| Author |
 Replies: 22 / Views: 4,216 |
|
Valued Member
United States
213 Posts |
I was asked to start a new thread from where I origanally posted the following below -https://goccf.com/t/85308------------------------------------------------------------- I've always objected the use of the term "Variety" other then as "Die Variety". In the accepted hierarchy below, I change "Variety" to "Minor-Type". That's just me, but I base it on the premise - if the Mint makes a planned change (or inadvertent change, i.e. - large mintmark, or WAM) it is a Type, Sub-Type, or Minor-Type, and if it's a flaw in manufacturing the die it is a Variety (Die Variety). Also, Die Varieties are specific to an individual die, where as Minor-Types (and Sub-Types) are not. =================================================== Type - major design element changes: Liberty nickel, Buffalo nickel, Jefferson nickel, Seated Liberty half dollar, Capped Bust Dime, Washington quarter. Sub-Type - minor design element changes: With arrows, without arrows, with stars, without stars, mound reverse, plains reverse, wheat reverse, memorial reverse. (metal changes also fit into this category, i.e. - silver vs. clad) Variety - minor changes in design not generally intended to be noticed: large date, small date, large mintmark, small mintmark, large letters, small letters, large stars, small stars, Wide AM, Close AM. Varieties do NOT change the sub-type. Die Variety - flaws in die manufacture (usually involve doubling): repunched mintmark, over mintmark, inverted mintmark, doubled die, overdate, repunched date. ======================================================== Type - major design element changes: Liberty nickel, Buffalo nickel, Jefferson nickel, Seated Liberty half dollar, Capped Bust Dime, Washington quarter. Sub-Type - design element changes: With arrows, without arrows, with stars, without stars, mound reverse, plains reverse, wheat reverse, memorial reverse. (metal changes also fit into this category, i.e. - silver vs. clad) Minor-Type - minor changes in design not generally intended to be noticed: large date, small date, large mintmark, small mintmark, large letters, small letters, large stars, small stars, Wide AM, Close AM. Die Variety - flaws in die manufacture (usually involve doubling): repunched mintmark, over mintmark, inverted mintmark, doubled die, overdate, repunched date. ======================================================== This is just what I personally use. I'm not lobbying for any changes to accepted terminology. But, I do hope it makes some logical sence. Also, under the accepted terminology, "Variety" and 'Die Variety" can sometimes be confusing. Many times a collector will simply say "Variety" when referring to a Die Variety. If the term Minor-Type were used there would be no confusion. The Danester
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
601 Posts |
You don't have to lobby for anything Danester. I will happily subscribe. You've tackled an issue sensitive to certain personalities. You'll find yourself defending or ducking for cover more than lobbying!
I like the clarity with which you've stated your point. I don't claim alliances with any school of thought in the hobby, but I'll look forward to knowing more of your informed opinions.
I did notice that you're a new member, but that doesn't make me assume that you're a novice.
