HOWS ABOUT SOME EYE CANDY?

[namingdiecracks]

1999 cladded proof Kennedy.

http://i14.ebayimg.com/06/i/000/c1/91/6116_3.JPG

[3¢nicker]

wouldn't your die cracks be better suited for the error forum, cracks are not a variety just a thought

[namingdiecracks]

wouldn't your die cracks be better suited for the error forum, cracks are not a variety just a thought


I'd like to but I think it is both an error and a variety.

[wavysteps]

For clarification purposes, die cracks are considered an error since they are not on the die for its full life. Varieties, such as RPMs and doubled dies are on the die from the beginning to the end and thus the distinction between the two.

One anomaly can not be an error and a variety at the same time.

BJ Neff

[namingdiecracks]

For clarification purposes, die cracks are considered an error since they are not on the die for its full life. Varieties, such as RPMs and doubled dies are on the die from the beginning to the end and thus the distinction between the two.

One anomaly can not be an error and a variety at the same time.

BJ Neff


Sure it can all you have to do is change the rules.

[wavysteps]

Ah-ha, a coin anarchist. :rolleyes: :D

BJ Neff

[namingdiecracks]

Ah-ha, a coin anarchist. :rolleyes: :D

BJ Neff

Well, why not? It would be GOOD for the coin business. More money to be made. More books to sell to reach more people.

[koinpro]

BJ,
I disagree with you 100%. A variation being on the die from start to finish has nothing to do with it being a variety or not. Many collectors of Early American Coppers (and other early series of coins) collect by "variety" and those include die cracks, breaks, etc. The same goes for VAM collectors! Try telling them these are not varieties! Your run into a brick wall and for good reason -- they are correct in considering variations on the die as being "die varieties." A 1947 Canadian cent that had a repunched maple leaf added to the die long after it was used for normal coinage without the maple leaf was added for the later strikings is certainly a variety even though the repunching occured in the middle of the dies use. Futhermore, while not all varieties are errors, a coin certainly can be both an error and a variety -- this has never been in dispute in the error hobby. A 1955 doubled die cent is both and error and a variety as are many many other error-varieites.
Without going deep into this discussion here I will point you to three articles I have written on the subject that expain my position.
Thanks!
Ken

http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=502&universeid=313&type=1

http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/ErrorOrVarietyStatesCoins.htm

http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/1999W5DollarMatte.htm



For clarification purposes, die cracks are considered an error since they are not on the die for its full life. Varieties, such as RPMs and doubled dies are on the die from the beginning to the end and thus the distinction between the two.

One anomaly can not be an error and a variety at the same time.

BJ Neff

[diamond]

There is no definition of "variety" that everyone agrees with. And that's fine. I consider die cracks to be "die errors", along with die damage and die breaks. The only defects that I consider to be varieties are repunched dates, overdates, doubled dies, and the like. I do make an exception for retouched dies. One problem with including die cracks and die breaks is that they are not present at the outset and they are often dynamic -- growing as the die experiences continued stress.

Ken's articles lay out the nature of the debate quite nicely. Like him, I regard the debate as sterile. As long as you understand what you're dealing with, it doesn't matter what umbrella category you file it away under.

[wavysteps]

Or we could also go with Alan Herbert's thought, "All errors are minting varieties, but not all minting varieties are errors".

By Herbert's definition; struck off center coins, partial and full brockage strikes, uniface strikes, indented strikes, weak strikes, struck on a laminated, split or broken planchet, die breaks, die chips, die cracks, hub breaks and others are considered varieties, however, not considered to be errors since they are caused by wear and tear to either the machinery or the die. Taking this a bit further, all doubled dies are both a variety and an error as are RPMs.

Is this concept correct? If so, then I do stand corrected; a single anomaly can be both an error and a variety.

BJ Neff

[diamond]

Herbert constitutes one opinion. If we use "variety" to simply mean a deviation from the norm, then yes, every defect is a "variety". But such a broad application renders the term "variety" useless. We might as well go back to calling them "freaks", and "fidos" (to resurrect some outmoded terms).

