Error -Vs- Variety

The problem here is that "subdivision" - as you call it - is necessary if what you describe is different from something else in what it is and how it was created. There is such thing as over-simplification, and that's what's happening with people calling EVERYTHING an "error". They are NOT all "errors" and have a reason to be called different things. There are REALLY only three "subdivisions" of coins that are not the common norm...varieties, die varieties, and errors. It's that simple.

If you want to dig deeply into errors, there are a hundred or more subcategories of errors that are divided into three major groups - planchet errors, die errors, and striking errors.

If you want to dig deeply into die varieties there are roughly three different subdivisions - doubled dies, mintmark varieties, and date varieties.

The term "variety" is used to categorize anything that was an intentional change to the design, or possibly unintended yet still noticeable that makes one group of coins of an issue different from another group of coins of an issue.

Errors include wrong planchet errors, incomplete planchet errors, split planchet errors, wrong stock errors, sintered planchets, broken dies, rotated dies, overpolished dies, broadstrikes, indents, brockages, and a whole host of other striking problems.

Die varieties include doubled die obverse and reverse, tripled, quadrupled, quintupled and so forth...repunched mintmarks, over mintmarks, repunched dates, over dates, and that's about it.

Varieties include small dates, large dates, mintmark styles, small letters, large letters, open 3, closed 3, and any other intended design change that was small and not really meant to be noticed yet were anyway by observant collectors.

A type, like in a type collection, is a major design change in a denomination...like Seated half dollars to Barber half dollars...two types. The word "type" should never be used to describe two different varieties of mintmarks...or a specific doubled die (as I have seen it used time and time again by dealers who don't know any better. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the 1972 cent doubled dies described as "type 1" and "type 2" - this is completely wrong.

Many people subscribe to the idea of a sub-type within a type - something that significantly changed within a given type...like the Lincoln Cent - wheat cents, memorial cents, Lincoln bicentennial cents, and shield cents. Different sub types within Lincoln cents.

What it boils down to is a few simple terms that are easy to separate in one's mind if they take the time to learn and completely understand the minting process and how coins are made. It would also clear up about 90% of the questions asked around here before they were asked. I see all sorts of questions asked about "what if" on a given coin that could never actually happen in the coining process - and if the asker knew the coining process, they would never have to ask the question, because there is a FAR simpler and more plausible answer for what happened to their coin - damage.

Interesting point. In reality (forget the semantics)
If unintentional an "error" was made in the first place
to even make some die varieties. Even if one fully understands the minting process inside and out screw ups happen. A screw up is an error period. The vammers use a hodge podge of both actual die varities and just plain worn out dies. A worn die is not an error just a worn die. The VAM thing needs to be revamped also. I think coppercoins statements make the most common sense and there should be a concensium once and for all amongst the experts. Then the learners will know for sure what is what. Dealers, TPG's etc.
should follow suit. Or actually take the horse and lead. Or just continue to kick the horse until it is dead.

Chuck's viewpoint is a good one, but not the only one, and other specialists have valid points as well. In reality, almost everything we call a "die variety" was actually made in error, so the folks that want to call everything an error have as much ground to stand on as Chuck does. I personally prefer the distinction that if it's on the die, no matter how it got there, it is a die variety. But even this falls apart under close scrutiny. Ultimately, I wouldn't hold out too much hope for consensus.

Responding to the website:

Coppercoins.com was built to deal with die varieties - coins that are cataloged by the individual die that created the coin and have a discernible anomaly on one side or the other (or sometimes both sides, yet unrelated). Wide-AM coins and RDV discrepancies are not generally cataloged by individual die, rather by the existence of the wrong design being used on a particular issue. These, technically, are die errors - mules...not die varieties. The main difference is that if you look ONLY at one side of the coin and completely discount the other side - both sides of the coin are completely normal. No doubling.

Additionally, their lack of inclusion on the website is NO indication that the coins are not collectible or have no value - quite the contrary, actually. It's just that the database was ONLY built to handle die numbers, and you don't assign single die numbers to multiple dies...which would have to be the case to list ALL 1998 wide-AM cents under a single die number. The ONLY way around this with the current database system would be to find ALL different 1998 wide-AM dies and catalog each of the separately, which would be unnecessary over-work. Very few, if any, collectors actually care to collect all the different known dies for each of these issues, so listing all of them would be an exercise in futility.

