WOW just won two of these

[errorist]

Is it a Variety or an error? We may never know since the opinions on such coins are so wide.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=524&item=3930510453&rd=1

 

 

[airplanenut]

Looks like nothing more than a die crack to me.

[errorist]

A die crack of course but is it a variety or an error ?

[kryptonitecomics]

Variety.......not an error. I have hundreds of coins that have die cracks, Morgan Silver Dollars, Indian Head penny's.....even Condor tokens and they are not errors, but rather varieties.

[errorist]

I agree with you. So why don't such die crack varieties get names nowadays in the books? Or do they?

[kryptonitecomics]

I know on Morgans a lot of them end up with VAM #'s, but on other series they go almost completely unnoticed...................the market is fickle so I guess what ever the masses decide....the grading companies and Variety specialist follow???

[errorist]

Are the VAMS listed in the red book?

[Smittys]

With a name like Errorist you'd think you buy a book on how errors are made and the difference between major and minor errors and varitieys

Die cracks have been around since the beginning with the exception of a few hardly ever get noticed except for die charactoristics. Early large cents are indentified as to die stage by die cracks.

Go ahead and collect them if you like you'll have thosands of die cracks to gets everyday because they're that common.

And unfornunatly PMM will never get certified as such with NGC or PCGS

Just my two cends (cents) <---error

Smitty

[kryptonitecomics]

Are the VAMS listed in the red book?

 

Not that I am aware of................ Their are specialized books on the VAM's.

[jtwax-migration]

E-R-R-O-R

[errorist]

Show me all the resons why it is an error, and I'll show you all the resons why it is a variety.

 

come on

[Hoot]

Error.

 

Hoot

[James_OldeTowne]

A die crack is an error, not a variety. However, the presence (or lack of) die cracks in known die-marriages may distinguish die state.

 

I believe this is correct.

 

James

[errorist]

Here are the reasons why they are varieties.

 

 

 

Leading the pack is inquiries on such items as, die cracks, die chips, die scratches, die flow lines, missing or weak designs due to die abrasion, die deterioration doubling, and minor clash marks.

It's interesting that the majority of inquiries refer to these variations as "errors" but the fact is all of these items are inherent to normal die fatigue or the use of dies, occur on most dies (that see a full life) and are not true errors. Some collectors refer to them as varieties (if they're collected as such), while others tend to relegate them to the status of "die markers" (when their primary purpose is as an aid in the identification of another die variety of greater importance on the same coin); still, others loosely refer to some of these variations as errors in spite of an obvious conflict in logic.

In perfectly acceptable coins that fall within the tolerances allowed by the Mints, and are not considered "errors" by the issuing authorities. If the Mints don't consider them errors - how can we?

For the purpose of clarification, an error is due to mishap or a breakdown in the process that falls outside of what is considered normal operation (though it may occur frequently). If all tooling is maintained, is gauged properly and the planchets are of proper specifications, it is normal for planchets to feed into the collar in a centered position and be struck "on center." If any part of the process breaks down, then misstrikes or errors may occur.

 

[HaydenTubbs]

Here are the reasons why they are varieties.

 

 

 

Leading the pack is inquiries on such items as, die cracks, die chips, die scratches, die flow lines, missing or weak designs due to die abrasion, die deterioration doubling, and minor clash marks.

It's interesting that the majority of inquiries refer to these variations as "errors" but the fact is all of these items are inherent to normal die fatigue or the use of dies, occur on most dies (that see a full life) and are not true errors. Some collectors refer to them as varieties (if they're collected as such), while others tend to relegate them to the status of "die markers" (when their primary purpose is as an aid in the identification of another die variety of greater importance on the same coin); still, others loosely refer to some of these variations as errors in spite of an obvious conflict in logic.

In perfectly acceptable coins that fall within the tolerances allowed by the Mints, and are not considered "errors" by the issuing authorities. If the Mints don't consider them errors - how can we?

