Variety Collectors, Which of These Coins Would You Prefer? -- Updated

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

Assuming you agreed with the grade on the slab and were interested in the Roosevelt dime and the variety, which of these two coins would you prefer to have in your collection? The MS 63 with the variety in MDS, or the MS 64 with the variety in LDS?

 

 

Both of these dimes have CONECA DDR-003. And as you can see both coins have very similar eye-appeal. I can't seem to get a good shot of the DDR on either coin, otherwise I'd post of photo of them.

 

But, in general, would you rather have a coin with variety in an earlier die state and in a lower grade, or one in a later die state and in a higher grade? Specific to the coins above, would one grade point higher be more important to you than two die states higher?

 

And FWIW, both coins are already in my collection. So I'm not trying to decide which one to buy. I submitted them both to ANACS at the same time.

[physics-fan3.14]

Well, one of those says DDR-3, and one says DDR-5.... those aren't the same thing. I don't collect minor varieties, so I'd sell both of them and buy something more significant.... but that's me.

 

When talking about varieties, in general the early die state is almost always considered more desirable. The crisp details of an earlier die state make it easier to see varieties - and especially with less significant doubled dies, the doubling may disappear or be harder to see on a late die state. If we're talking about an EF vs an MS-64, then I'd take a late state 64. However, when you're talking about a 63 vs 64, the single point grade difference is practically insignificant (especially when you're talking about the highly-inconsistent ANACS, where either coin could be off by a point or two in either direction).

[cpm9ball]

The difference between Die #3 and Die #5 is not the same as the differences between EDS, MDS & LDS.

 

Personally, I would rather have an EDS of any of the Dies #1, #2, #3, #4 or #5.

 

Chris

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

Well, one of those says DDR-3, and one says DDR-5.... those aren't the same thing.

 

Nah, they are both CONECA DDR-003. When I submitted them, I didn't specify that I wanted the CONECA listing numbers on the slab. But I am sure they're both CONECA DDR-003 because I bought both coins raw from James Wiles. Also, although I can't seem to get photos of it, both coins have doubling on ES of STATES, the right dot, and other places that CONECA DDR-005 doesn't have doubling.

 

I actually don't have an example of an CONECA variety in a new ANACS slab, but this is what it would look like:

 

 

I was confused by what ANACS meant by "Die 3" and "Die 5" too. So I called them a few wees ago to ask specifically about these coins. The customer service guy told me they represented die states. However, from what I see, it seems to me that:

 

* the one marked "Die 3" is Stage B EMDS with a die scratch south from the A of STATES and a short die scratch in the field right next to the eyebrow and,

* the one marked "Die 5" is Stage D LMDS die scratch in the middle of the O of OF

 

But yeah, this is a very minor variety.

 

EDITED TO ADD: I made a mistake in the OP. I meant to say EMDS and LMDS instead of MDS and LDS.

[physics-fan3.14]

EDITED TO ADD: I made a mistake in the OP. I meant to say EMDS and LMDS instead of MDS and LDS.

 

That difference in die state is fairly insignificant. If you say they're the same, then I'll believe you. Given that the die state is pretty similar, and the grade is pretty similar, pick the one that you like better.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

EDITED TO ADD: I made a mistake in the OP. I meant to say EMDS and LMDS instead of MDS and LDS.

 

That difference in die state is fairly insignificant. If you say they're the same, then I'll believe you. Given that the die state is pretty similar, and the grade is pretty similar, pick the one that you like better.

 

Yeah very insignificant. I just PMed Chris saying that I'm going to call them again tomorrow to reconfirm that they are numbering die states "Die 1", "Die 2", etc. The customer service guy that I talked to could have been wrong or not understood what I was asking.

 

They should just use the regular EDS, MDS, LDS, etc. like everyone else.

[oih82w8]

I captured a 1982 No P Dime for my Roosevelt clad spot in my collection. I too would look for a bigger fish...but that it is me. It is your collection, collect what you like.

[rmpsrpms]

I'd send the one marked Die-5 back to ANACS for reholdering.

[19Lyds]

The "state" of wear on a die has nothing to do with which die number the die might be.

 

In other words, die #1 is still die #1 regardless of how many coins it has minted.

 

I'd be more inclined to think that ANACS got it wrong if the doubling on the dime in the OP is the same since a DDR-003 is still a DDR-003 regardless of the state of the die.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

I captured a 1982 No P Dime for my Roosevelt clad spot in my collection. I too would look for a bigger fish...but that it is me. It is your collection, collect what you like.

