Can Someone Explain When An Error Becomes A Varierty?

Mike - Does it not make sense to have different and precise definitions for all of the various categories of anomolous coins that come out of the mint? I think the well established definitions are very clear and meaningful for what they describe, with nothing left out.

I believe JT (I don't know Ken well) just 'gave up' on trying to press the differences and 'let it ride' with whatever the collectors wanted to call them citing that it wasn't so important what people called them as long as they understood them. I think calling them by their correct terms is a very easy and natural thing once a person knows the differences, so they go hand in hand. It shows a more advanced level of education in numismatics to NOT call a doubled die an "error" and to NOT call a large date a "die variety". Calling them such only brings confusion to them and calls for question as to expertice.

My own opinion is that it is imperative that all numismatists who write for publication learn the terms as they were set out and teach them to all who ask, not to give up on the learning numismatists by simply allowing them to continue to use terms incorrectly.

Red, blue, and yellow are descriptors with which we are all familiar. If I called a rose 'blue' and claimed to be an expert botanist wouldn't that raise question as to whether I really knew my subject? Same thing here.

I respectfully disagree that ANY expert in a subject can meld and interchange defined terms for different things just because those they have not yet taught insist on using the incorrect terms.

Biokemist - A 'die error' is a particular thing too...specific to imperfections that show on a die after it is hung on the press for use. Examples would be clashes, overpolishing, Cuds, large die breaks, etc. You can think of it like this: All dies have minor scratches, flow lines, etc. that wear away with time and use, but a number of dies develop problems that show on all subsequent coins the die mints...therein lies the definition of a die error.

The 1937D 3 legged Buffalo nickel is actually a die error. Die overpolishing.

And to be completely backwards in my response, I will deal with the first part last. The standard set forth by the ANA for grades 40-45 is indeed "EF" or "Extremely Fine"...HOWEVER...PCGS and NGC chose to use their own system for grading and do not follow the ANA standard, thus minute differences in what must show for differing grades, and what flaws can exist in the highest grades. If you study the three standards VERY closely you will find differences. One of the most obvious being the letters assigned to grades 40-45.

Now...with NGC being the official grader of the ANA I would think they should be required to use the ANA standard, however history dictates that if something is set one way (especially in a database), it's best to leave it that way. Imagine changing all the data for all the coins they've graded in 40-45 grades to reflect the "EF" just to suit the ANA standard. I highly doubt they would want to spend the time to do that - even with a simple query. And you will remember that at one time NGC was NOT the official grader for the ANA - hence the first three letters of ANACS and why they continue to use their own standard.

Hi Mike,

You hit another nail on the head:-)

The key is to be able to identify what you are looking at correctly. Amongst the "experts" we tend, as Mike pointed out, to know what the other experts label these coins and it is that understanding that allows us to communicate with each other.

As the level of understanding increases when describing coins with anomalies, the terms used to describe the coins should actually get more complex as a response to that.

Take for example the term doubled die. There was a time when a doubled die was a doubled die was a doubled die, so to speak. Today due to great study by some excellent numismatists, we categorize doubled dies into many categories called Classes. The classes are categories that are based upon the exact nature of what caused the die to have multiple images in the first place. I am not going to attempt to do a book on the different classifications, but they are noted in the Cherrypicker's guide, on Coppercoins.com and on the CONECA website.

More study produced more information and the new information created a need for more specific terminology.

I think the hobby is ready for the next step in the evolution of the terminology that we use.

It may be time for the specificity of some of the things we see as we describe "die varieties" to add some new categories to our terminology.

Notice in my first post, my second paragraph , so to speak, says....Simply put....:-)

Mike is beginning to touch on the complexities of the issue of terminology. The subject is of course, more than simple but we needed a place to start the conversation.

Have Fun,
Bill

Let me illustrate the distinction between lower-order classifications (like "doubled die") and higher-order classifications (like "die variety").

In zoology, there used to be confusion about whether the giant panda was a member of the bear family or a member of the racoon family. These are higher-order classifications. But that debate didn't interfere with scientists recognizing it as a distinct genus and species (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). That's a lower-order classification. As long as you understand the lower-order classification of a flawed coin, that's really all that's important.

By the way, the giant panda is a bear.

I don't know if the Wisconsin "extra leaf" quarters are intentional or not. No one does. But the 1944-D half dollar with re-engraved designer's initials is intentional. We can't call it a die error, because it's not accidental damage. We can't use the most restrictive definition of "die variety", since the initials were not present at installation. In the end, it is what it is. If I had to choose an umbrella category, I'd call it a die variety. As far as I know, all retouching has been traditionally filed away under the die variety rubric.

