Do You Agree Or Disagree: AnyAll Errors To Coins In The Minting Process Ought Be Errors? And Shouldn't The USMint Identify Each Of Their Errors With The Severity/Code Per Error? 3 3

[imnotaminion]

I have pondered since 2017 why does not the USMint Identify with categories it's own errors? Also, since 2017 when YouTube videos reinvigorated my coin interests from the early 1970's when my Grand Dad introduced me to numismatica. And henceforth I have heard from legitmate numismatic experts, especially from the now closed store, "Byrds Engraving", that Doubled Die errors are intentionally done by the engravers. This and a few conversations stirred my already analytical mind with the "Title" questions in this topic.

-AnyAll input is welcomed:

[Just Bob]

2 hours ago, TheOhioPlayr~Stamps said:

I have pondered since 2017 why does not the USMint Identify with categories it's own errors? Also, since 2017 when YouTube videos reinvigorated my coin interests from the early 1970's when my Grand Dad introduced me to numismatica. And henceforth I have heard from legitmate numismatic experts, especially from the now closed store, "Byrds Engraving", that Doubled Die errors are intentionally done by the engravers. This and a few conversations stirred my already analytical mind with the "Title" questions in this topic.

-AnyAll input is welcomed:

Doubled dies are not caused by engravers or the engraving process, except possibly in the case of Class III (Design doubling, caused by re-hubbing a die with a different design - example: 1960D cent Small over Large date) or Class VII ( Modified Hub Doubling, caused when a hub is used to form a die, then repaired or otherwise modified, and re-impressed into the same die). Neither of these would be considered "intentional errors," at least in my opinion. Nor would any other of the other classes.

As for your second question in the title: I suppose the Mint does not categorize their errors because they don't like to admit that they make mistakes

I am not sure what your first question, about whether errors should be errors, actually means. 

A word of advice: be careful about using Youtube videos as a source of information. Many, if not most, videos about coins are designed to get views, not educate.

And, Welcome to the Forum  

[BlakeEik]

Hi OhioPlayr,

The Mint has thousands of people that do that for them, and then they post what they find in the NGC Registry forum for some reason. 

I'm not sure the Mint would invest such time and effort just to air out their dirty laundry. They already have a QA team. 

Technically if the Mint found every error there would be no error coins because they destroy them if they find them. 

Edited May 11, 2021 by BlakeEik

[imnotaminion]

21 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Doubled dies are not caused by engravers or the engraving process, except possibly in the case of Class III (Design doubling, caused by re-hubbing a die with a different design - example: 1960D cent Small over Large date) or Class VII ( Modified Hub Doubling, caused when a hub is used to form a die, then repaired or otherwise modified, and re-impressed into the same die). Neither of these would be considered "intentional errors," at least in my opinion. Nor would any other of the other classes.

As for your second question in the title: I suppose the Mint does not categorize their errors because they don't like to admit that they make mistakes

I am not sure what your first question, about whether errors should be errors, actually means. 

A word of advice: be careful about using Youtube videos as a source of information. Many, if not most, videos about coins are designed to get views, not educate.

And, Welcome to the Forum  

JustBob,

Thank you for your input on doubled die(s). And however, there remains many experts whom has been/are still imbedded in "numismatics" as long or longer than you whom adamantly refutes your views. And personally, as novice I am in numismatica, and seeing/hearing different perspectives is as diverse as is this cool/intriguing hobby/business/entity of Numismatics.

That first question should have been more thorough. Fundamentally, I have complained since 2017 how, especially, "die shifting" is not a qualified error because what appears too be a select few snobs chose(s) too omit certain flaws therein the mint/minting Process of creating coins that is. By doing so, omitting obvious errors in creating coins absolutely dwarfs/restrains the splendor of Numismatica's beautiful diversity.

Oh, I 99.99% am unscramble. And spotting YouTube crowd-pleasers is preschool.

[imnotaminion]

14 hours ago, BlakeEik said:

Hi OhioPlayr,

The Mint has thousands of people that do that for them, and then they post what they find in the NGC Registry forum for some reason. 

I'm not sure the Mint would invest such time and effort just to air out their dirty laundry. They already have a QA team. 

Technically if the Mint found every error there would be no error coins because they destroy them if they find them. 

Thank you BlakeEik,

Okay, now that I know the USMint post's these errors in NGC Forums, then this addresses one of my perplexities therein the upper echelons of the magnificent business/hobby of Numismatica; & that is why does only a very few coin guru's decides what & which error is more prominent than the next &OR which/what/why/how error(s) deserves zero monetary value(s), let alone deserves zero acknowledgements as a legitimate error regardless that the U.S.Mint classified(s) them as errors?