There are anomalies that can be both errors and varieties, but that would be determined by process, not semantic games. A dynamic die rotation might best be considered an "error", since it changes constantly and is due to spontaneous equipment malfuction. A fixed die rotation error due to faulty installation might be better considered a variety, because it doesn't change.

[koinpro]

BJ,
Yes, that is correct. RPMs and a DDs are both clearly errors and treated as varieties. Nobody in the Mint makes them on purpose. They are created via a hubbing or punching mishap -- or in error if you will.
Ken

Or we could also go with Alan Herbert's thought, "All errors are minting varieties, but not all minting varieties are errors".

By Herbert's definition; struck off center coins, partial and full brockage strikes, uniface strikes, indented strikes, weak strikes, struck on a laminated, split or broken planchet, die breaks, die chips, die cracks, hub breaks and others are considered varieties, however, not considered to be errors since they are caused by wear and tear to either the machinery or the die. Taking this a bit further, all doubled dies are both a variety and an error as are RPMs.

Is this concept correct? If so, then I do stand corrected; a single anomaly can be both an error and a variety.

BJ Neff

[koinpro]

The thing is Mike, on a practical level, nobody really uses such a broad application except Herbert so your point, on a practical level is moot. While it is clear that we do have various opinions my main point here is that BJ telling Pat that he was "wrong" for calling a "Spiked Head" die crack a variety is "wrong" in itself. There are still many of us around that have been in the hobby for decades that consider die cracks varieties in spite of the fact that 99.9% of them are not all that "collectable." Try telling an EAC or VAM collector that the die breaks, etc., that they collect as varieties are not. As I've noted before, I refuse to debate the topic feeling we can all agree to disagree (when necessary) without any harm to the hobby but telling somebody that they are "wrong" when the issue has been clouded with different opinions for decades serves little purpose. As I see it die cracks can fit into either the error or the variety category depending on your perspective. You'll never find me starting a thread on them under errors :)
Ken

Herbert constitutes one opinion. If we use "variety" to simply mean a deviation from the norm, then yes, every defect is a "variety". But such a broad application renders the term "variety" useless. We might as well go back to calling them "freaks", and "fidos" (to resurrect some outmoded terms).

There are anomalies that can be both errors and varieties, but that would be determined by process, not semantic games. A dynamic die rotation might best be considered an "error", since it changes constantly and is due to spontaneous equipment malfuction. A fixed die rotation error due to faulty installation might be better considered a variety, because it doesn't change.

[wavysteps]

Maybe I am missing something in your translation of the word "wrong" Ken, however, I never did use that word in my communications with namingdiecracks.

What I did infer was that a die crack was an error and for clarification purposes, should have been in the error part of the forum and not in the variety section. This was incorrect and as it seems, it could go into either section of this form.

It may be wise, with the different opinions of what is an error and what is a variety, to combine both topic headings into one on this forum. This way there will be no confusion as to where to place a post dealing with either of those two subjects.

BJ Neff

[diamond]

It may be wise, with the different opinions of what is an error and what is a variety, to combine both topic headings into one on this forum. This way there will be no confusion as to where to place a post dealing with either of those two subjects.

BJ Neff

That's what the general forum would be for, I suppose.

[JamesWiles]

I had a multi-paragraph response but somehow it got lost in cyberspace. I don't have time to try and rewrite it, so I will try to sum up my previous thoughts, however they may be rather blunt at times.
Ken your thinking follows Alan Herbert and both of you are stuck in the 70s. We haven't used those definitions for "error" and "variety" since the mid to late 80s. No one followed Herbert in replacing "error" with "minting variety." The hobby under Bill Fivaz and JT Stanton redefined the terms. A variety is a restrictive group which is limited to (Design changes, mintmark style changes, doubled dies, RPMs, OMMs, other mintmark irregularities, repunched dates, and misplaced dates), all of which can be proven to be on the die before it is placed into service. If it is not one of these it is defined as an "error." "Error" is no longer used in a descriptive sense. It is used as a title for anything that is not a variety. There are planchet errors, die errors, and striking errors. I teach this maxim: Varieties are born on the die and errors are created spontaneously.
Die cracks are die errors not because they are abnormal or unintentional, or acciental, but because they are not varieties. Confusion sometimes sets in for the novice because die errors can be cataloged like varieties. But this does not make them varieties. Also die errors can be cherrypicked like varieties. But again this does not make them varieties. "Variety" has a very specialized use in the hobby. It is by definition restricted to problems affecting the production of a die.
Modern collectors make this distinction. Our forum needs to reflect this distinction as well. While I take no offense at a thread about die cracks in the variety forum, it is more accurately placed in the error forum.