 

Yeah I know that it's a minor variety. But my goal was to put together a complete set of all of DDRs found on the 1970-D Roosevelt dime. Why the 1970-D? I don't know. I was trying to do something similar with the 1946-S Roosevelts by trying to find all of the CONECA-listed RPMs. But that proved to be sort of difficult. I managed to get 8 of the 21 RPMs CONECA lists for the date before trying to complete an easier variety set, which are the 5 DDRs of the 1970-D dimes. I'm only missing one now...DDR-002

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

The "state" of wear on a die has nothing to do with which die number the die might be.

 

In other words, die #1 is still die #1 regardless of how many coins it has minted.

 

I'd be more inclined to think that ANACS got it wrong if the doubling on the dime in the OP is the same since a DDR-003 is still a DDR-003 regardless of the state of the die.

 

It's very possible that ANACS designated the DDR incorrectly. And the customer service guy either misunderstood my question or gave me the wrong answer. I just tried calling them to clear it up. But I think their offices might be closed today for the holiday. I'll call again later and post an update.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The "state" of wear on a die has nothing to do with which die number the die might be.

 

In other words, die #1 is still die #1 regardless of how many coins it has minted.

 

I'd be more inclined to think that ANACS got it wrong if the doubling on the dime in the OP is the same since a DDR-003 is still a DDR-003 regardless of the state of the die.

 

It's very possible that ANACS designated the DDR incorrectly. And the customer service guy either misunderstood my question or gave me the wrong answer. I just tried calling them to clear it up. But I think their offices might be closed today for the holiday. I'll call again later and post an update.

 

I am inclined to think that ANACS is referring to Die Markers that they are aware of.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

Ok...So, I just got off the phone with ANACS. Here is the deal...

 

Anyone who said that the Die Numbers has nothing to do with the Die State is correct. I guess the first time that I called ANACS, either the customer service guy didn't understand what I was asking or I misinterpreted his answer. I'll fall on the sword and say that it was probably my misunderstanding.

 

The different Die Numbers can represent:

 

* different working dies that ended up with the same doubling flaw, or

* different obv/rev die pairings, i.e. the same doubled reverse die but with a changed obverse die

 

So, yeah, the Die Numbers have nothing to do with Die State. My bad.

[rmpsrpms]

It is not possible for different working dies to have the same doubling flaw. Each one is unique. They can have the same "type" of doubling but it is the differences between them that defines the different DDR attributions.

 

Different obv/rev die pairings are certainly possible (I am not familiar with the Stages of this DDR) but they would not be described this way, at least not properly. If what you are dealing with is DDR #3, then describing it as "Die 3" is probably OK, though it would be better if it was properly attributed with correct CONECA nomenclature.

 

But the "Die 5" can't be interpreted this way. If the obverse die had been changed, then it would be OK to describe this as something like "Stage E". But unless it had been changed 5 times, Die 5 makes no sense. And indeed if it had been changed so many times, I'd expect it to be described as "Obverse Die 5".

 

Now, it is possible that you believed both of these were DDR #3, yet ANACS determined you were incorrect and the one they attributed as Die 5 is actually DDR #5, if that DDR exists. This is the Occam's razor explanation, but that doesn't mean it's correct. I suppose an even simpler Occam's razor argument is that the technician typing in the die numbers made a typographical error.

 

I would suggest you determine if the Die 5 attribution from ANACS is indeed correct, and if not then ANACS should reholder the coin with correct attribution.

 

 

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

It is not possible for different working dies to have the same doubling flaw. Each one is unique. They can have the same "type" of doubling but it is the differences between them that defines the different DDR attributions.

 

Different obv/rev die pairings are certainly possible (I am not familiar with the Stages of this DDR) but they would not be described this way, at least not properly. If what you are dealing with is DDR #3, then describing it as "Die 3" is probably OK, though it would be better if it was properly attributed with correct CONECA nomenclature.

 

But the "Die 5" can't be interpreted this way. If the obverse die had been changed, then it would be OK to describe this as something like "Stage E". But unless it had been changed 5 times, Die 5 makes no sense. And indeed if it had been changed so many times, I'd expect it to be described as "Obverse Die 5".

 

Now, it is possible that you believed both of these were DDR #3, yet ANACS determined you were incorrect and the one they attributed as Die 5 is actually DDR #5, if that DDR exists. This is the Occam's razor explanation, but that doesn't mean it's correct. I suppose an even simpler Occam's razor argument is that the technician typing in the die numbers made a typographical error.

