| Author |
 Replies: 5 / Views: 931 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
A while back a friend asked me, "so why do you call these doubled dies 'die' varieties, not just varieties?" My response to him was one that he completely understood - and he wasn't a coin collector and got it...so I'm sure everyone here will appreciate the analogies herein. Definitions: die variety - Any doubling that occurs in any form on the die at the time the die is made. The doubling transfers to all coins made by that die as a part of the die's design. Not only is this doubling not intended, but is supposed to be caught and removed from production during an individual hand inspection with magnification before the die is placed into service minting coins. Therein lies the reason why it is not only scarce, but valuable in many cases. variety - Any design change that occurs within a single issue of any coin for any year. Varieties are intended by the Mint, but are not made specifically so people would notice them. In fact, many varieties occur without notice until years later when coins are closely examined to be different by collectors. The general public often never notices varieties. Some varieties are naked-eye visible and easy to recognize, others take a lot of time and practice to spot. Usually those that are easy to see and have some rarity with respect to another variety are the valuable ones. Varieties include, but are not limited to, numeral and lettering changes (large date, small date), changes in the size or shape of mintmark punches, removal of devices (such as drapery), or changes in the size or shape of the overall design to accomodate easier striking of coins or to lengthen die life. While die varieties are pretty easy to separate from the crowd (because they always involve doubling in the design in some form), varieties tend to get mixed up with other things because so many people use terms improperly or interchange them at will. Two things that get mixed up frequently are where varieties are called "types" and errors are called varieties. Two examples... 1981S proof coins come with two different letter styles for the mintmark. These are varieties, but they are very frequently called (and published as so) "types"...type 1 and type 2, filled S and clear S. Well, folks, "types" are major changes in design, hence the "type set". Eisenhower dollars are one type and Susan B. Anthony dollars are another type. Mintmarks don't have types, they have varieties. The 1937D 3-legged buffalo is a die error - overpolishing of the design led to the missing leg, not a design change. If it were an intended design change, it would be a variety. Simple as it sounds, people still do and always will call it a variety, and although incorrect, I for one don't bother correcting them because I have better things to do that get into a 30 minute discussion as to what a variety is and that these coins are die errors. So...in short form, there we have it. A number of terms, all different, all defining completely different things, but the proliferate misuse by collectors, dealers, grading services, and published books and guides makes educating people as to why these are all different very difficult. Die variety and variety are both defined above. Now for the others... type - major elemental design change intended to be seen by the public. The change in 1916 from Barber half dollars to Walking Liberty half dollars is a type change. People correctly use the word "series" synonymously with "type". die error - A flaw that occurs on a die (usually a completely normal die) during the minting of coins that forever changes the appearance of the die, thus changing the coins it mints. Examples include die cracks, die breaks and chips, clashes, overpolishing (usually to remove clashes), and other forms of die damage. |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3507 Posts |
QUOTED FROM ABOVE "The 1937D 3-legged buffalo is a die error - overpolishing of the design led to the missing leg, not a design change. If it were an intended design change, it would be a variety. Simple as it sounds, people still do and always will call it a variety, and although incorrect, I for one don't bother correcting them because I have better things to do that get into a 30 minute discussion as to what a variety is and that these coins are die errors." MY THOUGHT: Here then is where the argument seems to fall short. By this logic, since the 1972 Doubled Die was not intended as a design change and was an error with the die, it would have to be a die error by your own definition and not a variety yet we both know the 72 DDO pieces are varieties. The same would hold for the 1935 DDR Buffalo nickel variety. The 1937 D 3-legged buffalo is an anomaly with one die and as such can be attributed to that die since it can be matched identically to virtually every other 1937 D 3-legged Buffalo nickel. I have to respectfully submit that the hobby has changed and the definitions need to have a little room for wiggle. Thanks, Bill |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7629 Posts |
The 1972 doubled die is not a design change. It is doubling of a single design on a die which is transferred to all coins it mints and was created at the time the die was made. This is a die variety, not a die error or a variety.
Yes the 1937D 3-legged Buffalo is attributed to a single die, but this die may not have had the missing leg when it was hung on the press. It could have been a completely normal reverse die when it started minting nickels. Because a doubled die is definitely doubled BEFORE it is hung on the press, therein lies the difference. Yes, the 37D 3-leg is one die, and all can be attributed to that one die...but what about the normal coins the die probably struck before the leg was polished off?
I'm not on a crusade to change the way people think. I'm stating facts and giving definitions of clear terms and letting people judge for themselves what they want to do about changing their vocabulary. If you don't want to change and call the 37D 3-leg Buffalo a die error, that's fine - but it doesn't change the hard fact that's what it is. There needs to be separation between 1960 small date Lincolns, a brockage quarter, and the 3-legged buffalo. These were all created by completely separate things and are not the same. Show up at a Ford Mustang rally and car show with a Pontiac GTO and see if you're welcome....well, they're BOTH cars!
