Can Someone Explain When An Error Becomes A Varierty?

Let me illustrate the distinction between lower-order classifications (like "doubled die") and higher-order classifications (like "die variety").

In zoology, there used to be confusion about whether the giant panda was a member of the bear family or a member of the racoon family. These are higher-order classifications. But that debate didn't interfere with scientists recognizing it as a distinct genus and species (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). That's a lower-order classification. As long as you understand the lower-order classification of a flawed coin, that's really all that's important.

By the way, the giant panda is a bear.

I don't know if the Wisconsin "extra leaf" quarters are intentional or not. No one does. But the 1944-D half dollar with re-engraved designer's initials is intentional. We can't call it a die error, because it's not accidental damage. We can't use the most restrictive definition of "die variety", since the initials were not present at installation. In the end, it is what it is. If I had to choose an umbrella category, I'd call it a die variety. As far as I know, all retouching has been traditionally filed away under the die variety rubric.

While we are on the subject of misconceptions concerning what is and what is not, let us take a look at trail dies. I know, I can almost hear a collective groan about this subject.

I started work on this type anomaly over 4 years ago and at that time, I believed that they were doubled dies, for they were supposedly the fluting lines in the columns doubled into the Memorial building stairs. A lot has changed since that time and my concept of this anomaly has changed with the growing information that has been made available.

The first misconception is the term fluting line. The fluting in the column is the actual grooves in that column, so in reality, this can not be doubled since it appears as negative space on the hub face (raised on the die). Yes, the whole column, along with the fluting can be doubled, however, the fluting by itself can not be.

The second misconception. Trail lines and wavy steps or two of the same type anomaly but are dis-similar in their nature. The only difference in the two so named anomalies is their relative position on the die. Wavy steps are in fact trail lines that run through the Memorial building steps and that is the only difference. More than a few (actually upwards of 20 or so dies) dies show both wavy steps and trails with the exact same direction of movement. If it were one or two dies, even five maybe, I would question the validity of them being the same, however, with such a large number, there can be no question that they are one in the same thing.

The third misconception. Trails (wavy steps) are a doubled die. Interestingly enough it was Chuck Daughtrey that pointed out that in order for a die to be called a doubled die, it had to have a design element doubled. Since there is not a design element that is doubled on these anomalies, it is not a doubled die. I think it would be a bit impossible to have fluting lines appear on the obverse die!! So, what do we call these lines that are seen on trail dies. I have settled on what is happening in the formation of these lines, a dragging affect of the part of the design or a continuation or extension. Thus the name "design extension"

The last misconception. Trail dies are at best a minor anomaly and are not important enough to be collected, classified or even fooled around with. Okay, lets look at the numbers; presently I have over 650 individual dies filed and in 3 years from now, I predict that number will be over a thousand. About 10% of these dies can be seen with the naked eye with no need of magnification. 20 % of these dies I consider major die anomaly. Trails have been found on every denominational coin except the half dollar coin. Does that sound like a non descriptive anomaly? Not worthy of being collected?

Now the real irksome part. not one grading company will encapsulate this type of anomaly. And why? You can guess it, because the "experts" can not agree what it is. I have a feeling also that it boils down to the fact that the grading companies are ill prepared to do analysis on trail dies nor do they care to, even though it could mean a significant amount of money could be made by that company from encapsulating such coins.

Maybe the name is not important, whether it is a "variety" or an "error" and as Mike Diamond pointed out, it is the understanding of what is happening that is most important. I can agree with that line of thinking, but then, if that is true, why associate dies with these names?

In closing, since the nature of this post is about trail dies, please consider this type of anomaly a new type of "variety die", one that is named "design extension" and not a "doubled die". Thanks

BJ Neff

Hi Seattle,

Your post reminded me of something especially in relation to your section 1.

I would say that a fair number of times in various explanations I would say something like..."a coin struck by a doubled die".

We recognize that the die is doubled and as such the die itself is, in fact a doubled die.

I see the confusion now and what has happened over the years is that the concept of "a coin struck by a doubled die" has , in a sense been abbreviated. We leave the "a coin struck by a" out now, as the concept itself has been abbreviated to the two words, "doubled die" as a way to describe that the coin that was struck by such a die.

In a way, you as well as many other collectors have stepped into the die variety world long after the term "doubled die" to describe the coin has long ago been accepted. It is probably wise to remind ourselves, now and then just where the term came from.

So, yes, the die is a "doubled die" created during the process of the production of a hub or a die.

And..yes, we call coins struck by doubled dies, "doubled dies" as a shorthand for "a coin struck by doubled dies".

We also have drawn the conclusion that since the coin we call a "doubled die" exhibits the characteristics of having been struck by a doubled die (meaning the die itself) that it is understood and implied that the die itself had to be doubled. In that way, describing the coin also describes the die.

So when we say 1955 Doubled Die Obverse, for example to describe the coin, we are at the same time describing the die.

So you are not really challenging years of numismatic thinking. You are hopping on board midstream after the point you are now pondering with respect to terminology was formulated. You are thinking through the logic the way we all did 25 or 30 years ago or so. So for us , by now "doubled die" means the coin. The coin is representative of the die.

I think we have this one figured out now:-)

Thanks,
Bill

Hi Seattle,

You said...

"I want to reinforce the fact that although there may be a street definition of a term and a numismatic definition of it, that for the benefit of the hobby and the understanding of everyone, we should move away from relying on such terms and move to more universally understood ones."

This is a difficult one to do.

A "strike" at the mint can be the actual manufacture of a coin. That would, of course be a numismatic definition.

OR:-)

A "strike" at the Mint could be a bunch of workers outside the facility walking around with picket signs. That's a fair street definition:-)

There will be terms in any hobby, or job , or for that matter just about anything else where terms used in one area of life will mean one thing and yet are accepted definitions for completely different things in a hobby or job.

For a logger, pitch as a noun is tree sap. For a baseball player, the word pitch as a verb means to toss the ball. As a noun it's the ball itself as it is flying through the air. It also means tree sap as they used to put pitch on a baseball bat years ago. OH, OH, baseball uses the word "strike" too. You can see where I'm going:-)

It doesn't seem that changing the terms so that they can't be confused would be the way to go. I think the context in which the words are used should be the key to the definitions. It's up to us not to confuse them.

Thanks,
Bill

Actually the quote by Amazon99 is not completely correct either. It does not take multiple hubbings to create a doubled die. The single squeeze process of hubbing is proof of that.

BJ Neff

So then if we change to the following:

doubled die - gnorkle
repunched mintmarks - gimble
variety - plash
die variety - hurkle
error - quiggle

then we could say:

All gnorkles are hurkles as are all gimbles. It might be possible to have a hurkle on a quiggle or a plash, but certainly not all plashes can be considered hurkles just as not all quiggles have hurkles or plashes. It is possible, however, to have a single coin that's a hurkle, quiggle, and plash, whether it be a gnorkle or a gimble.

I think I'd rather stick to terms that, while can be confusing to those who don't have the education, still make perfect sense to all those who do. For those who cannot make sense of it on their own, they need to have an open mind and go to those who do know for their education. I have never met a true numismatist who wouldn't share their knowledge with others who were genuinely interested in learning.

WHEW! I will have to be more careful about the cans of worms I open! This is great stuff but it made me tired. Really, this was wonerfully informative. Thanks!

p.s.:Don't let your gorkle plash unless you gimble it first...or something like that