[namingdiecracks]

I had a multi-paragraph response but somehow it got lost in cyberspace. I don't have time to try and rewrite it, so I will try to sum up my previous thoughts, however they may be rather blunt at times.
Ken your thinking follows Alan Herbert and both of you are stuck in the 70s. We haven't used those definitions for "error" and "variety" since the mid to late 80s. No one followed Herbert in replacing "error" with "minting variety." The hobby under Bill Fivaz and JT Stanton redefined the terms. A variety is a restrictive group which is limited to (Design changes, mintmark style changes, doubled dies, RPMs, OMMs, other mintmark irregularities, repunched dates, and misplaced dates), all of which can be proven to be on the die before it is placed into service. If it is not one of these it is defined as an "error." "Error" is no longer used in a descriptive sense. It is used as a title for anything that is not a variety. There are planchet errors, die errors, and striking errors. I teach this maxim: Varieties are born on the die and errors are created spontaneously.
Die cracks are die errors not because they are abnormal or unintentional, or acciental, but because they are not varieties. Confusion sometimes sets in for the novice because die errors can be cataloged like varieties. But this does not make them varieties. Also die errors can be cherrypicked like varieties. But again this does not make them varieties. "Variety" has a very specialized use in the hobby. It is by definition restricted to problems affecting the production of a die.
Modern collectors make this distinction. Our forum needs to reflect this distinction as well. While I take no offense at a thread about die cracks in the variety forum, it is more accurately placed in the error forum.

A die crack can also be on a die before it is placed into service therfore it makes it a variety/error. Correct?

[JamesWiles]

There is no way to prove that a die crack was on the die prior to its being placed into service. Because of that, all die cracks are considered errors. The same is true with die gouges or any other die error. Only those anomalies which can be proved to always be on the die prior to use are considered a variety.
The real question is, "Why do you so desperately want die cracks to be called a variety?" Placing die cracks in the variety category doesn't give them any additional prestige, value, honor, etc. They are what they are. Their value, interest, etc. is dictated by the market just as any other error or variety.
Just because die cracks are "errors" does not make them second class collectibles. An enterprising collector will eventually assemble a collection, devise a cataloging system, take some photos and write a book. If enough people what to collect them, then a market will develop, just as it has for other errors (such as cuds).

[namingdiecracks]

There is no way to prove that a die crack was on the die prior to its being placed into service. Because of that, all die cracks are considered errors. The same is true with die gouges or any other die error. Only those anomalies which can be proved to always be on the die prior to use are considered a variety.
The real question is, "Why do you so desperately want die cracks to be called a variety?" Placing die cracks in the variety category doesn't give them any additional prestige, value, honor, etc. They are what they are. Their value, interest, etc. is dictated by the market just as any other error or variety.
Just because die cracks are "errors" does not make them second class collectibles. An enterprising collector will eventually assemble a collection, devise a cataloging system, take some photos and write a book. If enough people what to collect them, then a market will develop, just as it has for other errors (such as cuds).

I think errors/varieties should all be ONE catagory. There is no way to prove a die crack happened before the first coin was struck from it. Therefore, you can't prove that it didn't happen either.There are numerous cases where new dies have cracked during the annealing process before one coin has been struck. Because of this fact they have been labled wrongly as errors. Since you can not prove it they should remain as varieties. Just my opinion.

[wavysteps]

Just would like to make a clarification concerning annealing. Since 1997, the need to anneal a die has been discontinued.

The reason for annealing was to reduce the number of dislocations in the metal that occurred during hubbing, which made the metal more brittle. Annealing the die removed these dislocations and thus softened the metal of the die so that it cold be re-hubbed.

