Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Friday, February 7, 2020
Questions Too Darn Juicy To Let Slip By
Over on facebook a few of us got together to create a group to go along with the Live Coin Q&A program airing on Thursday evenings starting at 830 Eastern on youtube.
The group is aptly named Coin Q&A. Join it.
Early this morning a budding numismatist by the name of Shane posed a poignant question. My response become rather lengthy. Rather than see it lost to the facebook nether regions I thought it prudent to share here.
There are more replies by other folks. To review those, you'll just have to join the group to follow the discussion. My response is here...
I can not answer right now as to tolerances of design hubbed into the die. That will take some investigation.
As to value, most of the minor doubled die varieties do not draw all that extreme a premium. Part is due to collector interest...the variety side of the hobby is still in it's infancy. Those varieties that draw a hefty premium have been glorified in print, particularly in the Red Book and Cherrypicker's guide. Minor varieties are largely unknown, but are gaining attention albeit slowly.
As for weight, there is a correlation between the greater it is from the target planchet weight and premium. Slightly over/under does not draw much interest. As with varieties and other measurable errors (e.g. 5% off center v 75% off center), the more substantial the anomaly, the greater the premium.
Errors vs varieties:
Errors are an event or state during production. They are unique. They can be further classified as a strike, die, planchet, or collar error.
Varieties are a change in the design, either intentional or unintentional.
A die crack would fall under the definition of Variety. Varieties are repeated as often as the die strikes the coin. However, there is some grey area...some of these varieties come into being gradually, such as a crack. Others come into being instantly, as with a clash. There is some crossover of these definitions. Here you are getting into the realm of numismatic theory. Who or what would make the decision regarding standard classification rules? The ANA? It's a club. The Mint? Their interest is in producing coinage to support the economy. Consensus begs to be the determining body but you'd have an easier time herding cats.
As to value of minor errors vs minor varieties, that falls into the scope of collector interest. I've seen people claim machine doubling has value. I vehemently disagree with such a claim. On a similar note I here people claim die chips have no value. To this I offer objective evidence to support the idea that some can, should and do. Again, it is dependent on the numismatic importance of the issue. Documentation of such varieties can also add numismatic importance. As an example: cuds-on-coins has a broad range of listings for BIE varieties. These bring a few bucks, especially in high grades. Should not die chips in prominent locations on other dates bring similar interest? What if there was more documentation of some of these other die chips..."pooping horse" comes to mind.
They like the sneezing horse (die crack), spitting eagle (clash), jailbird lincolns (clash), extra bear claw (chip), among others...is this the result of hype? Documentation? Uniqueness? Findability?
There is a 1975-D Jefferson with a mintmark in an extreme location. They call it the High D. I see no reason such a variety should command a premium, yet people are willing to pay a few bucks.
There is a Canadian Large Cent with a "Wide Date" but several different dies with varying distances of the last digit. Without standards to differentiate between the several dies, it is uncertain which diagnostics to employ to identify the correct die.
Your questions here are right on target, baby. It is your sort of interest that drives numismatists to investigate further. You are on the path to becoming a hard core numismatist. Keep going down that path.
Here's where it gets interesting...
Variety attributors also have Tolerances.
Chuck Daughtrey has mentioned that he considers some die varieties to be too minor to list, and he is SPOT ON in this regard while leaving the door open wide for other attributors to document minor varieites.
This brings up the idea of "Attributability Thresholds".
There are minor RPMs out there that are well documented but no more than a split serif. Is Size of the Anomaly the metric to employ in determining if a variety should be documented? Daughtrey cites Marketability as a critical determining factor. Other attributors will list the ability to identify the variety with a 10x loupe as the threshold. There are die chips the size of dump trucks out there receiving little attention while there are numerous VAMs that would be regarded as minor chips or cracks by other attributors.
Fivaz lists the most extreme, most desired, most rare, most valuable and penultimate varieties in the Cherrypicker's Guide.
Potter offers up some glorious oddities in "Strike It Rich with Pocket Change".
Me, I like em all. BUT there is a limit in many instances. Die cracks on the 1983 cent reverse, chips on 1957 cents, chips on Roosevelt's face, Some of these are more common than jerks on facebook.
It is up to each attributor to determine what is going to be listed in their work, be it based on value, importance, grandeur, or how much time is available to study and list them.
There are entire books dedicated to RPMs.
I think it would be interesting to produce a book on die chips. What would make them interesting? Some combination of size, location, domination of the design, and I would include Findability in there. Plenty of folks can find an identical variety or something similar, and would love to make a contribution to the hobby as having discovered it.
This one is listed in the SAN Database as US-5C-2005P-Bison-SCHP-001.
It's a simple, minor, unremarkable die chip in a letter.
And you can find these.
If you did, would you want to be able to potentially look it up somewhere, identify your specimen accordingly, or submit it for inclusion in a variety database with your name as the discoverer?
Is it marketable? Not particularly. Not yet anyway. Is this because it is not documented? I think partly.
How about US-1C-1910S-SCHP-001.
A die chip in a prominent location-inside the mintmark.
You can find these, but it takes some hunting and here are few surviving specimens in high grade.
Neglect it or use it to add breadth to your collection?
As these varieties are brought to the attention of more people, does the hobby grow as a result of the effort?
Do collectors have more to look for, more to identify, and the tools to do so?
And if they do, is it a positive benefit for the hobby?
The group is aptly named Coin Q&A. Join it.
Early this morning a budding numismatist by the name of Shane posed a poignant question. My response become rather lengthy. Rather than see it lost to the facebook nether regions I thought it prudent to share here.
Shane:I'm a slow typist so it took a while putting out a reply while keeping my coffee at an acceptable level.