Thank you for making me think. Yeah, reading and absorbing your post actually required some thought. I enjoy such posts. Thank You.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4897 Posts |
That was my point Danester. I had no problem with your classifications...other than the wording. I see you added "inadvertant" to your definition. To me that makes a world of difference.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
117 Posts |
coppercoins posted a great primer on this and I will C&P since he hasn't popped in yet and I think it is helpful: Quote:Okay...here goes, but I KNOW I have posted this in and around here a number of times. It's actually VERY simple, and everyone has it wrong to some extent or another. type - A major change in design. I don't think I need say more, except that ANY use of the term "type" other than to describe the " Franklin half dollar type versus the Kennedy half dollar type" or a "major U.S. Type set" are wrong. The term "type" does NOT apply to mintmark styles, doubled die classes, etc. variety - A change that was meant to take place but was not necessarily meant to be noticed. Mintmark styles, date sizes, minor detail changes (re-engraving, etc.), changes in font (1976 dollars), large letters vs. small letters...these are ALL "varieties". The 1979-S proof coins have two "varieties" - 1 and 2. They are NOT "types". die variety - An anomaly on a die that is repeated throughout the die's life - from the first coin struck to the last coin struck. Included are doubled dies, repunched mintmarks, over mintmarks, repunched dates, and over dates. ALL of these were on the die when it entered service, and were on the die when it was retired. error - Subdivided into three classes - Planchet, Die, and Strike. Planchet errors are errors that occurred with the planchets before they entered the coining process. Laminations, although very common, fall under this group. Die errors are problems that occur with the die while it is striking coins. Cuds fall into this group, as do major clashes, overpolishing, etc. They are generally repeated ONLY after they occur. Coins struck BEFORE the die error are normal. Striking errors comprise the vast majority of errors, and happen as the result of the strike. The planchet and die could have been completely normal, but because of a problem at the moment the coin was struck you end up with an error. Double struck, saddle struck, broadstruck, etc. So...examples... 1. A Cud is a die error. It's a break in the die that occurred after the die was hung on the press for use. 2. An unplated planchet is a planchet eror. It was not plated when it entered the process. 3. A doubled die is a die variety. The die had doubling when it was created and ALL coins struck by it show the same doubling. 4. An 1858 large letters F.E. cent is a variety. There is a small letters variety as well. 5. A Close AM 1992 cent is actually an error. It's a mule. An unintended design coupled with another design. 6. A 1937D three-legged Buffalo nickel is a die error. Overpolishing occurred on the die after it started striking coins. 7. The 1942/1 Mercury dimes are actually doubled dies. In order to have an over date, the date would have to have been punched into the die separately from the hubbing process. This is not the case. In fact, ALL 20th century coins with two different dates (unintended) are doubled dies - class 3, design hub doubling, to be exact. 8. A quarter struck on a dime planchet is a striking error. The planchet was normal - just the wrong one. 9. A quarter struck on stock intended for a dime (thinner) is a planchet error. The planchet was flawed before it was struck. If you really follow the rules above, everything can be properly explained and most of the guessing can simply end. If everyone would use the terms above as defined, we could enter an age where everyone understands them, everyone can teach them, and those who learn can enjoy collecting coins UNDERSTANDING the process that made them. Moreover, they can completely and properly understand WHY separate terms are used to describe them.
Edited by ebm
04/15/2011 09:00 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
Oh, I've seen this thread - didn't think it was necessary to respond, but I will since my username has been called out.
I have stated what the accepted numismatic terms are and their definitions. If someone wants to come up with their own definitions, that's their right.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2602 Posts |
No matter which field you are in, it seems to me that nomenclature/use of proper terms is the single most important way to communicating with others in that field. If everyone decides to use their own terminology, the field breaks down because it cannot properly communicate or comprehend what others are saying. If tomorrow, I decide I'm going to start calling eggs "flabberjackets" because I just feel like it, who is going to know what a flabberjacket is? I could post it all over and try to get more and more people on board to use that term, but why confuse things?
The only way to rightly correct terminology, if there happens to be bad terminology in a field, and trust me, there are many examples of this in different fields of knowledge, is that the experts in that field need to come together, sit down and hammer out the terminology problems and disperse the corrected terminology out to a wide audience. Some Joe Schmo that nobody knows and is not a recognized expert should NOT have the right to change current terminology.
You must have terminology/nomenclature in every field of knowledge so that everyone can speak and understand the same language. It's a pain sometimes, but if there is a set terminology in a field and it's widely used, you should conform and use it. If there is bad terminology, petition an expert to try to change it, but once terminology is widely accepted, it's very hard to change- best to get the terminology right early on!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
And I will furthermore state that the terms I use and have defined here a number of times are NOT terms I came up with myself. The earliest use of these terms in publication I can find is 1971, and I barely knew what a coin was in 1971.
