Error Coins Or Simply Poorly Manufactured

Have an idea we might be on the same page. I made up an image of my definition of Error-Variety-other die events:

To me an error should usually be a one of a kind rather than a die event. A variety should start off with coin 1 to the last one with the same issue that caused the coin to be a variety. (RPM RPD, doubled dies, OM, OD, year variety) A lot of things that are saved are just common die events. When they get extreme, I see the interest in these. But just common things to me just pock change. A new collector will find interest in these at first, but after searching you first thousands of coins, then you start to see how common they area. But that is my though.

Something I brought up yesterday in another thread:

The mint may be aware of minor chips, minor cracks, etc. However it may not cause them alarm because the dies are still within mint specifications. The time required to replace a die on the machine, then attempt to correct an issue like a minor chip through polishing is not worth it. The coins produced from the die would look worse after the polishing as well with a loss of detail.

It's the more major misalignment, rotation, breaks, Cuds, etc. that bring a response or action. The coins that require action on the die to be taken before furthering production are the errors in my opinion. (As well as wrong stock, off center, double struck etc. which are 1-off errors that doesn't have to do with correcting the machine)

Where the line is drawn of when to fix a die issue - I don't know, but sometimes you have a pretty good idea when you see major cracks, breaks, Cuds, misalignment and other die/machine issues. Which is probably how it works at the mint too, depending on severity in their eyes do they make a change instead of busting out a ruler and measuring each chip to see if it is spec.

BStrauss3: Legitimate Doubling, not MD

Hmmm, glass bottle errors. A new collecting field.

Your name says it all.

Errors are unique, imperfect products produced erroneously by the mint. That is pretty much the gist of it. Could you provide examples where there is a divide between "errors" and "poorly manufactured idustrial products" when it comes to coins? I would think that they are one and the same.

An interesting discussion. I've spent some years of my work life in various aspects of the print trades, so I know that there are tons of "errors" created; most are destroyed, many are smuggled out of the production facility and sometimes they get sent out as tender by mistake. (You know those die-clash coins didn't get packed into a roll and sent to a bank or merchant).

Will the real error category please stand up?

Is a smuggled coin a cheat-error, then? To some, sure, but to others they're still quite valuable. And what of errors in the BU and Proof coins? Are there different standards?

Of course these days we have not only minting/die errors, but so many NCLT (in particular) have secondary processing such as a variety of colourizing methods, etc.

For example, while this image wasn't taken to highlight the mis-registration of the colourization, it is rather clearly visible, nonetheless:


notes: the colour layer is shifted left ~.2mm and up ~.05mm (guestimating distance) as the entire circle can be seen to be off-centre at the perimeter, but also in the tree lines to the left and right, and also around the observatory...

So this was clearly a QA/QC error. That, or they have a rotten acceptable variation window. If this were a circulation coin, nobody would likely care or notice, I suspect, but at $150/ounce I expected more rigid standards.

Can I find someone to whom said error makes the coin worth more to them than I've paid for it myself? I suppose if I tried hard enough it's possible, but that's not my shtick. I'm strongly considering returning it instead... now that I've seen the issue, it's likely to nag me every time I look at it, lol.