With the present system, single squeeze hubbing, the only time a die is heated purposely (There is also some degree of elevated heat during the hubbing process that the die does go through) is to temper it, which in this case adds dislocations to the atomic structure, thus hardening the metal.

While it is possible to develop die cracks during both processes, it would seem highly unlikely that a die with any kind of fault developed during this time would be placed in service. The dies are throughly inspected after each of the afore mentioned procedures.

BJ Neff

[diamond]

My conception of what constitutes a variety and an error is in line with James' position. But, like James, I can comfortably live with other definitions as it does not alter the nature and origin of the defect.

As for tempering, according to my understanding, this adds some ductility to the die so that it won't shatter as easily. I can't remember whether a finished single-squeeze die is heated (annealed), then quenched, then tempered. Tempering is the application of heat to a die, but not enough heat so as to fully anneal it.

[namingdiecracks]

Just would like to make a clarification concerning annealing. Since 1997, the need to anneal a die has been discontinued.

The reason for annealing was to reduce the number of dislocations in the metal that occurred during hubbing, which made the metal more brittle. Annealing the die removed these dislocations and thus softened the metal of the die so that it cold be re-hubbed.

With the present system, single squeeze hubbing, the only time a die is heated purposely (There is also some degree of elevated heat during the hubbing process that the die does go through) is to temper it, which in this case adds dislocations to the atomic structure, thus hardening the metal.

While it is possible to develop die cracks during both processes, it would seem highly unlikely that a die with any kind of fault developed during this time would be placed in service. The dies are throughly inspected after each of the afore mentioned procedures.

BJ Neff

But not to the extent that they catch all the varieties, also. Therefore, I can see how some of these die cracks can slip through the inspection process of the die. Do you know if they do a " Non- Destuctive Die Penatrant" exam of the new dies? If not then one can slip through easy even if new.

[JamesWiles]

Please cite examples of dies which have cracked during the annealing process? I have been collecting EV coins since the early 1970s and I don't know of a single example. Please enlighten me.
Again, "variety" is a restricted name. The overarching name is "error." All varieties can be called errors, but only certain errors are called varieties. You are suggesting that everything be called a variety and only certain varieties be called errors. Unfortunately for you, the hobby as a whole does not agree with you. You can go against the tide if you desire, but now that I have explained the defintions, you will have to do so out of stubborness, not ignorance.
Our definitions are not a matter of one person's opinion. They are accepted statements of fact, which have been worked out and agreed upon by general concenus for years. What evidence do you bring to the table that would require a change in the definitions?

[diamond]

While it's theoretically possible that a die crack can be present at installation, such a proposition is impossible to prove. The null hypothesis must be that the crack develops while the die is in operation. And I have no idea what a "non-destructive die penetrant" exam is.

[wavysteps]

You are right Mike, annealing is done at much higher temperatures and I should have added that annealing may be done to a die before it has been initially hubbed.

As far as annealing after the hubbing process on the single squeeze method, I would see no practical use and it even may be detrimental and time consuming to do such.

However, the process of tempering does involve a step called austenizing which brings the metal temperature to over 1000 F, but then the metal is quenched (which does not occur in annealing). It is then reheated to either one of two ranges, avoiding the temperature range in between (500 to 700 F) where tempering brittleness can occur. So, yes; tempering does add some measured ductility to the die while maintaining its hardness.

BJ Neff

[namingdiecracks]

While it's theoretically possible that a die crack can be present at installation, such a proposition is impossible to prove. The null hypothesis must be that the crack develops while the die is in operation. And I have no idea what a "non-destructive die penetrant" exam is.

Non-Destuctive testing is the science of metalurgy of finding the smallest flaws or cracks in a metal. Commonly they use a die penetrant and then a magnetic field.

Magnetic particle inspection is just one way there are many others.


Magnetic particle inspection processes are non-destructive methods for the detection of defects in ferrous materials. They make use of an externally applied magnetic field or DC current through the material, and the principle that the magnetic susceptibility of a defect is markedly poorer (the magnetic resistance is greater) than that of the surrounding material.

