What type of error is this quarter? 0

[Patchedwoodworks]

What type of error is this state quarter? I though it was just damage but close ups say other wise, i think. 

[JKK]

That's the error where someone or something drops a heavy hard thing onto the quarter, inflicting a ding.

[Patchedwoodworks]

2 minutes ago, JKK said:

That's the error where someone or something drops a heavy hard thing onto the quarter, inflicting a ding.

then I'm not sure why it stands proud as if it where a die crack?

[Patchedwoodworks]

21 hours ago, JKK said:

That's the error where someone or something drops a heavy hard thing onto the quarter, inflicting a ding.

Also is that what is going on to the obverse at the bottom of the neck?????? Thanks 

[kbbpll]

The gouge through the C is where a skier crashed coming out of those trees. The stuff on Washington is probably chips in the die. Seems like people find a lot of these little things on state quarters.

[Patchedwoodworks]

23 hours ago, kbbpll said:

The gouge through the C is where a skier crashed coming out of those trees. The stuff on Washington is probably chips in the die. Seems like people find a lot of these little things on state quarters.

Again its not a gouge, look close to pic3 and how it intersects with the C its as tall as the C at the bottom and not so much at the top. plus its recurring threw the whole banner.

[Kirt]

48 minutes ago, Patchedwoodworks said:

Again its not a gouge, look close to pic3 and how it intersects with the C its as tall as the C at the bottom and not so much at the top. plus its recurring threw the whole banner.

It's really difficult to tell a gouge from a raised area in photographs; as an experiment just look at your picture with one eye closed while saying "gouge." Then close that eye, open the other one, and say "die crack." Almost immediately what looked incuse will look raised. If it doesn't work, look at someone else's picture.

If you say it's raised, it's raised. I think @kbbpll has it right; I've found tons of stuff on state quarters without even looking for it. The question is if the die chips/cracks amount to anything of any value; so far, NGC doesn't have any recognized varieties for this quarter and VarietyVista has a single DDO entry. You can hang onto it and see if anything shows up eventually, but as of right now it doesn't seem to matter if it is a die crack or not; it's a minor error.

[Patchedwoodworks]

8 hours ago, Kirt said:

It's really difficult to tell a gouge from a raised area in photographs; as an experiment just look at your picture with one eye closed while saying "gouge." Then close that eye, open the other one, and say "die crack." Almost immediately what looked incuse will look raised. If it doesn't work, look at someone else's picture.

If you say it's raised, it's raised. I think @kbbpll has it right; I've found tons of stuff on state quarters without even looking for it. The question is if the die chips/cracks amount to anything of any value; so far, NGC doesn't have any recognized varieties for this quarter and VarietyVista has a single DDO entry. You can hang onto it and see if anything shows up eventually, but as of right now it doesn't seem to matter if it is a die crack or not; it's a minor error.

I see how it’s difficult to see and how it could look like both with brain games.  I really wasn’t looking for value, more just to learn what’s going on with it. I really appreciate your open mind on this one. I’ll save it just for sits and giggles!! Thanks again 

[Just Bob]

Unless I am terribly mistaken, the lettering on the banner is incuse (below the surface), so a scratch/gouge could go over the "C"or the "A" and not affect them at all. Are you looking at the coin with a loupe, or are you viewing it on a screen?

[Kirt]

1 hour ago, Just Bob said:

Unless I am terribly mistaken, the lettering on the banner is incuse (below the surface), so a scratch/gouge could go over the "C"or the "A" and not affect them at all. Are you looking at the coin with a loupe, or are you viewing it on a screen?

You're not. The banner is raised, the letters incuse to the field depth. I guess my lack of patience with minor errors is showing - it doesn't matter if it's a gouge or a die crack, with that coin it makes no difference in value.

[Patchedwoodworks]

1 hour ago, Just Bob said:

Unless I am terribly mistaken, the lettering on the banner is incuse (below the surface), so a scratch/gouge could go over the "C"or the "A" and not affect them at all. Are you looking at the coin with a loupe, or are you viewing it on a screen?

