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

Benji,your quote: "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"

.... these are errors by definition but many are just minor and very common with little to no premium while others like the 3 legged are worth quite a bit.


errrrror

Benji - The terms "error" and "valuable" are actually unrelated. That's for one. Two, anything struck as a coin that has anomalies, no matter what the anomaly is, would be collectible by someone as an error, whether it has value or not. I do agree with you that it was not in error that a die wears, cracks, or breaks. That is to be expected. The "error" comes into play when they did not replace the die before these anomalies occurred. in a perfect world, none of our coins would exhibit such problems because we would have the money to make dies consistently and with quality to have enough good pieces to strike flawless coins...so in that note, anything not flawless is an error to some degree, whether minor or major.

Here's something to think about...

A Cud is a major die break where a piece of the die falls off and leaves blank planchet where it fails to strike the coin. It looks like a big hump of extra metal on the outside of the design of a coin. It is agreed to most (possibly including you) that this is an error. The die was broken and should have been replaced, examples pulled out and destroyed, etc. Cuds can and do remove required elements from the coin such as the denomination, parts of legends, etc. They are not "normal" wear and tear.

So I ask, how do Cuds start? I'll tell you...with a simple, tiny die crack. So where is the line between a coin with the Cud as an error and a coin struck by the same die with a Retained Cud (meaning the piece is still there, but there is a rim-to-rim die crack), and a coin struck by the same die with a tiny die crack that seems to be just like any other die crack?

Point is, any "problem" that occurs with the die that could quickly end its life could be classified as a die error, even though 95% are too minor to consider anything more than just a coin. They are not necessarily bought and sold as errors, but at some point there has to be a line between a non-error and an error with progression of the same crack that becomes a missing piece.

For definition purposes alone, my difference is between when the coin exhibits no cracks and when it does.

We agree that most minor die anomalies caused by use are nothing to get bent out of shape over. They have no value, and are very common. What I am discussing here isn't related to value, rather to technical definition...and technical definition only. In that technical definition, cracks and excessive abrasion are errors. Being an error doesn't make it have a market or any value, nor does it make it scarce in any form.

Hi All,

As stated in the other posts, I think we have hit a point of understanding and agreement. This was a great discussion!

The only thing I regret is that it was not face to face! I like it better when a good discussion is in person:-)

Charles, this has truly been a pleasure!

Thank You,
Bill

keeping record of.

To be more clear, some people expect that when you attach the word "error" to a coin that it has to be important and has to carry some form of premium value. This is simply not the case.

I completely agree with you that die age and the minor imperfections that come with them are difficult to define as "errors", as in someone having made a mistake. This, however, is a literal definition of the word "error" - in numismatics the word isn't intended to be taken as literally as you are. I think that's where you're having trouble.

And yet again published information proves my point. Those who study and understand doubled dies (and it is "doubled" with the "d") do not consider them errors. PCGS and the coin community glossary are incorrect.

Okay, so then we differ. I will hold to what I see as fact, and you can do the same.

I never said that die state or deterioration was an error. Die wear is die wear. Die cracks are not die wear. Die cracks can happen at any state in a die's life. Die cracks develop, grow, and eventuate in broken dies, large die breaks, Cuds, and other related problems if the die is not removed from service. In my opinion (and that of others) the error begins at the point the crack develops, but is generally not considered collectible (of value) until the crack causes a more obvious problem.