I need to devise a system with which all known varieties can be listed without specific regard to die markers, the actual dies that created the coins, etc. The system ONLY needs to cover the anomaly and what makes it generally different from a "normal" coin. I do not yet have such a system incorporated into the code for the website, and creating it under the current version of the website would take far more time and trouble than it's worth.

The solution to this problem is to create a new website under a new database and include the possibility for listing 'varieties' separately from 'die varieties.' This is coming, but with life changes over the past few years, and now with a move to Florida just one month past, working on a new version of the website is a future project - not a now project.

Responding to the term "error":

With regard to the semantic issue of die varieties actually being "in error" as they were made...I do not disagree with this in any way. However it MUST be understood that the term "error" is used to define a particular class of oddity, NOT to encompass ALL coins made "in error".

In other words, the term "error" is not to be taken literally as being all coins struck with mistakes. It is to be taken as a particular classification, or subdivision of coins with mistakes, while die varieties are a different subdivision of coins with mistakes.

Basically a confusing term was used to define errors as such in the numismatic world because it has an entirely different meaning in the general English language.

It's a lot like using the term "uncirculated" to mean a coin that has no wear. Literally taken, it would have to mean a coin that has never been in circulation, but in reality this is NOT what the term means. Uncirculated coins abound in circulation as we all know.

It would also be like the numismatic use of the word "proof." In ALL other genres a "proof" is a sample of the exact product that would be produced, made before any others were produced, usually made for the purpose of gaining approval before the remainder of the run was made...like an "artist's proof" print. A couple dozen are made with slightly different settings on the press so the artist can pick which settings look most like the original work.

Proof coins, however, are NOT like the "rest of the run" - which would be the normal business strike coins. They are not made as a "preview" to anything - they are a completely different product. They are not made as a matter of gaining acceptance or approval before a normal run commences. They are simply a marketing gimmick.

In numismatics we have a term that matches what most lay-persons would refer to as "proofs." That term is "patterns". Coins made in sample to show what a normal run WOULD look like if they are approved and accepted.

There are a number of terms, especially in numismatics, whose textbook English definition (if used by general lay-persons) would NOT properly match up to what the numismatic term means, which is why there is a certain amount of confusion among beginners.

In order to jump over the hump of misunderstanding in your numismatic education you HAVE to learn that there are many terms that you CANNOT match to your common Webster definitions. You HAVE to learn the numismatic definition for the words - and the word "error" is properly (numismatically) defined elsewhere in this thread.

So..."uncirculated" does NOT mean any coin that has never seen circulation...

a proof is NOT a pre-production sample of a product...

and..."error" does NOT mean any coin that exhibits abnormal features.

Long story short (summary):

Any "expert" who disagrees with what is in this post has either never really understood that the term 'error' is specific to a specific class of mistakes, or has simply given up on that fact. They are NOT correct, however, in calling doubled dies 'errors' any more than it would be correct for a seasoned dealer to tell a new collector that the only way to obtain 'uncirculated' coins would be to buy a mint set because ALL coins obtained at the bank are technically 'circulated.'

It is my vision to have every type of die variety expanded much like they are now, but also to have a fully expanded "variety" search. Additionally, a full guide of each date will be available - within those dates, all the anomalies known for that date would be explained, whether 'variety', 'die error', or 'die variety'. At present, ONLY die varieties are explored.

I'd love to see a proposal for a categorization scheme. I've thought about it and I see problems with every method I could come up with.

There's one statement in Chuck's explanation, first paragraph, that I can't agree with:

"These, technically, are die errors - mules...not die varieties"

These are NOT die errors, since nothing is wrong with the dies. Pairings like these could even be intentional, in which case they would be a Type. Not being an error specialist, I am not sure what the preferred nomenclature is and don't want to ruffle feathers on that side of the aisle.

Thank you for all of your help. I just started out and this thread is so wonderful.