How am I wrong here?

[errorist]

http://www.numismaticnews.net/buzz/Educate+Yourself+About+Errors.aspx

 

 

Click on comments!!

 

 

Let us tell you when new posts are added!

 

 

 

 

Friday, April 27, 2007

Educate yourself about errors

Posted by dave

 

 

 

Are you stupid? I don’t think so, but over the years I have made some observations about human behavior.

 

The new Washington plain-edge dollar error is a wonderful discovery. It gets people looking at the new coins in hopes of making a marketing killing. One fellow has already showed me a check for over $4,100 that he earned by selling a group of plain-edge Washington dollars to a dealer.

 

That kind of money is enough to gain anyone’s attention – and it has. But that also is a problem.

When a valuable error is discovered, people look at their coins. They then notice other things that are a little odd or different. If a plain-edge coin can be worth so much money, why not the mysterious line on another dollar that kind of looks like a spear? Why not a line caused by a die crack that looks like a crease across the forehead of the first President?

 

Why not, indeed.

 

At root is the significance test. Most of these anomalies, which the numismatic hobby calls errors, fail this test, but when coins can be posted in online auctions, a plausible story can earn a profit while actual research or learning is just too much trouble especially when it leads to finding out why a coin has no extra value.

 

The recent run of postings of so-called upside down edge lettering got so much online momentum despite repeated news stories that they are not errors that the U.S. Mint had to jump in and issue a consumer alert to inform would-be buyers that the lettering is random, with roughly half up and half down.

 

Are the letter orientations on the Washington coins collectible? Absolutely. The difference is notable. The Professional Coin Grading Service announced today that it is slabbing both and correctly advised collectors that neither is inherently worth any extra money over the other.

 

For errors in general, keep in mind that most coins have something wrong with them if you look hard enough. They are the products of the Industrial Age and they are prone to industrial quality control problems.

 

Clever names for errors usually mean that the error is not significant enough to stand on its own. It needs a marketing push. Don’t fall for it.

 

I ask again, “Are you stupid?” If you are not educating yourself about what makes some errors valuable and most others valueless over time, the answer might be yes. Grading services want to help you. The hobby’s error experts do, too. But you also have to want to help yourself. For more information, visit www.pcgs.com

 

 

 

 

4/27/2007 9:46:56 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00) Comments [1]

 

4/28/2007 12:02:37 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)

Surely the Vams aren't stupid! Many names were given to them because of die cracks! Why should modern coinage be different?

 

VAM-1 is always the normal die state for a specific date/mint and has no distinguishing characteristics. Die varieties that can be distinguished from each date/mint's VAM-1 are subsequently numbered incrementally (VAM-2, VAM-3, etc.) Sometimes a letter follows the number, i.e. VAM-1A. A "lettered" VAM represents a later stage of the numbered die that has a die gouge, major die crack, pitting, die clash, or any other result of a post-die-production occurence that can be shown to have changed the die. Like VAM numbers, letters are also assigned in a one-up fashion.

 

 

http://vamworld.wikispaces.com/VAM

 

 

 

 

ERRORIST |stackgeneratorAT NOSPAMcableone dot net

 

 

[spiny]

How are you wrong here? I'm not even sure what your point is. If it's that you still think die cracks should be named, recognized, and generally accepted as anything more than common errors, well, you're still nuts, Patty McNutty.

 

I guess you could always write the Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of Statehood Quarters yourself. It shouldn't take too long on the variety side since you won't have to go past NUTTY-1 for most of them. You might want to choose a more extensive character set than the alphabet when you start cataloging the cracks and chips, though.

[cpm9ball]

When I got back into collecting after a 30-year hiatus, one of the Morgans I bought was an 1899-O that had an interesting die crack around the entire 360 degree perimeter. Interesting, yes! Noteworthy, no!