The presence of a surface or near surface flaw (void) in the material causes distortion in the magnetic flux through it, which in turn causes leakage of the magnetic fields at the flaw. This deformation of the magnetic field is not limited to the immediate locality of the defect but extends for a considerable distance; even through the surface and into the air if the magnetism is intense enough. Thus the size of the distortion is much larger than that of the defect and is made visible at the surface of the part by means of the tiny particles that are attracted to the leakage fields.

The most common method of magnetic particle inspection uses finely divided iron or magnetic iron oxide particles, held in suspension in a suitable liquid (often kerosene). This fluid is referred to as carrier. The particles are often colored and usually coated with fluorescent dyes that are made visible with a hand-held ultraviolet (UV) light. The suspension is sprayed or painted over the magnetized specimen during magnetization with a direct current or with an electromagnet, to localize areas where the magnetic field has protruded from the surface. The magnetic particles are attracted by the surface field in the area of the defect and hold on to the edges of the defect to reveal it as a build up of particles.

This inspection can be applied to raw material in a steel mill (billets or slabs), in the early stages of manufacturing (forgings, castings), or most commonly to machined parts before they are put into service. It is also very commonly used for inspecting structural parts (e.g. landing gear) that have been in-service for some time to find fatigue cracks.

Usually tested pieces needs to be demagnetizated before being used.

It is a quite economic non-destructive test because it is easy to do and much faster than ultrasonic testing and penetrant testing.

[wavysteps]

I am not to sure if this post has any constructive discussion left. While the vast majority consider a die crack to be an error, there are those who have a different opinion, which they are entitled to.

I for one believe that die cracks are errors and although some may consider them as varieties, that again is their opinion.

As far as test to find metal flaws, you did overlook one test. That is the use of X-rays, which was used extensively on ship building and HY-80 steel. This also showed micro cracks, fissures and faults equally well and does not require de-magnetization.

As to what test the mint uses to inspect finished dies has not been discussed to my knowledge.

When looking at varieties, such as doubled dies and RPMs, the MINT will overlook small faults on the die as long as it maintains an overall functional design. It also seems that the MINT has less concern with faults on the reverse than the obverse. While a die variety, such as a doubled die or RPM, will not affect the die's overall life, a die crack can foreshorten it to just one coin before it is render useless. So it would stand to reason that the MINT would be more concerned with finding cracked dies instead of variety dies.

BJ Neff

[namingdiecracks]

I am not to sure if this post has any constructive discussion left. While the vast majority consider a die crack to be an error, there are those who have a different opinion, which they are entitled to.

I for one believe that die cracks are errors and although some may consider them as varieties, that again is their opinion.

As far as test to find metal flaws, you did overlook one test. That is the use of X-rays, which was used extensively on ship building and HY-80 steel. This also showed micro cracks, fissures and faults equally well and does not require de-magnetization.

As to what test the mint uses to inspect finished dies has not been discussed to my knowledge.

When looking at varieties, such as doubled dies and RPMs, the MINT will overlook small faults on the die as long as it maintains an overall functional design. It also seems that the MINT has less concern with faults on the reverse than the obverse. While a die variety, such as a doubled die or RPM, will not affect the die's overall life, a die crack can foreshorten it to just one coin before it is render useless. So it would stand to reason that the MINT would be more concerned with finding cracked dies instead of variety dies.

BJ Neff

Do they even use such a test or do they just rely on visual evidence?

[BIM Mania]

The string of dialog in this post will put some starch in your back, (even if it didn't need starching) :o

Nothing like ironing out the creases.

thanks,

Jeff

[koinpro]