At least the U.S.Mint should at least categorize the severity of their error opposed too just a few guru's whom likely have hordes of the errors they decided(s) too call errors.

[RWB]

What coin collectors like to call "errors" are manufacturing defects to the Mint Bureau. They have quality control systems to identify, assess and remediate defective products (coins) just as any other manufacturer. The QA is split into several segments: Production defect reduction; Defective product interdiction; and Deliberate defect creation. As Dir Moy once commented to Bill Fivaz (Cherrypicker's Guide, etc.) "My goal is to eliminate all the [error] coins you collect."

Edited May 13, 2021 by RWB

[Hoghead515]

Also they stamp so many and so quickly they cannot catch them all. If they do I assume they pick them out and cull them. Then collectors find them in change when they end up passing through inspection without getting found by mint. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Hoghead515

[imnotaminion]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

What coin collectors like to call "errors" are manufacturing defects to the Mint Bureau. They have quality control systems to identify, assess and remediate defective products (coins) just as any other manufacturer. The QA is split into several segments: Production defect reduction; Defective product interdiction; and Deliberate defect creation. As Dir Moy once commented to Bill Fivaz (Cherrypicker's Guide, etc.) "My goal is to eliminate all the [error] coins you collect."

Thank You RWB,

Obviously right that AnyAll abnormalities from the original are defects. However, with publishings like, "Cherrypicker's Guide, etc." By Mr. Stanton & Mr. Fivaz with a handful of others choosing "picking" certain defects & determining values on these errors, but calling out; let's say, "Die Shifting Errors" as basically junk I take issues with that and AnyAll remaining errors that are ignored because a few guys & or ladies says so.

All I am saying is, give AnyAll defects RESPECT/recognition with degrees of severity & value opposed too a few accumulative folks throughout Numismatica history declaring what is/what is not acceptable by literally picking and choosing.

I am just 4 years into Numismatica and haven't yet organized my tiny collection and with much to learn, but this is an entity across continents which I observes the limitations by a few constricts the full splendors of Numismatica.

Again, I believe that AnyAll defects by the U.S.MINT should be acceptable as errors and based on their severity & numbers discovered & MS, might determined the defect's/error's value? Thanks again RWB

[World Colonial]

Other have answered the first question better than I can.

As to the second, it has nothing to do with the US Mint's mission.  It's up to collectors to do that.

[imnotaminion]

1 hour ago, Hoghead515 said:

Also they stamp so many and so quickly they cannot catch them all. If they do I assume they pick them out and cull them. Then collectors find them in change when they end up passing through inspection without getting found by mint. 

Thank You Hoghead515,

I can imagine that inspecting coins & bills is a difficult task. Nobody is perfect. I'm sure the men and women examining our currency/coins does there best day-in and day-out. And where would Numismatica be without defects becoming errors?

[Henri Charriere]

On 5/13/2021 at 11:34 AM, RWB said:

....QA is split into several segments:....

Maybe so but on one thing I am firm:  the '55 Lincoln Cent with doubled die obverse is an interesting manufacturing defect and should be recognized and honored with a place in numismatic history.   All this other stuff should be relegated to the scrap heap and melted. By the way, why does it seem this is distinctly a U.S. Mint problem, or is this a misperception on my part?

[RWB]

38 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Maybe so but on one thing I am firm:  the '55 Lincoln Cent with doubled die obverse is an interesting manufacturing defect and should be recognized and honored with a place in numismatic history.   All this other stuff should be relegated to the scrap heap and melted. By the way, why does it seem this is distinctly a U.S. Mint problem, or is this a misperception on my part?

Yep. Plus it was 70 years ago. Things change. Admittedly, the Mint has rarely been open and forthcoming regarding errors in production. Back when gold and silver coins circulated wrong alloy or defective coins were recycled and returned the bullion. That still happens but so little gets out, and the bookkeeping is different so there's little way for the outside world to become aware of problems. Also, consider BEP's problem with $100 bills a couple of years ago.

[Oldhoopster]

On 5/13/2021 at 1:26 PM, TheOhioPlayr~Stamps said:

Thank You RWB,

Obviously right that AnyAll abnormalities from the original are defects. However, with publishings like, "Cherrypicker's Guide, etc." By Mr. Stanton & Mr. Fivaz with a handful of others choosing "picking" certain defects & determining values on these errors, but calling out; let's say, "Die Shifting Errors" as basically junk I take issues with that and AnyAll remaining errors that are ignored because a few guys & or ladies says so.

All I am saying is, give AnyAll defects RESPECT/recognition with degrees of severity & value opposed too a few accumulative folks throughout Numismatica history declaring what is/what is not acceptable by literally picking and choosing.

