"Questions & Answers"

"CONECA Questions & Answers Forum"

Photo courtesy of  Kenneth A. Watson 

 July 12, 2006 - Source of Question: General Email?

    Q: Hello, as I said, I am new to the error/variety aspect of the hobby and have started with circulated Wheat cents. I find this to be quite interesting.   I know you must get this all the time and I hope you don't mind my inquiry about the attached photo. It is a 1944-D with a major lamination on the reverse, but also with another feature I am not sure about. Here is my theory. This started with the crack (there may be two) which runs rim to rim from about 10 o'clock (just below the top of the left wheat stalk) to about 4 o'clock (or east of "states") and progressed to the die lamination (part of the wheat stalk and some letters are struck into the depression). What I'm not sure about is the sort of triangular sheet of copper between the "O" and "C" running into the "E." There is a tiny space between the face of the coin and this sheet on both sides, but it's obviously attached somehow. My guess is that this is metal which accumulated in the die lamination from earlier strikes and this piece fell off and was struck onto this planchet--you can see the tip of the wheat stalk, the top of the "C" and part of the "E" on this piece. I would appreciate your brief critique of my theory. Thank you again!
Kenneth A. Watson 

The following answers illustrate that different specialists can have different views and that discussion can sometimes bring
them together, nonetheless, an examination of an actual coin may be necessary to be sure of the exact nature of some errors.

    A #1  The triangular area is a "flap" created when some of the laminated metal was folded over at some point.  It looks like it then took on some of the design underneath the folded over area like an aluminum foil rubbing. The design under the area where the flap originated from normally shows detail like this. It is just a lamination that got folded over.  It should be noted that the "die" is not laminated -- the planchet is.  Any lamination or cracks in the die itself would show raised on the struck coin and would not be flaking or  loose on the coin.  That is not the case here. The recessed area above STATES that you ask about is where laminated metal fell away.  It is not uncommon on larger laminations like this to have areas that are retained and other areas where the lamination has fallen away either before or after the strike. Circulated examples with a hinged area often get pulled up and folded over as we see here.  Areas where we see fully formed letters of STATES encroaching into the recessed area missing metal seem to have been retained due to planchet metal being forced up into the die to create the letters and perhaps being compressed enough to hold them all together.  
I hope that helps!
Ken Potter

    A #2  The only thing I would add is to explain that a (die) crack is a raised line of coin metal, while this is a crack into the coin metal. I "think" he has the two confused. The edge of that layer that is folded back is one side of a very shallow planchet crack. Some laminations start with a crack and some "slide" into the coin at a flat angle, without leaving an edge, like cutting a shaving off a piece of wood.
Alan Herbert

    A #3  Ken, I think you covered it in greater detail than I could have.  I would have nothing to add, and believe your answer tells Kenneth exactly what he has. As to value, it's only been with the advent of Ebay that these bring any money. (Before then, it might be worth a buck or two at the most). I'd guess that based on what I see happen sometimes on Ebay, his coin would bring somewhere between $5-$10 (!!), to the right interested bidder, should Kenneth want to sell it.
Fred Weinberg

    A #4  The whole area laminated before striking but only a portion of the flap stayed, then bent over and was then die struck. The missing metal on the area that shows itself as being struck does not appear striated or irregular on its surface area in the photo, thus proving this portion was already missing metal when struck and the bent over piece is showing the top of the C and the rest of the e on it's surface in an upright position. The wheat top is shallow or weak due to lack of metal (before striking) while the middle portion of cent is higher up thus receiving the die striking better. The loose metal had been sticking up or diagonally raised up and then the die came onto it, it would look as it does, mangled or that area next to the O that is double bent might have been re bent over and mangled more from circulation. If the metal were struck and then bent over after striking it would have had a backwards impression if whatever part of the die that had struck it before it bent over. Actually the wheat would have shown from the backside of the flap had the flap been down before striking so this proves it had already bent over before striking.
Neil Osina

    A #5  I figured circulation wear of the flap from being up high on the reverse would have degraded the reversed image from the underside of the flap while at the same time impressed or embossed the underling image into the flap like you can emboss an image into aluminum foil. Part of the reason I believe this is because the portions of the letters effected are weaker on the flap where you'd think they could be just as strong or stronger if from the strike.
Ken Potter

