How Do You Differentiate A Variety From An Error?

Mike, but I'd think you'd have to start back at square one, now, because you re-created the die, once you re-engraved it. For all intents and purposes, that's a new die, now. Does that make sense?

Well, just to call that re-engraved die something, I think I'd be inclined to call it a new "die type" within the series. I do agree, however, the important thing to focus on is the cause of the defects. Understanding that is the only thing that enables us as collectors to appreciate the defects, really. The terminology, to the degree that has any use, it enables us to group the defects into broad categories of causation. To the degree we can't agree on the definitions of the terminology, however, to the same degree is the terminology useless to us, there.

That's how I see it, Mike; at least, for the time being...

Why should that issue, the timing of the die modification, be of any consequence to your definitions? Whether it happened before or after the die was placed into service, for all intents and purposes, that's a new die, now. Mike appreciates that, he simply believes the distinctions you're drawing, when you get right down to them, are academic. They are, really, to the central issue to collectors, which is, simply, "What happened?" That central issue, in turn, is important, as it relates to our ability to appreciate these events. If we don't understand, we can't appreciate, can we? If we can't appreciate, why do we collect these, in the first place? Do we collect these because some some third-party expert tells us they're a variety, or an error, or a type, or whatever the case may be? That's like collecting grades because some third-party grader tells us they're MS-64, or MS-65, or MS-66, or whatever that case may be. That's like collecting third-party labels, not coins.

Conceive of the new die created as a new "die type" within the series, and your definitions hold, intact. Quite honestly, I like those definitions, and I think I'm going to adopt them. They do tend to group these events along meaningful lines of causation for me. They're unimportant, however, again, to the central issue to collectors of these. To put it more succinctly, perhaps, I don't collect Lincoln RPMs simply because you happen to classify them as "die varieties." I collect them because I'm intellectually competent to understand just what happened, there, and, as such, to that degree, appreciate them. I could care less, in other words, whether you classified them as a "duck." That's secondary to me. So long as I understand what happened, i.e., what I have, that's all that's meaningful to me. The rest is just pedantry. And, I believe that's Mike's point.

Bottom-line, IMHO, let the scholars disagree. Your definitions, again, are the most meaningful to me. At least, as I said, at this point in time. However, let's realize, they're by no means sacrosanct. For example, take the 1955 DDO, which you'd classify as a "die variety." It's a goof-up. There's no way the Mint intended that coin to look that way. It's clearly a "die error," from that perspective, the perspective of intent. It's clearly a mistake, and, a mistake is an "error."

Again, you brought me on board to your way of conceiving of these events. However, notwithstanding that, I'm capable of appreciating how others may just as rationally conceive of same differently, from a different angle. And, let the record reflect, I have no problem with that.

Look, FWIW...

Chuck, I agree with you that clash marks, counterclashes (Type I and II), die dents, die gouges, Cuds, sunken die errors, intentional die abrasion, etc. should not be treated as die varieties. Yet, the VAMers insist that they are die varieties, along with Ken Potter, and a whole host of other characters. They regard ANY die defect as a die variety. There is no way to convince them otherwise, so I see no point in tilting at windmills. It's best that the various camps simply agree to disagree and move on with their respective lives.

If it's any consolation, in my Collector's Clearinghouse columns ( Coin World), I employ terminology in line with what Chuck prefers. Whether it will have a long-term impact, I have my doubts. After all, Ken Potter also has a column, and he uses "die variety" in a very different, far more expansive way.

I second that....but then again, it's almost like hoping for world peace

Mike, IMHO, it's unrealistic to ever expect standardization in this area, as regards the terminology. Take, again, the 1955 LWC DDO. Pure and simple, that's an alignment error, that occurred at the time that die was formed. That alignment error doesn't even rise to the level of dignity of the 1864 IHC "With L" and pointed bust, which, rather, was a conscious, deliberative modification of that cent, by the engraver. And, yet, they're both classified as a "die variety," the way Coppercoins has them. I'd prefer that the latter be classified as a "die type," so as to differentiate that intentional modification from the former, which, again, was rather a simple, unconscious mistake. Yet, even the ANA disagrees with me, there, as they continue to classify it as a "die variety."

The way I see it, from the standpoint of a collector, so long as we're able understand what happened, the preferences in the terminology should be immaterial to us.

Or, to put it another way, so the ANA has it wrong, so what?

Seems simple to me:

Die varieties are planned changes to the die.
Die errors are not planned changes to the die.