These terms were established decades ago by CONE and NECA before their merger into CONECA. I only use them because they are THE accepted terms and they make perfect sense.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4000 Posts |
Well put, mycrob. I agree whole-heartedly. New collectors come here (or anywhere, for that matter) and hear two or three explanations or definitions for a single anomaly. No wonder they (and I) stay confused all the time. If you're not sure which definitions a particular collector, dealer or expert is speaking, how can you possibly communicate what it is you're trying to describe or get an answer to. When you think you have the nomenclature down, someone comes along and corrects you. When you sway to their thinking and post a follow-up, someone else comes along and corrects you. How in the world are we all supposed to get on the same page with that? Quote:
These terms were established decades ago by CONE and NECA before their merger into CONECA. That's all I need to know right there. I say it's a shame we've swayed from this and created so much confusion. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
While there are a couple of examples where the accepted terms do not fit perfectly, I think the same would be the case in any scientific field. Yes, coin collecting to this level is a scientific (forensic) breakdown of what happened at the mint to create what we collect. It's not just result oriented, you have to know how they were made to completely understand them.
While I can see where Danester is coming from with his terminology, I also completely agree with Scooby in the sense that we can't just call it what we want because that's how we want to do things. There are dictionaries and glossaries for a reason - so we share the same language and can be understood.
So Danester classifies ANY design change as a type, then qualifies how much the design changed with an adjective. I guess I can see that, but it has holes all in it. What about mintmark size changes? Are those types too? They aren't die varieties because they are not anomolous and are not collected by individual die. So with this, we would STILL have to have varieties and "minor types"...confusing.
What about the accidental use of proof design hubs on business strike working dies? Those are not intended "minor types", they are mistakes. They were not supposed to be. I personally think they fall under errors more than anything else because using two unintended designs together is a mule - a type of error.
Yeah - a consortium of experts to come together and hammer this out would be the best thing, but I can tell you that likely will not happen, for a number of reasons that I will not get into here. Best we just use the terms as established a while back because they really do take the minting process into account, and they do have their reasons for being what they are, and those reasons have not changed.
What has changed is the vast number of collectors today who want instant gratification in having something they don't understand and don't want to understand...they just care about money and the value of said items. Education is not important to them - valuable coins they can sell are the only important thing. I am not AT ALL pointing this at Danester - quite the contrary, he is a very experienced collector. But I can say the less-education/more-money angle of collecting has definitely lent itself to the lack of general understanding in our minting process and why these terms are what they are.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
213 Posts |
On CopperCoins.com we just had a similar disscussion on numismatic terms. There was a 2004-D Lincoln Cent that we possibly thought had a Die Dent, but turned out to be a trapped gas bubble under the copper plating - see a similar thread here on CoinCommunity. https://goccf.com/t/85920I used the term "Die Variety" to discribe the coin if it had indeed been a Die Dent. Chuck then responded that a Die Dent was not a Die Variety under current accepted terms. Below is my response. ----------------------------------------------------------- Chuck, that's an interesting observation. If this coin had a Die Dent... then it is specific to an individual die - just as a Die Variety. But if you exclude it from the definition of a Die Variety then it must be in with Cuds, Clashes, and Abraded Dies under Errors (see at bottom). But Die Dents, Chips, or Gouges are not mentioned in the definition (maybe as etc.). And then we have the new book -- The Abraded Die Varieties ( Buffalo nickels) by Ron Pope. Where Abraded Dies are called Die Varieties not Errors, and not considered as Errors by Buffalo nickel collectors, but Die Varieties. Perhaps Cuds, Clashes, Abrasions, and Die Dents (Chips and Gouges) should be classified as a Sub Die Variety - i.e. Production Die Variety. Because, they are all specific to an individual die, where an Error is not. Sorry, I can't help myself - it goes back to my days as a Soil and Foundation Engineer, where we had to define and use terms to classify "dirt". Error - Subdivided into three classes - Planchet, Die, and Strike. Planchet errors are errors that occurred with the planchets before they entered the coining process. Laminations, although very common, fall under this group. Die errors are problems that occur with the die while it is striking coins. Cuds fall into this group, as do major clashes, overpolishing, etc. They are generally repeated ONLY after they occur. Coins struck BEFORE the die error are normal. Striking errors comprise the vast majority of errors, and happen as the result of the strike. The planchet and die could have been completely normal, but because of a problem at the moment the coin was struck you end up with an error. Double struck, saddle struck, broadstruck, etc. The Danester |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
601 Posts |
Hey Danester- would you PM me? I wanted to ask you a question having nothing to do with threads, you don't have an email link.