The only way the hobby has really changed is that people (including authors and those in authoritative positions) don't understand the definitions of the terms and proliferate the incorrect education of collectors, which begats intermediate and advanced collectors who still use the incorrect terms to define what they collect. If education were the key in collecting (not money and profit) we wouldn't have this problem, and numismatic authors would stop using incorrect terms thus muddying the waters.
These four terms have distinct and very clear meanings; die variety, variety, error, and type. None of these four mean the other, and the terms are not intended to be interchanged. Everything falls clearly under one of these definitions that all have something to do with some part of the minting process - whether it be the decisions the mint makes to alter or change design elements, or whether it be in the die making process, planchet making process, or striking process. A full understanding of the minting process may be necessary to vividly separate the terms and what they should be used for, but I guarantee they clearly define completely separate things.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3507 Posts |
I agree with all this with only one exception. As they do it on the Show, jeopardy, I'll phrase this in the form of a question. Please understand that I agree with everything as stated above but: What if the die for the 1937 D 3-legged Buff. was damaged before it was ever hung and the overpolishing occurred before the die was ever used? Then the die was mounted, never producing a "normal" coin. The suggestion is that to fit the definition, of "die error" and not "die variety" the die would have to be hung as a normal die first. We don't know that to be the case. This would go back to the standard question that always seems to get things muddied up: If it was hypothetically the case that the 37 D 3-legged nickel was minted with a fresh die, overpolished before it's initial use, we would consider it a defective die or a "die error". If that scenario is possible, it would have to be said that the die for a 1972 DDO cent would be a defective die and hence a "die error" although the result of the human errors involved were different. How do we square up, the 1937 D nickel as a die error" and the 1972 DDO as a "die variety". Doubling on a die is not a prerequisite that I've ever heard of that is the only way to distinguish a coin as a "die variety". This is the definition of a die variety that I ascribe to: A die variety is any variation in the normal design of a given coin, usually caused by errors in the preparation or maintenance of the coin dies. My thoughts are that the nickel and the cent are either both "die varieties" or both "die errors". I just don't see the distinction especially since we dont know if the nickel die was a fresh die when it was mounted. Thanks, Bill |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
A die variety has to do with either the hubbing process or hand punching devices into the die, whether it be date digits or a mintmark. When it has to do with the hubbing process it involves doubling of the devices because the die was placed into the hubbing press incorrectly. The 1972 DDO is a case of exactly this....as are all doubled dies. The 1937D 3-legged buffalo is the result of an abraded die, most likely due to hand-overpolishing. The design on the die was completely normal at the time the die was made. There is no doubling on this particular die, hence it is not a die variety. The supposition that the die HAD to have struck normal coins before being polished was a miscommunication, either in the way I presented it or in the way you read it. I never said the 3-legged buffalo die HAD to have struck normal coins FIRST, although it is likely to the tune of 99% surety. Reason? Polishing is done to remove clash marks and other problems (like struck through marks and surface cracks). All of these develop DURING the striking process, which means any die with these problems had to have been striking coins before the problem surfaced. The main difference here is that the 3-legged die WAS normal when it left the die shop and the 1972 DDO was not. All dies are supposed to be hand inspected under magnification when they are approved for striking, and obviously the 1972 DDO was missed. The 3-legged buffalo die was probably completely normal at the time it was placed into use, thus passed inspection as expected. There are a NUMBER of cases where small parts of the features on coins are missing due to die overpolishing. The practice is very common, as are coins exhibiting overpolishing. It was just this ONE die that made the market and became valuable for what it is. I have seen thousands of coins with missing features that are considered worthless even though they were caused by the exact same effect as the nickel. Why the difference in interest and value? Marketing, misunderstanding of the minting process, greed, and a number of people who didn't know that the mint didn't simply forget to engrave the leg into the design...we all know at this point that this is not the case, but the market remains. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3507 Posts |
There you go! That brings me to a point of clarity! As you put it: A die variety has to do with either the hubbing process or hand punching devices into the die, whether it be date digits or a mintmark. When it has to do with the hubbing process it involves doubling of the devices because the die was placed into the hubbing press incorrectly. The 1972 DDO is a case of exactly this....as are all doubled dies. The 1937D 3-legged buffalo is the result of an abraded die, most likely due to hand-overpolishing. The design on the die was completely normal at the time the die was made. There is no doubling on this particular die, hence it is not a die variety. I respond: That is a perfect explanation! The light just went on:-) I knew we would get there. Thank you Sir, Bill |
| |
Replies: 5 / Views: 931 |
|
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
|
| Coin Community Forum |
© 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums |
| It took 0.36 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|
Posted 08/16/2007 11:42 am
