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.

BJ Neff

[namingdiecracks]

Ah-ha, a coin anarchist.

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]

Error or Variety?

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.