 

I realize that you like to collect these proof errors, but you are just going to have to accept the fact that the vast majority of collectors find no interest in them. If you should ever decide to write a book that catalogs these errors, be prepared to store 10,000 copies in your attic.

 

Chris

[errorist]

Looks like you all have been buffaloed. How would the coins without such errors be as unique since there are billions more of them?

[cpm9ball]

Looks like you all have been buffaloed. How would the coins without such errors be as unique since there are billions more of them?

 

Now, you're putting words in our mouths just to prove an unimportant point. No one has even compared them to "normal" proof coins and no one has stated that they were unique. However, if you are going to whine and complain like a little baby, at least you should get your facts straight. The mintage for the MA 25c is 4,020,172 in clad proof and 965,421 in silver proof. Maybe you should retake 7th Grade math. That is a far cry from billions. To me, it sounds like you have a case of PMS over your PMM.

 

By the way, if you want "buffaloed", this is buffaloed....................................................

 

 

How is that for a kick in the arse?

 

Chris

[errorist]

Not only talking just proof coins here! So I am correct, there have been MS coins minted in the billions per year!

[errorist]

Chris are you saying your coin is not unique?

[cpm9ball]

Not only talking just proof coins here! So I am correct, there have been MS coins minted in the billions per year!

 

So, now you are comparing your proof quarter with all other quarters. Did you remember to include all quarters dating back to 1796? It is a waste of time for me to attempt to conduct a sensible discussion with someone who interjects unrelated and incorrect information when they don't get their way. For this reason, my response to your next post will be my last on this thread.

 

Chris

[errorist]

Don't tell me you are going to run away from a little debate here are you??

[cpm9ball]

Chris are you saying your coin is not unique?

 

Unique

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/unique

 

No, mine is not unique. There are at least two others. One was reported in NN in November, 2005 and the other was one I had that I gave to a friend. Now, prove to me that any of yours are unique. Remember, there are billions and billions of quarters out there.

 

Goodbye!

 

Chris

[errorist]

Correct there are billions of them out there and no two of them are identical!

[bsshog40]

I look at things this way. I'm not an error collector but I do pay attention if something is different from one to another. Even tho most of these carry no significant value over another, it is still some type of error with a coin. For those that only collect errors, then there are planty to go around and different from each other. This makes a unique collection I would say. Die cracks for one are unique in there own way. many Moragns have these. Are they valuable? Most not, but it makes that coin unique in it's own right. As I stated, we all collect differently. Our own sets are unique to us as to having something in the midst that separates it from the others. JMHO

[errorist]

My thoughts exactly except they should be varieties such as the Morgans are. However, not numbered but named like the die gouges are?

[errorist]

And since David Harper has asked again?

 

"I ask again, “Are you stupid?” If you are not educating yourself about what makes some errors valuable and most others valueless over time, the answer might be yes. Grading services want to help you. The hobby’s error experts do, too. But you also have to want to help yourself. For more information, visit www.pcgs.com"

 

I need to ask, since I have determined the major die cracks are varieties such as the VAMS are then why are the coin grading companies/hobby’s error experts not trying to help out the ones that have die crack collections and getting those coins names for such fine varieties?

[Conder101]

Major die cracks are NOT varieties, they are die states. A die crack can be used seperate two varietes but the only way it should be used to "create" a variety is when you have more than one variety where the ONLY difference between them is a die crack. Now I don't know what system Van Allen uses to assign his numbers, but the way I see it the first die with NO identifing features would be VAM-1. The VAM-1 designation represents an unknown number of die pairs There should never be any such thing as a VAM-1a because there is now way to say that it is from the same die as VAM-1. It should be a VAM-2a and VAM-2 may not exist. Or it can be VAM-2 with the notation that no perfect state is known.

 

Harpers point is not so much against nicknames for known die varieties because in that case it is being used as a memory aid for quick identification of the variety (the 1807 S-271 is known as the comet variety even if it is in its early die state before the development of the "comet") as it is against their use as simply as a promotional gimmick.