errors declassified than have machine doubling added to the list of ridiculously acceptable errors. Chris
Coin collectors are an eclectic bunch! Given that coin collectors are mostly treasure hunters, I think it all comes down to whether or not a population can be assigned to the error. In the case of grease filled dies or machine doubling, these are fairly random events and there's really no way to assign a premium to these coins. Knowledge of the minting process makes doubled dies far more interesting and easier to quantify. They provide some insight to what was going on at the Mint at the time...what decisions were being made. Machine doubling is generally the result of a die not being properly secured or too much pressure applied. I'm a big fan of die cracks and clashes. They generally don't carry a premium, either...but I love 'em! Collect what you like and screw everyone else.
It doesn't mean that at all. My point is that not all errors are related to the die. For example, Alan Herbert in his book "Official Price Guide to Mint Errors" separates the minting process into three main categories - the Planchet Division, the Die Division and the Striking Division. Maybe we should add another division to the list - Junk Division. This would be a great category for machine doubling, and I'm sure there would be plenty of bidiots who would buy them. Chris
Out of say - 1 billion coins - how many would be expected to have mechanical doubling? Just trying to get a feel for their rarity, or lack thereof.
@HenryKnox Here is a great website with the different types - http://www.error-ref.com/ That's almost all you need to know Mike Diamond and Fred Weinberg are the editors and are CoinTalk members
Quite a valuable reference! ...thanks. However, I disagree that the Cherrios Dollar was an "accidental" release. It was a promotional release prior to the general release. A design change was implemented after the promotional release, but before the general release. The promotion was no "accident". (Topic for another day)
Just to throw a number out there, five percent maybe? MD can happen any time, any where, on any given strike of any die due to no action at all on the Mint's part. That's why it is deprecated, although I don't consider it "damage."
I think the attribute of "Damage" prescribed to any coin is set by the grading system that is currently in place. How often the term gets used is set by how Common the damage is. If a coin is not MS-70 it has an attribute of some kind of Damage. Which includes a broad spectrum of attributes. Error coins can grade quite high on this scale, and bring in high values. Some people do not look twice at them because they are Damaged.
