I've Always Objected The Use Of The Term......

Don't have much time to dive into this full-force right now - I have a family wanting me to spend time with them...

A die dent, while very minor and acceptable and not really any sort of error, variety, or die variety, would most easily be calssified as a die error since it is something that happens to the die after it is hung for use. A die variety is known to exist on the die during the creation of the die, thus has to be on the die when it is first hung on the press to make coins.

Die errors include clash marks, overpolishing that removes devices, Cuds, and other irreversible things that "occur" to the die...which is THE difference between die errors and die varieties. Die errors happen to otherwise normal dies. Die varieties are not normal when they are made.

Don't paint it with too broad a brush - just because it is narrowed down to a die does NOT make it a die variety.

I mentioned Ron Pope's new Abraded Die Variety book, and that most Buffalo nickel Collectors consider these as Die Varieties.



Now, consider VAM'ers, they also treat Cuds, Die Cracks, Die Dent, Die Chip etc., as Die Varieties and give them VAM #'s. The one below is 1880-P VAM-1C discovered by George Powell, July 2002. And, maybe better discribe as a Die Dent in this case.



Anything that identifies a specific die (DDO, RPM, Abraded Die, Die Crack, Die Chip, Die Dent etc.) is like DNA or a finger-print and qualifies as a Die Variety (or Production-Die Variety) - it's repeatable every time the Die strikes a planchet.

The Danester

Chuck, all that you say is correct, and it's not that I don't understand the accepted definitions. My contention hear is grouping like things, and a couple new terms that if really thought-out "back when", might have been as I suggest.

If we were to sort a master group {Set} of balls that were painted or not painted, and made of iron or rubber. And, then define the property of bouncing as a key feature, where all rubber balls go into a single group {Sub-set} regardless if they are painted or not. Then we would have two other groups {Sub-sets} - 1.) Painted iron balls, and what's left over 2.) Non-painted iron balls.

In the case of or current accepted numismatic groupings and terms, we have "bouncing balls" mixed up with iron balls. I'm defining the key feature in the group sort as anything that is specific to a certain Die - that's the "bounce" here. After all, that is why we all use our Loupe to look at coins to see the Die "DNA" and "Fingerprints". That's the real rush - it is for me anyway. The rubber balls are then our Die Varieties and Production-Die Varieties.

To continue the analogy, the painted iron balls are the Types (Type, Sub-Type, and Minor-Type), and what's left over, the non-painted iron balls are the Errors (Planchet and Strike).

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, I've studied the die making process... you are quoting the current numismatic scripture, and it's all correct. I am saying the concept of "Specific to a Die" (flaws and accidents) is the key feature - the Die Variety or Production-Die Variety. And, maybe scientifically we can do it better - our groupings and terms.

Also, when I took a tour of the Denver Mint many years ago in the late 1970's, I saw a foreman walk over to a coin hopper and check the on-going production with his Loupe. Dang! That's probably why they pulled the 1916/1916 DDO Buffalo nickel Dies so quickly.

I don't think I can add anymore on the subject. I'll let others give their opinion. I hope this at least encourages everyone to put on their numismatic thinking caps.

If you agree with me, I'm pretty sure we will be like those whose said birds were dinosaurs early on.

The Danester

Coop, well your post was a real "buzz-kill". No replys in the last 11-Days - you really know how to kill a thread. lol

Here is something I think we all can agree on is wrong. I found this quote on the pcgs web site -
http://www.pcgs.com/articles/articl...d=313&type=1

"Bruce Amspacher - September 10, 1999"

"Mint errors. The term encompasses a wide range, and is frequently misused to describe coins that aren't really errors at all, but varieties that were intentionally made. For instance, the 1942/1 Mercury dime is a die variety, but not a mint error as there is no error involved: it was deliberately created. The 1955/55 Doubled Die Lincoln Cent, in contrast, was minted by accident and fully qualifies as a true mint error. There are some coins that stretch the boundaries of mint errordom (to coin a word)......."

This writer used another definition to separate errors from die varieties. He says die varieties are intentional, while errors are accidents. He then goes on to give examples with questionable statements of what is intentional and what is an accident.

The Danester