Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ajm229, post: 65174, member: 3350&quot;]Certainly, missing design elements, spelling mistakes, etc. are errors, there&#039;s not too much getting around that, but why wouldn&#039;t you consider die breaks, cuds, major die cracks, machine doubling, etc. to be errors on the part of the mint - mistakes, if you will? Certainly the mint has erred in releasing such coins with clear problems. It&#039;s been suggested that perhaps the &#039;55 doubled die cent should be termed a variety because the mint was aware of it and purposely released it into circulation because of a shortage of coins - but I would deem it an error by my definition because the mint chose to ignore it, thus allowing a coin with a major design flaw to be released. </p><p><br /></p><p>I guess you could say that if it leaves the mint with any design flaw, it should be deemed an error. Perhaps not a very collectable error, and perhaps even an &quot;ugly&quot; error, but an error nonetheless.</p><p><br /></p><p>~AJ[/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