James,
Based on what you've said below, it appears that you have not been keeping up with what others in the hobby consider a variety. In another post you site Fivas and Staton as redefining a "variety" as something that was on the die from the start like an RPM, DD, etc., however, in the Cherrypickers' Guide To Rare Die Varieties they include in their listings: die gouges (see the dollar section for starters), the Wisc 25c die gouges/dents?, the so-called Wounded Eagle die gouge Sac $, etc., rusted dies (pitted dies on page 354), at least one "Cud" (see page 346), die breaks (see page 336 for starters), clashes (many entries), die scrapes (see page 219), many abraded dies (missing this and that) and die cracks (more than I care to count in the dollar section). That's just in the latest CPG and there are more to come in the next edition. So your see you are incorrect on this count, which can be confirmed just by opening up the pages of CPG. You are also incorrect in stating that a variation needs to be on the die before it is placed in service to be a variety. The fact is, this has absolutely nothing to do with it being a variety or not. I can take one of my dies and redate it by softening the steel and repunching it with a new date after using it for an entire year and it then becomes an OMM variety not an OMM error. A die can clash or crack or break after being in service for lengthy periods and these variations are still varieties and not errors by any stretch of the imagination. They may be minor but they are minting varieites not errors. My insistence in calling these varieties has nothing to do with "desperation," it has to do with educating collectors with accurate information rather than inaccurate conveniences. It has to do with continuing my listings for the foreign varieties "as is,:" which have always included some significant die cracks, cuds, clashes, etc., when they stood out. I’ve been doing these for CONECA since the mid 1980s and I have no intention of changing what I call a variety just because some folks insist on mis-categorizing some varieties as errors. It seems that at some point when RPMs and DDs became popular that a few leaders, who should have known better, decided to brainwash the rest of the club (which spilled over to some extent to others outside of the club that are mostly stuck on the moderns) into believing that the rest of the die varieties are not so anymore just so that they could call the more minor variations errors instead of markers. There seems to have been no logical reason for this crusade of misinformation since weather a die crack, die chip, or clash or cud, etc., is referred to as a variety or error makes no difference in its collectability or value.
Additionally, many books written in the past decade or so (and many before that that still see heavy use) include die breaks, die cracks, clashes, etc., in them as varieties. This includes books such as Michael S. Fey and Jeff Oxman's The Top 100 Morgan Dollar Varieties: The VAM Keys, the VAM Book, of course, The Cherrypickers’ Guide, etc. So you see there is no "desperation" on my part -- I'm in good company in this respect and it is just a matter of my insistence in educating the collector correctly weather they decide to listen or not.
There has never been any agreement over exactly what an error or variety is, and at some point we just need to agree to disagree. I just hope that I don’t have to start searching the error section of this forum to read about varieties like Pat’s Spiked Heads! :)
Sincerely yours,
Ken Potter
CONECA Webmaster



There is no way to prove that a die crack was on the die prior to its being placed into service. Because of that, all die cracks are considered errors. The same is true with die gouges or any other die error. Only those anomalies which can be proved to always be on the die prior to use are considered a variety.
The real question is, "Why do you so desperately want die cracks to be called a variety?" Placing die cracks in the variety category doesn't give them any additional prestige, value, honor, etc. They are what they are. Their value, interest, etc. is dictated by the market just as any other error or variety.
Just because die cracks are "errors" does not make them second class collectibles. An enterprising collector will eventually assemble a collection, devise a cataloging system, take some photos and write a book. If enough people what to collect them, then a market will develop, just as it has for other errors (such as cuds).

[namingdiecracks]

