Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;JCro57, post: 7786740, member: 92083&quot;]...and here are three other Mint errors that I say - directly and unequivocally - do not really carry a premium and aren&#039;t exciting for error collectors: Die chips, die cracks, and plating blisters. They are in my book and not propped up as something to be considered &quot;valuable&quot; just as I claimed. (Though extreme examples have been sold for a few bucks or less, which I also allude to, but I am in no way endorsing them.)</p><p><br /></p><p>Again, just because our friend in Tampa says they aren&#039;t Mint errors (and please pardon his grace-deficiency syndrome and flamboyant snobbery), that doesn&#039;t just make it so. At least I can prove the process by which these flaws came about during their stages of the minting process, and that&#039;s what makes them &quot;Mint errors.&quot; I don&#039;t dispute they are so common and undesired by error collectors, and I would never want these errors/flaws on high-grade non errors. But our friend in Tampa can&#039;t, won&#039;t, or just doesn&#039;t feel like explaining why he says flaws like weak strikes, split-plating on zinc cents, die cracks/chips, etc. are not Mint errors.</p><p><br /></p><p>I am willing to listen, and I love to learn new things. So please, provide us all the mechanics and numismatic evidence as to why those should not be referred to as Mint errors. But saying &quot;because I said so&quot; attached to knee-jerk insults is not a good teaching strategy. As a 20-year veteran high school history teacher working in a consistently high-performing rural school district, I know good teaching when I see it, and when making a claim it is important to use evidence.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1336520[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1336521[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1336522[/ATTACH][/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