I am just 4 years into Numismatica and haven't yet organized my tiny collection and with much to learn, but this is an entity across continents which I observes the limitations by a few constricts the full splendors of Numismatica.

Again, I believe that AnyAll defects by the U.S.MINT should be acceptable as errors and based on their severity & numbers discovered & MS, might determined the defect's/error's value? Thanks again RWB

It sounds like your concerned because "Die shifting Errors" aren't worth anything (I assume your talking about mechanical/strike doubling).

The market makes the decision as to the value, not a few folks.  Currently there is no significant collector base that supports the buying and selling of MD coins at a premium.  They are too common and many times, difficult to see.  There is nothing wrong with collecting MD coins if you like them, just don't expect to find a market for them when you want to sell.  There  isn't any interest.  Who knows what the future holds, but my guess us that they will be like common copper plated zinc cents in circulated condition, too many out there and too easy to find, for anyone to bother paying a premium

Now, if you're really interested, maybe you start classifying them and write a book.  That might be one way to generate some interest (although I think it would be daunting task with just the shear number of pieces).

Maybe you could put together a date set of MD coins.  That might be a fun challenge and you could probably do it CRHing. 

[DWLange]

The only time that strike doubling (some young whippersnappers call it "machine doubling") had any value was in the 1960s, when the collecting of modern coins by errors and varieties first became popular. At that time the U. S. Mint was still denying that it made any errors at all and calling all such coins "counterfeit." This prevented collectors from learning very much about them, and most hobby writers weren't aware of the difference between strike doubling and true doubled dies. There were scads of paperback books published at that time illustrating both with equal status.

The Mint became a little more forthcoming during the 1970s and later, and that's when researchers and writers were able to question employees about how the various oddities occurred and actually be shown such pieces on the press room floor. The books from that period onward are far more accurate and useful, and since that time strike doubling has been dismissed as too common to be of further interest.

I have quite a collection of those misinformed vintage books which are now quaint and amusing. The most successful and widely distributed at the time was Frank Spadone's Major Variety and Oddity Guide of United States Coins, which went through several edition. Spadone founded the periodical that ultimately was bought by Krause Publications in 1962 and renamed COINS. It's still being published today, so far as I know; I stopped subscribing about 20 years ago.

[Henri Charriere]

On 5/15/2021 at 2:09 PM, Oldhoopster said:

The market makes the decision as to the value, not a few folks. 

UNSOLICITED EDITORIAL COMMENT ON THE "MARKET."

Ah, yes. The "market." The fickle, nebulous ever-present, ever-changing "market," a concept spun from whole cloth.

Ever hear the expression, they "cornered" the market?

If silver or gold plummets, what chance does the average Joe have of buying when inventory is at an all-time high? Bupkis.  Likewise, when precious metals skyrocket.  All of a sudden, coins, bars, rounds, things you never heard of, come flying out of the woodwork at incrementally higher prices; no limits placed on quantities purchased.

Then there's the mysterious matter of "premiums" far too incendiary to bring up in polite circles.  Who or what decides what they ought to be?  Not to worry; it's none of your business.  You are just a coin collector.  Your role appears to be limited to subsidizing the returns of institutional investors.

How about fair market value (FMV)?  The finest 🐓 I own is graded MS-67, none having graded higher. Bought using the services of eBay, PayPal, a reputable dealer to whom I offered a suitable inducement to get the owner to part with it, a/k/a a bribe, as well as a fee to free it from impoundment at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) it resides in my Set Registry while another 🐓 graded MS-64+ does not, though I believe it to be infinitely finer, so much so I will not part with it at any price. The Fair Market Value folks do not formally recognize the exorbitant amount ultimately paid, not because they do not recognize eBay "bids," but because the TPGS (another matter entirely) rely on figures provided by a handful of select auction houses to set the sell price which differ as markedly as the cost of living in one state as opposed to another. What constitutes "the market" depends on whom you ask.

In closing, the U.S. Mint will neither confirm nor deny it plays a part in any problem regarding the production and distribution of its products, whether they be errors or riddled with defects.  Final gratuitous remark offered without further elaboration:  I believe the farming out of Mint products to "authorized dealers" was, pardon the pun, irreversible error.

[Hoghead515]

I've noticed that the strike doubling coins are so common that almost every handful of change has one or two in it. If you look at them under a microscope or strong loupe you can find them all day long. When I first started collecting I found one that was very strongly doubled. After watching YouTube videos I thought I hit the big time. Then after looking through more of my change I picked out a dozen more. Then after research I found out what strike doubling is. I knew it was to good to be true. Some can still look very cool but still just strike doubling. They are just way to common I've come to find out. 

