Wash $, PostProcess and the variety/error definition

[ronday]

Unless I am mistaken, and they write books about everything I do not know, the new washington dollar is the first coin in the last 150 years to have a post diestrike incusion, on the edge or anywhere else for that matter.

 

It also seems that the edge of the coin, while an interesting part of the process, in hardly the focus of numismatics. It has always been the obverse and the reverse that captured our imagination. The beautiful ships, historic figures etc ...

 

It is also my understanding that the edge of the coin, in modern minting practice, has been a function of the die collar. The metal, under pressure was forced into the collar producing a flat or reeded edge.

 

Under the current definition of variety, if the reeded edge of a die collar had been compromised, producing coins with some of the reeds missing from production, that would have been a variety.

 

It is also my understanding that errors are mistakes in the mechanical process that result in unique coins, no two of which are identical making it impossible to apply a rigid standard of grading and appraisal.

 

That said It would appear that anything that happens after the initial diestrike should be treated as an error because the effects of a post die strike process produce unique coins, no two of which are identical.

 

Since this definition would render nearly all of the 300 million new dollars ungradable as they all have postprocessing done on a per-coin basis, it becomes clear that we will not stick to that standard.

 

So, how are we to define die varieties on the new dollars? I suppose we can just stick to the old definition.

 

How do we define errors? This is where it gets a little sticky. Since by definition all of the new dollars could be considered errors, except - perhaps the dollars with no edge lettering. Obviously the edge lettering is supposed to be there, but that is not the point. The point is that the new minting process does not produce identical coins, the only coins that are consistent from coin to coin are the no edge lettering coins.

 

Otherwise we are looking at hundreds of varieties of different edge lettering varieties - right side up - up side down - starts at liberties head, starts at liberties shoulder ad nausiem.

 

The mint has made it clear, that as far as they are concerned the upside down and right side up edge lettering are not varieties but part and parcel of there new coin minting process.

 

So, do we really want to focus on the edge of the new presidential series and have a bizillion different edge varieties, or do we just have the date, MM and no-edge variety?

 

Guess what I think?

 

[CurrierVentures]

things that make you go mmm...

 

It will be interesting to see how NGC and PCGS recognize these going forward. The reality that todays standards for determinging errors and varieties may have to be rethought represents a potentially exciting turning point for numismatics as a whole.

[WaxonWaxov]

This whole edge lettering thing has really turned the coin slabbing business in it's ear.

 

Something gives the feeling that the coins that are slabbed in the next couple of months will eventually need to re-slabbed when new standards come out.

 

What I'm really afraid of is the TPGs will decide that the Prez Dollars are such a pain in the arse they will create a new, more expensive submission teir just for them.

[Cannon Coins]

IMO I think it will end up a "missing edge lettering" error and a "doubled edge lettering" error,and that's it as far as attributions. I'll be glad to see the proof versions as the edges will be struck in the normal way during the pressing step of the minting process. They will/should all be facing the same direction and all letters and numbers spaced in the same place around the clock.

[WaxonWaxov]

But will "Heads up" or "Tails up" be put on each slab??

[Conder101]

No.

[WaxonWaxov]

Should be.

[just-john]

Won't be a bizllion just 299,999,999 give or take a few

[cpm9ball]

I doubt that any will be termed varieties or errors because of the configuration of the edge lettering, i.e., "heads up", "tails up" or from random rotational alignment of the lettering.

 

After inspecting several rolls of the 2007-P, I personally find the coin very uninteresting because of the sloppy, incuse lettering on the edge. I would rather have seen the date and mintmark placed on the obverse or reverse of the coin as it would not have made it look cluttered as the Mint contended. I've decided to forgo the purchase of Mint and bank rolls and just buy the proof sets.

 

Chris

[WaxonWaxov]

After inspecting several rolls of the 2007-P, I personally find the coin very uninteresting because of the sloppy, incuse lettering on the edge. I would rather have seen the date and mintmark placed on the obverse or reverse of the coin as it would not have made it look cluttered as the Mint contended. I've decided to forgo the purchase of Mint and bank rolls and just buy the proof sets.

 

Chris

 

I hear you and I agree to a point. I think that at the end of the day the quality of each individual coin's edge lettering will play a BIG part in condition.

 

I think these standards will start to appear as people start to get their "first day" Washingtons back (they are now in their 12th business day and are still marked 'received')