For the purpose of clarification, an error is due to mishap or a breakdown in the process that falls outside of what is considered normal operation (though it may occur frequently). If all tooling is maintained, is gauged properly and the planchets are of proper specifications, it is normal for planchets to feed into the collar in a centered position and be struck "on center." If any part of the process breaks down, then misstrikes or errors may occur.

 

 

Stop waisting your breath it is an error!

[TomB]

KC, VAMs are a listing of die marriages that apply to all Morgans, analogous to Overton numbers for Capped Bust halves, and while the presence of a die crack might be helpful in identifying a variety, it is not what definitively makes a VAM.

[errorist]

Is there any case where it is so?

[kryptonitecomics]

KC, VAMs are a listing of die marriages that apply to all Morgans, analogous to Overton numbers for Capped Bust halves, and while the presence of a die crack might be helpful in identifying a variety, it is not what definitively makes a VAM.

 

 

Agreed....I was very vague with my answer, thank you for clarifying.

 

 

On the subject of Die cracks.......their is just no way it could be an error....................in my opinion, worn and cracked die are part of the normal minting process.

[errorist]

Exactly, the mint doesn't think so either after all they are the experts here.

[James_OldeTowne]

(((If the Mints don't consider them errors - how can we?)))

 

The Mint is using the term "error" in a different context than what a coin specialist would. To the Mint, and "error" would be using the wrong planchet, or striking without the collar present, or broadstriking a coin. But I think that using a die beyond it's legitimate die life would be an error too (I don't know this to be true).

 

A die-crack was not placed in the die intentionally by a mint worker. Die cracks occur naturally over time as a die gets used, and if they are allowed to deteriorate to a point where they show up on a coin as raised metal, that's a slip-up on the Mint's part - a mint error.

 

If a unique pair of dies is used to strike thousands of coins, the first few perfect, then gradually showing the presence of a die crack as time goes on, that is still the same pair of dies, representing a single die marriage. Now, if halfway through the life of the dies, a mint worker pulls out the reverse die and polishes off one leg of the buffalo, or accidentally effaces the "D" mintmark on the 1922, that's a variety, because whether by intent or not, the die variation was introduced by mint worker intervention. It's still the same die marriage.

 

The three-legged buffalo or 1922-P cent are not new die marriages, since the same pair of dies is being used, but they are a new variety, because the dies were intentionally altered by a mint employee.

 

In short, a die "variety" occurs because a mint worker changes the design on a die part-way through it's legitimate die life. But If the design changes due to normal progression of wear, it is not a variety, it's a die state.

 

James

[errorist]

"If a unique pair of dies is used to strike thousands of coins, the first few perfect, then gradually showing the presence of a die crack as time goes on, that is still the same pair of dies, representing a single die marriage. Now, if halfway through the life of the dies, a mint worker pulls out the reverse die and polishes off one leg of the buffalo, or accidentally effaces the "D" mintmark on the 1922, that's a variety, because whether by intent or not, the die variation was introduced by mint worker intervention. It's still the same die marriage."

 

If they did this in ERROR then it should be an ERROR not a variety. A die gouge will also evolve into somthing different over many sucessive strikes evolving into a different shape over time just as die crack does, there should be no difference between the two, they should both be varieties.Just my opinion of course.

[James_OldeTowne]

Bear in mind though that when the mint worker effaced a leg off the buffalo nickel dies, his intent was in fact to change the die. Yes, I do believe this is a mint error, but it's an error that resulted in a new die variety.

 

A die crack does not evolve as a result of a mint worker's efforts, so that's why for me, it is a mint error, but not a new variety.

 

James

[CarolinaCollector]

I have found this type of die crack with some frequency on 97 -P and 98 -P Kennedy's. I have a BU roll all composed of coins with a long crack from the bottom of the bust to the rim. Some of the cracks are in a slightly different position, but they are all in the same general location.

 

Was there a problem in prepping the dies or running the dies at the Phily mint or were the obverse dies simply overused?

[errorist]

Never can tell when the die is going to break. It could break on the first struck coin as well as the last struck coin. Some dies have broken before they have struck a single coin during the annealing process.