While we are on the subject of misconceptions concerning what is and what is not, let us take a look at trail dies. I know, I can almost hear a collective groan about this subject.

I started work on this type anomaly over 4 years ago and at that time, I believed that they were doubled dies, for they were supposedly the fluting lines in the columns doubled into the Memorial building stairs. A lot has changed since that time and my concept of this anomaly has changed with the growing information that has been made available.

The first misconception is the term fluting line. The fluting in the column is the actual grooves in that column, so in reality, this can not be doubled since it appears as negative space on the hub face (raised on the die). Yes, the whole column, along with the fluting can be doubled, however, the fluting by itself can not be.

The second misconception. Trail lines and wavy steps or two of the same type anomaly but are dis-similar in their nature. The only difference in the two so named anomalies is their relative position on the die. Wavy steps are in fact trail lines that run through the Memorial building steps and that is the only difference. More than a few (actually upwards of 20 or so dies) dies show both wavy steps and trails with the exact same direction of movement. If it were one or two dies, even five maybe, I would question the validity of them being the same, however, with such a large number, there can be no question that they are one in the same thing.

The third misconception. Trails (wavy steps) are a doubled die. Interestingly enough it was Chuck Daughtrey that pointed out that in order for a die to be called a doubled die, it had to have a design element doubled. Since there is not a design element that is doubled on these anomalies, it is not a doubled die. I think it would be a bit impossible to have fluting lines appear on the obverse die!! So, what do we call these lines that are seen on trail dies. I have settled on what is happening in the formation of these lines, a dragging affect of the part of the design or a continuation or extension. Thus the name "design extension"

The last misconception. Trail dies are at best a minor anomaly and are not important enough to be collected, classified or even fooled around with. Okay, lets look at the numbers; presently I have over 650 individual dies filed and in 3 years from now, I predict that number will be over a thousand. About 10% of these dies can be seen with the naked eye with no need of magnification. 20 % of these dies I consider major die anomaly. Trails have been found on every denominational coin except the half dollar coin. Does that sound like a non descriptive anomaly? Not worthy of being collected?

Now the real irksome part. not one grading company will encapsulate this type of anomaly. And why? You can guess it, because the "experts" can not agree what it is. I have a feeling also that it boils down to the fact that the grading companies are ill prepared to do analysis on trail dies nor do they care to, even though it could mean a significant amount of money could be made by that company from encapsulating such coins.

Maybe the name is not important, whether it is a "variety" or an "error" and as Mike Diamond pointed out, it is the understanding of what is happening that is most important. I can agree with that line of thinking, but then, if that is true, why associate dies with these names?

In closing, since the nature of this post is about trail dies, please consider this type of anomaly a new type of "variety die", one that is named "design extension" and not a "doubled die". Thanks

BJ Neff

Hi Seattle,

Your post reminded me of something especially in relation to your section 1.

I would say that a fair number of times in various explanations I would say something like..."a coin struck by a doubled die".

We recognize that the die is doubled and as such the die itself is, in fact a doubled die.

I see the confusion now and what has happened over the years is that the concept of "a coin struck by a doubled die" has , in a sense been abbreviated. We leave the "a coin struck by a" out now, as the concept itself has been abbreviated to the two words, "doubled die" as a way to describe that the coin that was struck by such a die.

In a way, you as well as many other collectors have stepped into the die variety world long after the term "doubled die" to describe the coin has long ago been accepted. It is probably wise to remind ourselves, now and then just where the term came from.

So, yes, the die is a "doubled die" created during the process of the production of a hub or a die.

And..yes, we call coins struck by doubled dies, "doubled dies" as a shorthand for "a coin struck by doubled dies".

We also have drawn the conclusion that since the coin we call a "doubled die" exhibits the characteristics of having been struck by a doubled die (meaning the die itself) that it is understood and implied that the die itself had to be doubled. In that way, describing the coin also describes the die.

So when we say 1955 Doubled Die Obverse, for example to describe the coin, we are at the same time describing the die.

So you are not really challenging years of numismatic thinking. You are hopping on board midstream after the point you are now pondering with respect to terminology was formulated. You are thinking through the logic the way we all did 25 or 30 years ago or so. So for us , by now "doubled die" means the coin. The coin is representative of the die.

I think we have this one figured out now:-)

Thanks,
Bill