Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;rick, post: 64478, member: 1235&quot;]I think this is a problem between word definition and numismatic jargen.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If you ask someone to define the word &#039;error&#039;, such things will come up as &#039;mistake&#039;, &#039;imperfection&#039;, etc. Now, I think you can throw out the associated term of &#039;imperfection&#039;, because that only qualifies as an error if your intention was to be flawless - in such case, a die crack would qualify because it contains a flaw.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; edited to add:&nbsp; <span style="color: red">Sorry, Huntsman, I didn&#039;t mean this post to contradict your post - I didn&#039;t read it until after.&nbsp; But I don&#039;t, personally, think that imperfection qualifies as an &#039;error&#039;.</span></p><p>Now, maybe the problem is understanding what qualifies as a mistake in the minting process. A Die will crack as they strike x amount of coins, the mint knows this, and will continue to use a slightly worn die (most likely for cost reasons) - so it doesn&#039;t qualify - because it is not a mistake.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>That doesn&#039;t mean they aren&#039;t collectable - anything is collectable, if you can find someone that is interested in it. That also doesn&#039;t mean they won&#039;t carry a premium. If people are willing to pay more for a cracked die, because it is somehow seperated from a flawless example, then the market will carry a premium on examples struck with a cracked die.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in