 

I would suggest you determine if the Die 5 attribution from ANACS is indeed correct, and if not then ANACS should reholder the coin with correct attribution.

 

 

Maybe I'm still misinterpreting something. PM sent.

[19Lyds]

It is not possible for different working dies to have the same doubling flaw. Each one is unique. They can have the same "type" of doubling but it is the differences between them that defines the different DDR attributions.

 

Different obv/rev die pairings are certainly possible (I am not familiar with the Stages of this DDR) but they would not be described this way, at least not properly. If what you are dealing with is DDR #3, then describing it as "Die 3" is probably OK, though it would be better if it was properly attributed with correct CONECA nomenclature.

 

But the "Die 5" can't be interpreted this way. If the obverse die had been changed, then it would be OK to describe this as something like "Stage E". But unless it had been changed 5 times, Die 5 makes no sense. And indeed if it had been changed so many times, I'd expect it to be described as "Obverse Die 5".

 

Now, it is possible that you believed both of these were DDR #3, yet ANACS determined you were incorrect and the one they attributed as Die 5 is actually DDR #5, if that DDR exists. This is the Occam's razor explanation, but that doesn't mean it's correct. I suppose an even simpler Occam's razor argument is that the technician typing in the die numbers made a typographical error.

 

I would suggest you determine if the Die 5 attribution from ANACS is indeed correct, and if not then ANACS should reholder the coin with correct attribution.

 

Ypur first statement is simply not true. Working Doubled Dies CAN and often DO have the exact same doubling. Why? Because the doubling occurred on the Master Die.

 

Look at the 1776-1976 Eisenhower Dollars.

 

They share the same doubling from a doubled master die.

 

The same is true of the 1972-S IKEs and 1976 Kennedy's.

 

This is important to know since such doubling has little value.

 

[rmpsrpms]

It is not possible for different working dies to have the same doubling flaw. Each one is unique. They can have the same "type" of doubling but it is the differences between them that defines the different DDR attributions.

 

Different obv/rev die pairings are certainly possible (I am not familiar with the Stages of this DDR) but they would not be described this way, at least not properly. If what you are dealing with is DDR #3, then describing it as "Die 3" is probably OK, though it would be better if it was properly attributed with correct CONECA nomenclature.

 

But the "Die 5" can't be interpreted this way. If the obverse die had been changed, then it would be OK to describe this as something like "Stage E". But unless it had been changed 5 times, Die 5 makes no sense. And indeed if it had been changed so many times, I'd expect it to be described as "Obverse Die 5".

 

Now, it is possible that you believed both of these were DDR #3, yet ANACS determined you were incorrect and the one they attributed as Die 5 is actually DDR #5, if that DDR exists. This is the Occam's razor explanation, but that doesn't mean it's correct. I suppose an even simpler Occam's razor argument is that the technician typing in the die numbers made a typographical error.

 

I would suggest you determine if the Die 5 attribution from ANACS is indeed correct, and if not then ANACS should reholder the coin with correct attribution.

 

Ypur first statement is simply not true. Working Doubled Dies CAN and often DO have the exact same doubling. Why? Because the doubling occurred on the Master Die.

 

Look at the 1776-1976 Eisenhower Dollars.

 

They share the same doubling from a doubled master die.

 

The same is true of the 1972-S IKEs and 1976 Kennedy's.

 

This is important to know since such doubling has little value.

 

Yes, you are correct, in the specific niche of Master Die Doubling. I don't think that's what we're talking about here, is it? Is this coin an example of Master Die Doubling?

[cpm9ball]

Ok...So, I just got off the phone with ANACS. Here is the deal...

 

Anyone who said that the Die Numbers has nothing to do with the Die State is correct. I guess the first time that I called ANACS, either the customer service guy didn't understand what I was asking or I misinterpreted his answer. I'll fall on the sword and say that it was probably my misunderstanding.

 

The different Die Numbers can represent:

 

* different working dies that ended up with the same doubling flaw, or

* different obv/rev die pairings, i.e. the same doubled reverse die but with a changed obverse die

 

So, yeah, the Die Numbers have nothing to do with Die State. My bad.

 

I wonder if someone (Roger Rabbit?) can tell us how many obverse & reverse dies were used for the 1970-D Rosies.

 

Chris

[19Lyds]

Ok...So, I just got off the phone with ANACS. Here is the deal...

 

Anyone who said that the Die Numbers has nothing to do with the Die State is correct. I guess the first time that I called ANACS, either the customer service guy didn't understand what I was asking or I misinterpreted his answer. I'll fall on the sword and say that it was probably my misunderstanding.