Both 

[Patchedwoodworks]

26 minutes ago, Kirt said:

You're not. The banner is raised, the letters incuse to the field depth. I guess my lack of patience with minor errors is showing - it doesn't matter if it's a gouge or a die crack, with that coin it makes no difference in value.

value is not what I’m seeking it’s knowledge, I will look it over again tonight just to double check. If I’m wrong I will gladly say so with a follow up.  

[Kirt]

14 minutes ago, Patchedwoodworks said:

value is not what I’m seeking it’s knowledge, I will look it over again tonight just to double check. If I’m wrong I will gladly say so with a follow up.  

No worries - the question @Just Bob asked is critically important then. If you're looking on a screen of any sort - cell phone camera, USB microscope, etc - your brain plays tricks on you with incuse vs raised. When looking through a loupe you can rotate the coin and see the shadows play across the face, which makes raised areas very easy to see. 

AFAIK, the only coins that have a real premium for very minor errors like die chips, cracks, etc are Morgans and some Peace dollars. These quarters are really good practice for knowing what you're looking for on those!

[Patchedwoodworks]

39 minutes ago, Kirt said:

No worries - the question @Just Bob asked is critically important then. If you're looking on a screen of any sort - cell phone camera, USB microscope, etc - your brain plays tricks on you with incuse vs raised. When looking through a loupe you can rotate the coin and see the shadows play across the face, which makes raised areas very easy to see. 

AFAIK, the only coins that have a real premium for very minor errors like die chips, cracks, etc are Morgans and some Peace dollars. These quarters are really good practice for knowing what you're looking for on those!

You all are  right I stand here corrected I was having lighting issues when I was reviewed and today I got to take it out side with sun light and a loop and 🤦‍♂️Sorry for the aggravation fellas! 

[VKurtB]

THAT is one key reason USB microscopes are controversial. They're fine for truly flat surfaces like stamps or notes. Their non-directional light is actually a problem for interpreting coins. A ringlight portrait light makes a VERY flattering portrait (Glamor Shots), but it not a realistic light.

[kbbpll]

 

19 hours ago, Kirt said:

VarietyVista has a single DDO entry

While we're on the subject, does anybody else think we need a separate designation for "DDO" from this era? The dies are all single pressed now, so in my view they are not DDO in the traditional sense. More like MD but for dies. Something like MDDO to make it clear that the cause/process is not the same.

[VKurtB]

One type of die doubling can still happen - the "twist", where the hub moves against the working die in a tangential manner, OR when confined to the very middle when a working die "jumps" when the press is initialized. Other than those two, you're right, this entire concept is blatant silliness.

Edited January 15, 2020 by VKurtB

[Kirt]

2 hours ago, Patchedwoodworks said:

You all are  right I stand here corrected I was having lighting issues when I was reviewed and today I got to take it out side with sun light and a loop and 🤦‍♂️Sorry for the aggravation fellas! 

For me at least, no apology required. I owe you one for being slightly snippy today - I didn't take the time to explain *why* I wasn't concerned with it being raised or gouged in my earlier post; I'm not frustrated with you in the least. 

The focus on "error coins" gets up my nose a bit, as it has people spend lots of time looking in very granular detail at coins to detect even the tiniest mint error. Is it because folks think we'll be able to do something like a VAM with other coins? If so, the numbers minted are totally not in the hobby's favor.

Your coin at least has readily apparent issues; I'm actually a bit sorry the bit on the back turned out to not be a die crack. Regardless, you still have the obverse with the chips so that's a bonus!

1 hour ago, kbbpll said:

 

While we're on the subject, does anybody else think we need a separate designation for "DDO" from this era? The dies are all single pressed now, so in my view they are not DDO in the traditional sense. More like MD but for dies. Something like MDDO to make it clear that the cause/process is not the same.