Thank you Sir, -CW.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3507 Posts |
Hi, Those of us who have been in the Error/Die Variety field for awhile understand the use of the word VARIETY. It is also the word used in the " RedBook" for things like Small date and Large date varieties. There is not much point in creating a new word for a definition that has been understood for at least 40 years. As Coppercoins said, you have the right to call it what you want but there is no point in trying to change a well established term just to make it new. Besides, it makes it more confusing...Type, SUB-Type, Minor-Type.... You think it's confusing now, try using TYPE in three different forms in three different definitions. Thanks, Bill |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3507 Posts |
One more point is that some authors who do not understand the terminology will categorize things like abraded dies outside of the accepted usage as a term is used by die variety and error specialists. They too are trying to make a mark on numismatics by doing something different.
To call an abraded die a die variety is not correct. It's as simple as that.
A lot of the terminology problems go way back to a guy named Frank Spadone. He wrote a book filled with coins that exhibited minor die chips, for example that he loved to call die varieties.
A lot of people are still hanging on to old, useless , improper terminology because of that book.
Bill
|
|
Valued Member
United States
213 Posts |
OK, I turned on my e-mail address in my profile - I didn't realize it was off. I want to give some final words on my modifications of accepted Numismatic terms. But, first I want to point out that when I communicate with others, I do try to use the accepted terms -- and that's generally outside of the Buffalo nickel collecting community, because of our many Abraded Die Varieties. In any scientific study, and Numismatics is, alike things are grouped. In our study, the first group is Type (Type, Sub-Type, and Minor-Type) -- these are design changes made by the Mint that are either planned or inadvertent (large mintmark or WAM etc.). And, the key word here is ‘'Design". Then following in accepted order we have the Die Variety Group (Die Variety, Production Die Variety). The definition is very simple - any flaw or accident made to a specific die (including Cuds, Clashes, Abrasions, and Die Dents, Chips, Gouges). And, the key concept here is ‘'Specific to a Die". I have no problem dropping "Production Die Variety" and classifying all as Die Varieties. Then we have our third and final group, the Error Group that we all know is subdivided into three classes - Planchet, Die, and Strike. But, more important is the logical grouping definition of "what they are not" -- Errors are not design changes and they are not specific to a die (now that I moved Cuds, Clashes, Abrasions, and Die Dents, etc., to Die Varieties), in fact they are only specific to the coin itself. In other words they are what is left over from the first two Groups; Type and Die Variety. Finally, if we draw a line called "Specific to a Die", then the Die Variety Group would be on one side, and Type and Error Groups would be on the other side. Die Variety ----------------(Specific to a Die) Type Error This is why I choose to change "Variety" to "Minor Type" under the accepted grouping. This change keeps the word "Variety" from dancing from either side of the "Specific to a Die" Line with two different meanings -- either it is specific to a die or it is not. The word "Variety" used only with "Die Variety" I think is the logical choice. I am sure many of you don't agree with me because it goes against what is accepted. But, from a logical grouping point of view it is very difficult to disagree. In fact, I am confident if we were to give someone schooled in logic all the required information and asked to group, the result would be the same as I suggest. FoundInRolls pointed out that the " RedBook" uses "Variety" for things like Small date and Large date. Yes, that is because variety is used everywhere and anyway without thought. It's like our Buffalo nickel which should correctly be called the Five-Cent Indian Head, but most everyone calls it a " Buffalo nickel", as do I because it is accepted. The Red Book uses a duel name "Indian Head or Buffalo (1913-1938)" And, then we have a Bison on the reverse, not a Buffalo. Yes, "Variety" will always be used dually for a design change and something that is specific to a die. But, for us technically in the know, like the Buffalo nickel we should know the logacally correct definitions and terms over the accepted ones. The Danester |
