How Do You Differentiate A Variety From An Error?

While I appreciate the credit for the terms and their definitions, I do not deserve it. I am only following the glossary of 30 years of education by people like Alan Herbert, John Wexler, Ken Potter, and others who used to agree on all these terms. Time and a very stubborn public have muddied the waters a little with these definitions, but persistence should prevail here.

What is certain - 100% certain - is that each term has but one definition and one purpose. If they had always been used for that one thing across the board we wouldn't be having this discussion because the difference between a type and a variety would be very obvious to anyone who had ever cracked the cover of a numismatic book.

Unfortunately BECAUSE the majority of those who collect don't also bother to educate themselves, a number of the 'experts' have just given up. Potter now uses die variety and error interchangeably in his articles (even though he knows better). When I asked him about this he said that definitions have to change to meet the language used, and since most people cannot seem to grasp the difference, we might as well call them the same thing.

I personally could not disagree more. Just because I don't know the scientific names for all the bones in my body doesn't mean we should change the medical dictionary. If I need to know them for any reason it's MY job to learn them! I get so SICK of having to dummy everything down to include the weakest link...let the weakest link fail, and those who are interested in knowing something will learn! The biggest problem at this point is to get all the teachers on the same page!

Did you know you can copy images along with the messages when they are on the forum and put them into a workd file? Just limit how much area you copy at a time. The images take longer to paste and sometimes end up in a strange location. The good thing is that you can print both together. The bad news is that you can't open them into a phto editing program. I thought I would mention this David. You can save the images with a right click if they are not copy gard protected.

^I agree with Scoob. And "semantics" are important...if you really want to communicate effectively.

Chuck,hate to ask you to, but can you clarify the WAM's ? Are they errors,design errors, or mules ?Your explanation above kind of muddied it for me.

Maineman - To start, a die variety has doubling or some design defect. Wide AMs do not have a design defect, the design is perfectly normal. The 'variety' in the mix here is a design style that was not supposed to be used on that year's coins. Since it was not supposed to be used that year, the best descriptor for what happened is an error. Dime obverses are not supposed to be used with cent reverses...this is called a mule. The only difference between the dime/cent mix-up and the obverse/reverse deisng mix-up is that on the "AM" coins the mix-up is with the same denomination, and that's all. Both are still mules, which is an error.

Scooby - Die errors are catalogable by die since the error is on the die. One Cud is identifiable to another Cud by its characteristics, and both can be described using a single die "number" - same thing goes with any smaller imperfection on the die such as die chips and die cracks, but for the most part these are too minor and too common to warrant the work to catalog them. Back in 1967 an author by the name of Jean Cohen published a large catalog of the die chips and imperfections of the Lincoln Cent hoping to create a market in them...it didn't work. In 1972 a club for Lincoln Cent "BIE" die errors published another book trying to chronicle all the different BIE errors. Interest in the club waned over time and the system was dropped, but the book is still out there.

Point here being - anyone who really wanted to could catalog die errors - but since there is very little market interest in them, the effort would be in vain for a vast majority of collectors, and it would be a TON of work.

The only past exception to this would be Cud errors, since they are very scarce and do command quite a premium. There is a national club for Cud collectors and there is a die identification system in place.

A new effort is being made to catalog all the misaligned die clashes and other die clashes. The jury is still out on whether this effort will reach enough collectors to really create much of a market for such errors, but misaligned die clashes, multiple clashes, and other die clashes are ALL die errors...they developed on the die at some point after the die was placed into service, and all the coins minted by that die show the error up to the point that it was either fixed through polishing or until the die was retired.

If there was a Type of coin where one of its standard Varieties was minted using a unique Die Variety and it also happened to have an error during minting, does the coin spontaneously melt?


EDIT: I missed that coppercoins had one of these. From his post the coin did not appear to spontaneously melt.

Chuck,so if I have all of this straight,the 1996 D LMC with lathe marks(I think I got the date right,it was off the top of my head)would be a die variety,even though it was not intended to be there. Is that correct?

This brings be to question " die trails "

people have made claim that die trails " are progressive " and the process happens during minting BUT alters the die ....

Being the DIE is altered by the mint process itself ?

What would a die trail be ....

a die error ? happens during minting....

BUT someone also wrote die trails can be caused by the single squeeze hubbing process? is this correct?

If so a die trail can be a " die error " or even a " die variety" ?