Ok, so here's the VarietyVista link: http://www.varietyvista.com/09c WQ Vol 3 States/2006PCODDO001 quarter.htm

IMO, this is beyond ridiculous. The "DDO" is exclusively an extra bit of an earlobe, and the other aspects of the entry are small die cracks and chips scattered about the obverse. They are calling it MDS (although on what basis, I have no idea) so I interpret that as MD, not DDO. Maybe I'm extra cranky today but they can't even estimate the population and neither NGC nor PCGS appear to have it listed as an attributable variety...so do we even need a separate variety for this thing? If so, every year/mint of every single coin is going to end up with attributable die variations! For me at least, that's not a pleasant thought. So I'm clearly in the "NO DDO" camp for this era.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Kirt

[Patchedwoodworks]

1 hour ago, Kirt said:

For me at least, no apology required. I owe you one for being slightly snippy today - I didn't take the time to explain *why* I wasn't concerned with it being raised or gouged in my earlier post; I'm not frustrated with you in the least. 

The focus on "error coins" gets up my nose a bit, as it has people spend lots of time looking in very granular detail at coins to detect even the tiniest mint error. Is it because folks think we'll be able to do something like a VAM with other coins? If so, the numbers minted are totally not in the hobby's favor.

Your coin at least has readily apparent issues; I'm actually a bit sorry the bit on the back turned out to not be a die crack. Regardless, you still have the obverse with the chips so that's a bonus!

Ok, so here's the VarietyVista link: http://www.varietyvista.com/09c WQ Vol 3 States/2006PCODDO001 quarter.htm

IMO, this is beyond ridiculous. The "DDO" is exclusively an extra bit of an earlobe, and the other aspects of the entry are small die cracks and chips scattered about the obverse. They are calling it MDS (although on what basis, I have no idea) so I interpret that as MD, not DDO. Maybe I'm extra cranky today but they can't even estimate the population and neither NGC nor PCGS appear to have it listed as an attributable variety...so do we even need a separate variety for this thing? If so, every year/mint of every single coin is going to end up with attributable die variations! For me at least, that's not a pleasant thought. So I'm clearly in the "NO DDO" camp for this era.

The more I’m learning about this hobby the more I understand you all veterans points of view! Because of how desperately people will grab on to the smallest things and search high and low for approval. I’m sure I’m guilty  ! But on the other hand these people are putting in a lot of effort trying to find there segway into the hobby and getting that buzz of a potential find! I’m sure you all have a vary refined palette and far from asking your buddy to dig threw his change jar. But I ask you all to remember that, something new buzz and take it easy on the rookies out here. I thank you all for all the knowledge I love learning and I’ve aways kept coins since I was a kid but nothing serious and now this is my new buzz!! Thanks again!! 

[kbbpll]

I wouldn't call it silly or ridiculous. I just think it should have a different acronym, like MDDO and MDDR. As VKurtB describes, to me it's mechanical/machine doubling, except it's not where a die chatters when it hits a coin, it's when the hub and/or die chatter when they press into each other. At least, as far as I understand it. The traditional DDO has annealing in between. I suppose one could argue that both kinds of doubled die are "mechanical" errors, but every time I see "DDO" associated with something made after 1997 or 1998 I have to stop and go, wait a minute, is that real? It's not supposed to happen anymore! And then I have to remind myself that they're talking about something else but using the same acronym. I may be the only one who feels that way.

I can fully appreciate having something, anything, that one can hope to find in pocket change. It's what gets people excited about collecting. And of course the idea of discovering something new is thrilling. I don't see anything particularly wrong about documenting every date/mint/die that shows a discernible difference from a "normal" coin. Let's face it - the Morgan VAMs are nothing more than that, and people go crazy over that stuff. I don't know how many varieties of 1859 Canadian cents there are, but it's a lot. Every repunch, every die crack, every flaw in the leaf stems. There's no reason not to do it for state quarters or whatever. Patchedwoodworks, keep up the good work!

[Kirt]

So after a good night's sleep, all I can say is I must have had extra cranky in my Wheaties yesterday.

I really like @Patchedwoodworks quarter as a great example of a lightly circulated, interesting coin. It shouldn't be submitted but I'd have it in a 2x2 as well and have it in my collection as a "neat coin." And I do regret that I was a buzzkill for you; not what I want to do. It is exciting to find new/neat stuff and all I can say is I would have had about a shot's worth of buzz off that quarter had I found it.  