James,
Based on what you've said below, it appears that you have not been keeping up with what others in the hobby consider a variety. In another post you site Fivas and Staton as redefining a "variety" as something that was on the die from the start like an RPM, DD, etc., however, in the Cherrypickers' Guide To Rare Die Varieties they include in their listings: die gouges (see the dollar section for starters), the Wisc 25c die gouges/dents?, the so-called Wounded Eagle die gouge Sac $, etc., rusted dies (pitted dies on page 354), at least one "Cud" (see page 346), die breaks (see page 336 for starters), clashes (many entries), die scrapes (see page 219), many abraded dies (missing this and that) and die cracks (more than I care to count in the dollar section). That's just in the latest CPG and there are more to come in the next edition. So your see you are incorrect on this count, which can be confirmed just by opening up the pages of CPG. You are also incorrect in stating that a variation needs to be on the die before it is placed in service to be a variety. The fact is, this has absolutely nothing to do with it being a variety or not. I can take one of my dies and redate it by softening the steel and repunching it with a new date after using it for an entire year and it then becomes an OMM variety not an OMM error. A die can clash or crack or break after being in service for lengthy periods and these variations are still varieties and not errors by any stretch of the imagination. They may be minor but they are minting varieites not errors. My insistence in calling these varieties has nothing to do with "desperation," it has to do with educating collectors with accurate information rather than inaccurate conveniences. It has to do with continuing my listings for the foreign varieties "as is,:" which have always included some significant die cracks, cuds, clashes, etc., when they stood out. I’ve been doing these for CONECA since the mid 1980s and I have no intention of changing what I call a variety just because some folks insist on mis-categorizing some varieties as errors. It seems that at some point when RPMs and DDs became popular that a few leaders, who should have known better, decided to brainwash the rest of the club (which spilled over to some extent to others outside of the club that are mostly stuck on the moderns) into believing that the rest of the die varieties are not so anymore just so that they could call the more minor variations errors instead of markers. There seems to have been no logical reason for this crusade of misinformation since weather a die crack, die chip, or clash or cud, etc., is referred to as a variety or error makes no difference in its collectability or value.
Additionally, many books written in the past decade or so (and many before that that still see heavy use) include die breaks, die cracks, clashes, etc., in them as varieties. This includes books such as Michael S. Fey and Jeff Oxman's The Top 100 Morgan Dollar Varieties: The VAM Keys, the VAM Book, of course, The Cherrypickers’ Guide, etc. So you see there is no "desperation" on my part -- I'm in good company in this respect and it is just a matter of my insistence in educating the collector correctly weather they decide to listen or not.
There has never been any agreement over exactly what an error or variety is, and at some point we just need to agree to disagree. I just hope that I don’t have to start searching the error section of this forum to read about varieties like Pat’s Spiked Heads! :)
Sincerely yours,
Ken Potter
CONECA Webmaster

So if merge variety/error into one catagory what do we get now a Varerror or a Errorietie??? LOL

Anyways, I think the two should have never been seperated to begin with also.

[wavysteps]

There does seem to be a blurring of definitions concerning what is and what is not an error or variety. How these conception or mis-conception arose or exactly who started them is a mote, however, the important point is that it be corrected before it forms a schism in the error and variety community.

We have many great minds in the field of errors and varieties and with the ease of communications afford by the use of the PC now-a-days, I am almost sure that satisfactory definitions which identify what is an error coin and what is a variety coin can be reached. Yes, there will be a difference of opinions, there will always be that, however, we must remember that these definitions not only serve the experts in the field but also guide the novice and all those in between as to what he or she is collecting. That is the important part, education and furthering the goals of CONECA and the error and variety community.

I am not advocating immediate action on establishing these definitions, however, in the near future, it should be done. We have had round-robin discussions before, via E-mails and I feel that it would not be so hard to establish this format once again.

This is something that we can not afford to do for the good of the hobby.


BJ Neff

[diamond]

Again, I don't see standardizing the definition of "error" and "variety" to be a pressing issue. As long as the underlying cause is understood, it doesn't much matter what overarching category it is filed away under. I doubt you'll ever acheive a meeting of the minds on this issue.

However, if you are determined to corral the leading lights of the hobby together to hammer out an agreement, I'll be happy to participate.

[wavysteps]

Mike - I also do not see a pressing issue here either. There is no added value or premium to be gained by calling it one or the other, nor does prestige enter into the equation in naming an anomaly an error or variety. Both value and prestige are arrived at by the scarcity and degree of that anomaly.

However, a clearly defined set of definitions, determining which is which, would not hurt the hobby. It would instead aid both the novice and the expert alike, giving clear guidance which is which.

At this time, there are three error variety forums (to my knowledge) who use similar formats, which divides errors and varieties; CONECA, Coppercoins and Coin People. All three are known to group RPMs, doubled dies ...etc or anomalies that happen in the making of that die as varieties. Anomalies such as die cracks, gouges, clashes, strike thrus.....etc or any anomaly that happens after the making of that die, are classified as errors. If these categories are not correct, then they should be changed and open discussion seems the best way to resolve this issue.

Ten years ago, we did not have the communications that are available today and to have accomplished a task such as this in that time period would have been impossible. Now it is not.

BJ Neff