Why Aren't They Always All Varieties: Clashes Vs (Cracks, MPDS, RPDS, RPMs

I'm curious to read how readers of different collectible classes will respond to this issue so I placed it in both 'Variety and Error Coins' forums - US Modern and Classic. :

Hi,

In reading multiple blogs and printed literature having both examples shown I seem to have received conflicting views on the value of clashes vs. (cracks, MPDs, RPDs, RPMs etc.) per a numismatic perspective.

On one side of the equation some allege that as soon as a mint punch press tech. had realized in the past a clash beginning, for instance, she/he either typically replaced or polished the affected dies; this same procedure could have been done for the other types of peculiarities .


When attributing SLQs, for example, I have noticed that these coins (i.e.: FS# 25-1929S-401) have a clash as primary justification for a variety. But this is not the case with all clashed coins since a variety number often does not appear to ID it.

Being that a clash or crack in a die, for instance, equally seem to be the result of some correctable process causing a type of deficiency from the norm, why then would not both of these aberrations 'always' be worthy of the designation as a greater valued and lower numbered collectible specimen?

This is the same statement that I placed in the 'Modern' Error and Variety Coins category.