|
Valued Member
United States
213 Posts |
This is how my two modifications would changed the current accepted Numismatic groupings and definitions. What is now nice -- you only have to ask two question to sort a coin into its proper main Group. Is it a Design change (planned or inadvertent)?Yes, put it in the Type Group. No, ask next question. Is it specific to a certain die?Yes, put it in Die Variety Group No, put it in the Error Group =================================================================== Type - major design element changes: Liberty nickel, Buffalo nickel, Jefferson nickel, Seated Liberty half dollar, Capped Bust Dime, Washington quarter. Sub-Type - design element changes: With arrows, without arrows, with stars, without stars, mound reverse, plains reverse, wheat reverse, memorial reverse. (metal changes also fit into this category, i.e. - silver vs. clad) Minor-Type - minor and inadvertent changes in design not generally intended to be noticed: large date, small date, large mintmark, small mintmark, large letters, small letters, large stars, small stars, Wide AM, Close AM. ===================================================================== Die Variety - flaws in die manufacture (usually involve doubling): repunched mintmark, over mintmark, inverted mintmark, doubled die, overdate, repunched date. Production-Die Variety -- accidents that take place in the die/press setup, or coinage production: Cuds, clashes, abrasions, die dents, die gouges, and die chips, etc. ===================================================================== Error - Subdivided into two classes -- Planchet and Strike. Planchet errors are errors that occurred with the planchets before they entered the coining process. Laminations, although very common, fall under this group. Striking errors comprise the vast majority of errors, and happen as the result of the strike. The planchet and die could have been completely normal, but because of a problem at the moment the coin was struck you end up with an error. Double struck, saddle struck, broadstruck, etc. So...examples... 1. A Cud is a production-die variety. It's a break in the die that occurred after the die was hung on the press for use, and is specific to a certain die. 2. An unplated planchet is a planchet eror. It was not plated when it entered the process. 3. A doubled die is a die variety. The die had doubling when it was created and ALL coins struck by it show the same doubling. 4. An 1858 large letters F.E. cent is a minor-type -- Mint design change. There is a small letters variety as well. 5. A Close AM 1992 cent is actually a minor-type - inadvertent Mint design change. It's a mule - an unintended design coupled with another design. 6. A 1937D three-legged Buffalo nickel is a die variety. Overpolishing occurred on the die after it started striking coins. 7. The 1942/1 Mercury dimes are actually doubled die varieties. In order to have an over date, the date would have to have been punched into the die separately from the hubbing process. This is not the case. In fact, ALL 20th century coins with two different dates (unintended) are doubled dies - class 3, design hub doubling, to be exact. 8. A quarter struck on a dime planchet is a striking error. The planchet was normal - just the wrong one. 9. A quarter struck on stock intended for a dime (thinner) is a planchet error. The planchet was flawed before it was struck. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2737 Posts |
Thanks, Chuck. When I entered the hobby in 1997, the terms "variety" and "die variety" were being used interchangeably. Folks who collect doubled dies and RPM's are commonly referred to as "variety collectors". Apparently the original distinction between these two terms was lost quite some time ago, at least among the vast majority of collectors and "experts". They are just too similar-sounding. As an example, James Wiles' website is called "Variety Vista", not "Die Variety Vista". Nevertheless, whenever I can I will henceforth endeavor to use the term "die variety" in its original sense.
Error coin writer and researcher.
|
| |
Replies: 22 / Views: 4,216 |
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 0.56 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|
Posted 04/15/2011 08:37 am