Does anyone know if the Mint considers minor doubled dies (such as single squeeze class 8) to be within tolerance? I heard this somewhere and am not sure it's a fact. If workers are aware of a particular sound that happens when a doubled die is created, and these are still getting out in high numbers, they must not care, thus supporting some doubled dies have a tolerance level. If they do have a tolerance level, why are they far more valuable than a coin that isn't exactly the weight put in official writing?
Additionally, concerning errors vs. die varieties, each error coin must be unique, even die errors such as the spiked head (the crack gets progressively larger as the die is used). Die varieties can have 1,000,000 examples that are *exactly* the same. Why are minor die errors/striking errors not valued more than die varieties?
There are more replies by other folks. To review those, you'll just have to join the group to follow the discussion. My response is here...
I can not answer right now as to tolerances of design hubbed into the die. That will take some investigation.
As to value, most of the minor doubled die varieties do not draw all that extreme a premium. Part is due to collector interest...the variety side of the hobby is still in it's infancy. Those varieties that draw a hefty premium have been glorified in print, particularly in the Red Book and Cherrypicker's guide. Minor varieties are largely unknown, but are gaining attention albeit slowly.
As for weight, there is a correlation between the greater it is from the target planchet weight and premium. Slightly over/under does not draw much interest. As with varieties and other measurable errors (e.g. 5% off center v 75% off center), the more substantial the anomaly, the greater the premium.
Errors vs varieties:
Errors are an event or state during production. They are unique. They can be further classified as a strike, die, planchet, or collar error.
Varieties are a change in the design, either intentional or unintentional.
A die crack would fall under the definition of Variety. Varieties are repeated as often as the die strikes the coin. However, there is some grey area...some of these varieties come into being gradually, such as a crack. Others come into being instantly, as with a clash. There is some crossover of these definitions. Here you are getting into the realm of numismatic theory. Who or what would make the decision regarding standard classification rules? The ANA? It's a club. The Mint? Their interest is in producing coinage to support the economy. Consensus begs to be the determining body but you'd have an easier time herding cats.
As to value of minor errors vs minor varieties, that falls into the scope of collector interest. I've seen people claim machine doubling has value. I vehemently disagree with such a claim. On a similar note I here people claim die chips have no value. To this I offer objective evidence to support the idea that some can, should and do. Again, it is dependent on the numismatic importance of the issue. Documentation of such varieties can also add numismatic importance. As an example: cuds-on-coins has a broad range of listings for BIE varieties. These bring a few bucks, especially in high grades. Should not die chips in prominent locations on other dates bring similar interest? What if there was more documentation of some of these other die chips..."pooping horse" comes to mind.
They like the sneezing horse (die crack), spitting eagle (clash), jailbird lincolns (clash), extra bear claw (chip), among others...is this the result of hype? Documentation? Uniqueness? Findability?
There is a 1975-D Jefferson with a mintmark in an extreme location. They call it the High D. I see no reason such a variety should command a premium, yet people are willing to pay a few bucks.
There is a Canadian Large Cent with a "Wide Date" but several different dies with varying distances of the last digit. Without standards to differentiate between the several dies, it is uncertain which diagnostics to employ to identify the correct die.
Your questions here are right on target, baby. It is your sort of interest that drives numismatists to investigate further. You are on the path to becoming a hard core numismatist. Keep going down that path.
 |
| I am of the opinion that more information made available to more collectors is a good thing for the hobby. |
Here's where it gets interesting...
Variety attributors also have Tolerances.
Chuck Daughtrey has mentioned that he considers some die varieties to be too minor to list, and he is SPOT ON in this regard while leaving the door open wide for other attributors to document minor varieites.
This brings up the idea of "Attributability Thresholds".
There are minor RPMs out there that are well documented but no more than a split serif. Is Size of the Anomaly the metric to employ in determining if a variety should be documented? Daughtrey cites Marketability as a critical determining factor. Other attributors will list the ability to identify the variety with a 10x loupe as the threshold. There are die chips the size of dump trucks out there receiving little attention while there are numerous VAMs that would be regarded as minor chips or cracks by other attributors.
Fivaz lists the most extreme, most desired, most rare, most valuable and penultimate varieties in the Cherrypicker's Guide.
Potter offers up some glorious oddities in "Strike It Rich with Pocket Change".
Me, I like em all. BUT there is a limit in many instances. Die cracks on the 1983 cent reverse, chips on 1957 cents, chips on Roosevelt's face, Some of these are more common than jerks on facebook.
It is up to each attributor to determine what is going to be listed in their work, be it based on value, importance, grandeur, or how much time is available to study and list them.
There are entire books dedicated to RPMs.
I think it would be interesting to produce a book on die chips. What would make them interesting? Some combination of size, location, domination of the design, and I would include Findability in there. Plenty of folks can find an identical variety or something similar, and would love to make a contribution to the hobby as having discovered it.
This one is listed in the SAN Database as US-5C-2005P-Bison-SCHP-001.
It's a simple, minor, unremarkable die chip in a letter.
And you can find these.
If you did, would you want to be able to potentially look it up somewhere, identify your specimen accordingly, or submit it for inclusion in a variety database with your name as the discoverer?
Is it marketable? Not particularly. Not yet anyway. Is this because it is not documented? I think partly.
A die chip in a prominent location-inside the mintmark.
You can find these, but it takes some hunting and here are few surviving specimens in high grade.
Neglect it or use it to add breadth to your collection?
As these varieties are brought to the attention of more people, does the hobby grow as a result of the effort?
Do collectors have more to look for, more to identify, and the tools to do so?
And if they do, is it a positive benefit for the hobby?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)