Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by Randy Abercrombie, Jul 16, 2019.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
I think the proper term would be "money grabbing attempt"
I don't know if that's a can of worms anyone wants to see opened! I never really did get in to the mint errors. My late wife did big time and I took a mild interest when she was still with me, but never did a whole bunch of studying on the subject. Will be interested to see what @paddyman98 has to say on this.
I don't disagree at all. Being a businessman, my mind tends to think like a businessman. "How can I maximize profit and create market interest". And considering the hobby has a huge interest in mint errors I just wonder if something like this could be any more interesting than any of the mundane offerings the mint has pushed on us in recent years.
To be technical, the 1955 doubled die Cent is not a mint error; it’s a die variety. Error collectors have corrected me about this misconception in the past
I remember buying a couple of the 2008 CONECA 25th Anniversary Sets which included a pair of intentional errors. One of the medals was struck in silver.
When I decided to list one of the sets on eBay, it sold for $10. Nope! I don't think intentional errors are in too much demand.
It wouldn't immediately raise mint revenue, but would give collectors a reason again to order directly from the mint for a chance to receive one.
Im sure it will and people will monetize the market for error coins and there would be a fool that will fall for it.
If I were into errors, I am sure I would be kicking myself the rest of my life over a coin I saw for sale about 40 years ago. It was just like the OP pic, except it ALSO was an offcenter error. So, it might be the only 55 DD that is truly also a mint error. It was too much for me back then anyway, but I always remembered that coin.
I agree 100%, so would many others.
But then that's an argument among the so called experts that has gone on for decades. And it's not just about that specific coin, the argument is about how one defines an error, and a variety. There is not and never has been any agreement or consensus on that.
I've never really understood the argument myself as the difference between the two seems quite clear and self-evident to me. Errors can only occur with individual coins, while varieties can only occur with entire groups of coins all struck by a specific die.
But, the argument rages on and I suspect always will. The reason of course is it's what certain people "want" to call the coins - it's really nothing more than that.
Yeah, but who's Coneca ?
Actually.. World's most recognized Variety!
From my collection -
The white streaks were supposed to be buildings and the entire stamp had a yellow background. This created an error. Once word of this got out a frenzy was created. In order to control the situation the Postal Service deliberately printed tens of millions of this thing up with the white streaks. This was done intentionally, thereby making the original error worthless.
The only way to prove you had an original error was to have it canceled with the postmark. To this date all of the stamps are considered intentional errors and are only worth the value printed on the stamp.
Well it might be a nice idea to have the US Mint mint an intentional error on a coin it would render the coin at face value only. The Postal Service, the US Mint in the BEP do not like to be associated with errors. They are all parts of the government and as we all know the government does not make mistakes, intentional or otherwise.
Meow is thinking Dag Hammarskjold?
Separate names with a comma.