I agree with @kbbpll that it's not DDO any more as the specific mechanical process that caused those errors is no longer possible in US coins. We should call it something else because accuracy and specificity are required in this hobby.

10 hours ago, kbbpll said:

I can fully appreciate having something, anything, that one can hope to find in pocket change. It's what gets people excited about collecting. And of course the idea of discovering something new is thrilling. I don't see anything particularly wrong about documenting every date/mint/die that shows a discernible difference from a "normal" coin. Let's face it - the Morgan VAMs are nothing more than that, and people go crazy over that stuff. I don't know how many varieties of 1859 Canadian cents there are, but it's a lot. Every repunch, every die crack, every flaw in the leaf stems. There's no reason not to do it for state quarters or whatever. Patchedwoodworks, keep up the good work!

I regret my prior choice of words, but I do offer a different opinion on most of this. Yes, the Morgan VAMs are exactly this, as is the Canadian cents variety you bring up. However - I see a distinction between trying to do this with those coins and modern quarters. The highest mintage run of Morgans is ~44.7 million; the Canadian 1859 cent is 10 million (and most Morgan years were closer to this than the 1921 mintage); the mintage on this quarter is 274.8 million. We are looking at coins with a significantly different volume, which - despite improvements in technology - requires a significantly increased number of dies. It stands to reason that there comes a point where the number of dies makes it nearly impossible to make authoritative determinations of particular combos, like the VAMs. Looking at numbers, in 1998 the US mint sold 2220 defaced quarter dies; I know, these could have been never used, and it's very likely the number sold is well below the number made. Maybe it's just my lack of imagination but that seems beyond the realm of the possible to authoritatively categorize in any meaningful way.

Without authoritative determinations, the speculative side of the hobby starts to drive the energy (and value) rather than the numismatic side of the hobby. That's what I object to - as opposed to folks who are just looking at coins for neat errors. However, to each their own. I'll avoid being a buzzkill in the future!

[VKurtB]

11 hours ago, kbbpll said:

I wouldn't call it silly or ridiculous. I just think it should have a different acronym, like MDDO and MDDR. As VKurtB describes, to me it's mechanical/machine doubling, except it's not where a die chatters when it hits a coin, it's when the hub and/or die chatter when they press into each other. At least, as far as I understand it. The traditional DDO has annealing in between. I suppose one could argue that both kinds of doubled die are "mechanical" errors, but every time I see "DDO" associated with something made after 1997 or 1998 I have to stop and go, wait a minute, is that real? It's not supposed to happen anymore! And then I have to remind myself that they're talking about something else but using the same acronym. I may be the only one who feels that way.

I can fully appreciate having something, anything, that one can hope to find in pocket change. It's what gets people excited about collecting. And of course the idea of discovering something new is thrilling. I don't see anything particularly wrong about documenting every date/mint/die that shows a discernible difference from a "normal" coin. Let's face it - the Morgan VAMs are nothing more than that, and people go crazy over that stuff. I don't know how many varieties of 1859 Canadian cents there are, but it's a lot. Every repunch, every die crack, every flaw in the leaf stems. There's no reason not to do it for state quarters or whatever. Patchedwoodworks, keep up the good work!

There still is the making of working dies from the working hub, during which some anomalies can occur even with a single pressing, MOSTLY caused when the press of the working die has just begun and is still working on the "top" of the cone that is the initial shape of the working die. This can create "center of the design" anomalies like "extra Abe fingers" on the second design of 2009, the sitting on a wood pile and reading one. During the pressing of the working die, there is tremendous pressure concentrated on a tiny piece of metal contact between hub and die and things can "move". If dies were made at San Fran, I'd expect "tremor doubling" to be a thing. But Philly is about as seismically stable as anywhere is.

 

By the way, I recently toured the Royal Mint in South Wales, and they're still "two pressing" their working dies, according to our guide.

Edited January 16, 2020 by VKurtB