 

The different Die Numbers can represent:

 

* different working dies that ended up with the same doubling flaw, or

* different obv/rev die pairings, i.e. the same doubled reverse die but with a changed obverse die

 

So, yeah, the Die Numbers have nothing to do with Die State. My bad.

 

I wonder if someone (Roger Rabbit?) can tell us how many obverse & reverse dies were used for the 1970-D Rosies.

 

Chris

Simple to approximate.

 

Total Mintage = 754,942,100

Number of coins from obverse die = 150,000 (On Average)

Number of coins from reverse die = 165,00 (On Average)

 

Number of obverse dies = 5,033 (Approx)

Number of reverse dies = 4575 (Approx)

 

Figures are based upon a letter to Herb Hick from Howard F. Johnson, Chief, Assay Laboratories and dated 7/24/1972 (Authoritative Reference on Eisenhower Dollars)

 

Draw you own conclusions on die pairs.

[19Lyds]

It is not possible for different working dies to have the same doubling flaw. Each one is unique. They can have the same "type" of doubling but it is the differences between them that defines the different DDR attributions.

 

Different obv/rev die pairings are certainly possible (I am not familiar with the Stages of this DDR) but they would not be described this way, at least not properly. If what you are dealing with is DDR #3, then describing it as "Die 3" is probably OK, though it would be better if it was properly attributed with correct CONECA nomenclature.

 

But the "Die 5" can't be interpreted this way. If the obverse die had been changed, then it would be OK to describe this as something like "Stage E". But unless it had been changed 5 times, Die 5 makes no sense. And indeed if it had been changed so many times, I'd expect it to be described as "Obverse Die 5".

 

Now, it is possible that you believed both of these were DDR #3, yet ANACS determined you were incorrect and the one they attributed as Die 5 is actually DDR #5, if that DDR exists. This is the Occam's razor explanation, but that doesn't mean it's correct. I suppose an even simpler Occam's razor argument is that the technician typing in the die numbers made a typographical error.

 

I would suggest you determine if the Die 5 attribution from ANACS is indeed correct, and if not then ANACS should reholder the coin with correct attribution.

 

Ypur first statement is simply not true. Working Doubled Dies CAN and often DO have the exact same doubling. Why? Because the doubling occurred on the Master Die.

 

Look at the 1776-1976 Eisenhower Dollars.

 

They share the same doubling from a doubled master die.

 

The same is true of the 1972-S IKEs and 1976 Kennedy's.

 

This is important to know since such doubling has little value.

 

Yes, you are correct, in the specific niche of Master Die Doubling. I don't think that's what we're talking about here, is it? Is this coin an example of Master Die Doubling?

No it is not but since master die doubling does occur, it cannot be said "It is not possible for different working dies to have the same doubling flaw." because in the cases cited above, not only were there duplicate "working dies" but there were also duplicate "working hubs".

[oih82w8]

 

Yeah I know that it's a minor variety. But my goal was to put together a complete set of all of DDRs found on the 1970-D Roosevelt dime. Why the 1970-D? I don't know. I was trying to do something similar with the 1946-S Roosevelts by trying to find all of the CONECA-listed RPMs. But that proved to be sort of difficult. I managed to get 8 of the 21 RPMs CONECA lists for the date before trying to complete an easier variety set, which are the 5 DDRs of the 1970-D dimes. I'm only missing one now...DDR-002

 

I picked up a 1946-S RPM & DDR FS-501 for my silver Roosevelt type coin, which replaced the FS-502 that I am trying to sell on eBay. MS Roosies sure are pretty for such a small coin.

[messydesk]

I just took a look at the CONECA master listings website, and it shows two die pairs having used DDR-003. These are referred to as DMR-005 and DMR-006 (I assume DMR is used to number die marriages here). Therein may lie some of the confusion.

 

As for desirability of die stages of different die marriages, for Morgan Dollars, the answer is a big "That Depends." For some die pairs, the early die stages are rare and expensive (1878 VAM 14.1 pre-clash, 1882-O/S EDS, especially VAM 4), while for others, usually involving die breaks, it's the late die stage that is the most desirable (1888-O VAM 1B "Scarface", 1881-S VAM 54A). For yet others, the rarity of specific stages is well-enough known that each has its own desirability (1921-S VAM 1B series).

 

For the dimes mentioned, I'd want the earliest die stage possible so that the doubling would be seen, but that includes some die marriages that have the doubled die with a later stage.