[imnotaminion]

On 5/15/2021 at 2:09 PM, Oldhoopster said:

It sounds like your concerned because "Die shifting Errors" aren't worth anything (I assume your talking about mechanical/strike doubling). ... FIRSTLY: Actually my concern is remotely selected to "Die shifting Errors" rather than a plethora of Errors that are adamantly ignored by what you says further down, is the "market" fundamentally determines a coin's value. ...

The market makes the decision as to the value, not a few folks.  Currently there is no significant collector base that supports the buying and selling of MD coins at a premium.  They are too common and many times, difficult to see.  There is nothing wrong with collecting MD coins if you like them, just don't expect to find a market for them when you want to sell.  There  isn't any interest. ... SECONDLY: "Cherrypickers Guide..." Basically calls MD'S garbage/junk which discourages collecting them because two guys/few folks whom have several plethoras of guru's tooting the horns of Mr. Fivaz & Mr. Stanton. Correct me if I am wrong that my initial post, am I not clear my position on who, you said the market, determines the value on errors, but that market also includes published guru's like "Cherrypickers guide..."/two guys dictating what are acceptable errors and what are not acceptable errors. ...  Who knows what the future holds, but my guess us that they will be like common copper plated zinc cents in circulated condition, too many out there and too easy to find, for anyone to bother paying a premium

Now, if you're really interested, maybe you start classifying them and write a book.  That might be one way to generate some interest (although I think it would be daunting task with just the shear number of pieces). THIRDLY: "...to many out there and to easy to find...". Take the "Morgan Dollar" there maybe at least 275Millillon left today. And about half since 1918 was melted into silver bullion. But Morgan's are held in high regard as must have coins, and not because of the artistic quality but because a few guys revered the engraver as nearly God-like. 

Maybe you could put together a date set of MD coins.  That might be a fun challenge and you could probably do it CRHing. FOURTHLY: I don't have more than a few MD or Mechanical Die Shifting coins. I just used that error because your pals in "Cherrypickers Guide..." ripped MD'S and other errors; that's all. And LASTLY: I stand by my assertions that AnyAll Errors by the USMint should not be condemned but embraced into the splendorous world of Numismatica!

 

[Oldhoopster]

While a strongly disagree with your assertion that a handful of people decided what should and should not be collectable, I believe that you should collect whatever interests you.  However, if you're maintaining that mechanical/strike doubling has value, I strongly believe you're mistaken.  They are too common to have significant value.  

Mr Lange provided some great historical context in a previous post. As information on the minting process became available 40-50 years ago, the MD was recognized as something that happened regularly.  

Maybe a reference book might sway future collectors but until then, I'm afraid that no amount of hoping and wishing is going to make this coins valuable, regardless if they are called an error or not.  Once again, I think a collection of MD coins would be rather interesting, but collectors (the market) will decide if they have any value.  

Just my opinion, not gospel from the book of "2 guys"

 

[imnotaminion]

On 5/18/2021 at 6:11 PM, TheOhioPlayr~Stamps said:

 

Well, you're wrong. I MERELY used MD'S metaphorically opposed to my overall concerns. BUT thanks anyway for your perspectives.

[VKurtB]

You asked “agree or disagree”. I disagree VERY vehemently. In fact, I believe it may be the worst idea I’ve ever read here. And that is an extremely rich set of possibilities. Most so-called errors are NOT, and never will be. I seek perfection in coins, not imperfection. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by VKurtB

[EdG_Ohio]

I have to agree w/VKurtB, I have never really understood the desire to collect a faulty imperfect coin. Why would I want to hold a beautiful rose in my hand if half the petals are missing ?  

[Alex in PA.]

18 minutes ago, EdG_Ohio said:

I have to agree w/VKurtB

Me too.  So called 'Errors' etc belong in a parking lot.  To make a big deal of malfunctions in mechanically produced items is 'bananas'.  What man can create - man will screw up.    

[World Colonial]

2 hours ago, EdG_Ohio said:

I have to agree w/VKurtB, I have never really understood the desire to collect a faulty imperfect coin. Why would I want to hold a beautiful rose in my hand if half the petals are missing ?  

The only reason I can see for pushing this theme is to convince everyone else that what they own should be more valuable.  Why else would anyone care what anyone else thinks about it?

[Henri Charriere]

3 hours ago, EdG_Ohio said:

I have to agree w/VKurtB, I have never really understood the desire to collect a faulty imperfect coin. Why would I want to hold a beautiful rose in my hand if half the petals are missing ?  

[How else would you find out if "She loves me," or "She loves me not"?]  

[VKurtB]

16 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[How else would you find out if "She loves me," or "She loves me not"?]  

She loves herself. Next subject.