Worth A Topic Of Its Own - Die Error Vs. Die Variety

Thank you, this was very helpful and an interesting read.

08/18/2007 Password for question #4: How many silver halves did I find in my first $850 worth of halves (hint: the answer can be found elsewhere on the site).

Thank you. The information is very helpful.

Hi All,

I think that there might be some questions that arise from this that a little discussion might help.

Overpolishing of dies was listed as an error, yet the overpolishing done to the die that ultimately resulted in the 3-legged buffalo on the 1937-D five-cent pieces resulted in the minting of a nickel that is considered a variety and not an error. It is a variety and not an error because this anomaly can be attributed to the one overpolished reverse die.

To quote from the above definition of variety, "Every coin struck with the die has the anomaly, and they were not intended" that definition is correct which is why overpolishing can result in a variety.

Folks that collect Shield nickels, Half Cents and Large cents often use die polish marks, Cuds, die breaks and other anomalies to attribute their coins and assemble collections based upon die marriages. To those collectors, the various die marriages constitute varieties among their series of choice. Indeed, with Half Cents, the Cohen numbers used to attribute coins are often based upon degrees of die breaks and Cuds that develop.

To again, quote from the above definition of variety, "Every coin struck with the die has the anomaly, and they were not intended" Again, Cuds can be a part of a variety attribution.

The definitions of errors and varieties can sometimes overlap each other but...

Errors are considered mishaps in the mechanical part of the minting process.

Coins struck off center, broadstruck, centered broadstruck, or in a partial collar are errors.

Coins struck through foreign material such as cloth, wire, grease, another coin that got stuck to a hammer die, a planchet that got stuck in a die etc. would be errors.

Coins struck over other coins or that are struck more than once are errors.

Coins struck on incomplete planchets are errors.

Coins struck on a planchet intended for coinage of a different series or another country would be errors.

Combinations of the above if applicable would be errors.

Varieties are not the result of a mechanical mishap during the minting process but as was mentioned earlier can be attributed to specific dies. The problem came along with the creation of a die itself and passes on to every coin struck by that die.

There are many different ways that the images can be double, tripled, or quadrupled on a die and I won't go into all of them now but these are actual anomalies with the dies themselves.

Varieties include those coins that have been struck by doubled dies, tripled dies, quadrupled dies etc.

Coins that have resulted from being struck by dies that have had their mintmarks punched into the dies numerous times resulting in Repunched Mintmarks or Overmintmarks would constitute varieties.

Coins that have resulted from being struck by dies that have had their dates or portions of dates punched over other dates would be varieties.

Dies that have been hubbed by different hubs and then used to mint coins would create coins that are considered varieties.

Not taking die state into consideration, every coin struck by a die that is of a certain variety is identical to other coins of the same variety. Based upon die life or whether or not a die was caught, the numbers of a particular variety coin would be finite. There are only so many of them, hence their value as they are often quite scarce to rare.

By the nature of errors, although some may be the same in type, they are actually each a unique entity unto themselves. Off center struck error coins are fairly common so they are not worth a huge premium but each coin is technically unique.

When we look at a coin that someone thinks is a doubled die and we say it is not is something that comes from years of experience. Charles has that kind of experience, I have that kind of experience and perhaps others on this forum have that experience. We look for very specific things to attribute the coins as a variety. Since each coin exhibits specific characteristics, if in fact they are indeed a variety, we can tell if the coin is a known variety or not.

Take for example the 1972 DDO Lincoln Cent (FS # 1c - 033.3) (The Big One)...on that coin, to verify that one would be authentic, we don't just look at the obverse. The reverse die is so specific that there is a tiny "fingerlike" projection that starts at the rim and runs down to the right just over the D in the word UNITED. This is how specific varieties are.

Errors have some value if they are major.

Varieties have value because they could be rare. Some are not but they are interesting none the less. Not every "doubled die" is worth a fortune.

On modern coins, small anomalies like die chips, die breaks, effects of die gouges, bubbles in plating, are not counted amongst the errors and they are not counted amongst the varieties. They don't really have a value as a collectible.

Coins that exhibit any of the many forms of Mechanical Doubling are NOT collectible. (Keep them if you want to as an example of what not to look for)

Anyway, I hope this adds some information to the mix.

Thanks,
Bill

As I review the posts, I see that if you replaced the term "die variety" everywhere you used "variety" in your statements the whole post for the better part would be in agreement with what I teach people. It's only the fact that die varieties and varieties are completely different from one another that most of the statements made are less than accurate.

One other thing to note...and think about this one...

Die polishing on the 1937D 3-legged buffalo and a die crack on a 1999D Lincoln Cent are categorically exactly the same thing in the following ways:

1. Both likely started out as undamaged, normal dies.
2. Both "developed" problems while striking coins.
3. Both struck a number of examples of their problems after the problem developed.
4. Neither struck coins with the problem before it developed.
5. Neither have anything to do with any doubling.
6. Neither have anything to do with intended design changes, major or minor.

There you have it...die errors. Some very minor and worthless, others go noticed, are neat, and are very collectible. Both, however, are still categorically die errors.

Coppercoins, wow, most people think we collect in the same field. We are quite opposite in fact. I collect only Major Errors that are Usually one-of-a-kind examples. I only have one DDO which is a 1995, and have that only for an example of a double die. I have no RPM's although I am looking for one example. I do not have a 3 legged as they are way too common for the price, and yes over polishing is an error and many if not most consider it a variety.

I do not collect minor die cracks. I do sometimes collect Major die cracks, especially the ones with "eye appeal"

Here is a link to some of the error coins that I collect:

http://www.digitalrailroad.net/ctfr...7595&e=0&p=0

take it easy and thanks for all your info

errrrror

Also when talking about errors, there are two types, say an over polishing, die crack, or gouge that is repeated over and over again on many, many coins.

And then there are the one-of-a-kind errors like, double strikes, indents, brokerages, or a thousand other types of errors.

There are also one-of-a-kind errors like off centers that are quite common on some dates (rare on other dates) and many look the same.


errror

I even managed to get myself confused. My taxonomy above is messed up and You cant edit these posts...

here is what it should have been as an example

Denomination - Cents
Series- Lincoln Cent (All Lincolns, 1909 thru 2007)
Types - Wheat Heads Reverse, Memorial Reverse
Sub Types - Small dates , Large dates
Die Varieties - may occur on Types or Subtypes (Die Varieties being one of the possibilities)

Sorry If I confused the issue with my mistake.

Thanks,
Bill

"Die errors include all the named die cracks you can think of, all the cases of overpolishing that remove features of a coin's design, and anything else that did not start on the die when it was hung on the press, but came about later in the die's life and was repeated to all the coins struck by that die from that time forward."

I would avoid the term die errors and instead use the term Die Deterioration. In the case of polishing or lapping cracks and breaks, no error has a occurred. Imperfections were intended to be removed during this process.