    A #6  By having been bent over for so long the flap gets more wear as it was higher off surface.
Neil Osina

    A #7  It is just a folded over lamination flap. Folded over after the strike. In this specimen one must remember that the coin circulated for quite some time. A very thin flap of metal that folded over after the strike would, over time, mold itself to the underlying design. That, in my opinion, is why you see the tip of the "C" and the middle of the "E".
    If the flap had folded over before the strike, the letter details would probably be much clearer than what you see here. Note how vague the part of the E that passes over the flap is compared to the parts that lie above and below it. Also the flap would probably be flush with the surrounding metal, instead of lying loosely on top of it.
    The weakness of the left wheat ear could just as easily be ascribed to metal peeling up after the strike as to weakness of the strike in a thinned area of the coin. The fact that there is apparently a "step-down" from the normal surface makes it seem more likely that the flap folded over after the strike. Striations aren't always clearly visible in such errors, especially when there is a relatively small area involved.
    Can I completely exclude folding over before the strike? No, at least not without examining the specimen personally.
Cheers,
Mike Diamond    

    A #8  We could all be correct on this worn a coin but the wheat top needs to show backwards on the flap which would not have worn away since it would not have been raised is only differing point. However if as I say laminated before striking, perhaps the area where top of wheat is would have been too low down to get struck onto flap, an generally laminations are rougher on the surface when peeling up after being struck but wear here could have hidden roughness. I realize I might be compromising myself but I will still stick to my original thoughts about it.
Neil Osina

     A #9  Guys, this one is a tough call. Could be pre-strike or post-strike folding over. There are features that favor both scenarios. A detailed examination under a microscope would be necessary to nail it down.
Mike Diamond.

    A #10  I can see myself leaning either way depending on what I saw on the actual coin.
Thanks!
Ken Potter

"CONECA Questions & Answers Forum"

Click On Image For Enlarged View
Photo © Ken Potter 2006

 June 30, 2006 - Source of Question: General Email?
    Q: I have a 1999-W $5.00 Gold 1/10th Eagle that was struck by the Mint with an Uncirculated Matte Finish instead of the intended Proof finish for the West Point issue.  Is this an error or variety?  Also, why is it referred to by the grading service as struck with "Unfinished Proof Die" when the die has clearly been "finished" albeit the wrong finish?
Thanks!
Troy Goodman
    A:  Troy, these are good questions!   In answer, by my definition, it is both an error and a variety.  Clearly, giving a West Point die an uncirculated matte finish was an error but any error, be it planchet error, die error or striking error may also be considered a variety depending on who's definition you use.  For example as defined by Daniel Webster the following definitions apply, "1 : the quality or state of having different forms or types" and "3 a : something differing from others of the same general kind."
    According to Alan Herbert in his book, The Official Price Guide To Mint Errors:
"Only a small fraction of the mint product is an "error." The E word was born back in the dark ages when almost nobody knew anything about the minting process. Today we know enough about the complexities of minting coins to be able to pinpoint the exact cause, or causes, in 99 percent of the cases. We desperately need the proper language to fit with that increased knowledge. Teaching novice collectors nicknames and slang is akin to teaching a chimp how to use a baseball bat. It curls my hair to hear professional people, engineers, doctors, lawyers and other college graduates misusing the language like they do.
    We know that many actions by mint personnel are expedients-things done to speed up production, salvage worn or damaged dies, use up substandard planchets, or just simply to save money. Obviously, an expedient is not an "error." It was done deliberately. Other mint products are different because of wear and tear to the dies, coin press, or other equipment. Again this stretches the definition of "error" to have to include a normal result of heavy usage.
    The more we know about the minting process, the harder it is to stretch the E word to fit the end result. The simple solution is to have a "real" term which will include any and all variations, and-just as important-will include "errors," but in their proper perspective. That term is minting varieties.
    A minting variety is, by definition, "A coin which is normal or which exhibits a variation of any kind from the normal, whether intentional, accidental, or due to wear and tear on the equipment, as a result of any portion of the minting process, whether at the blank or planchet stage, as a result of a change or modification of the die, or during the striking process."
   Having been employed within a manufacturing environment for over 30 years I can confirm Herbert's statements as being accurate. The fact is the majority of items stated to be errors in our hobby most probably were not made in error!  Just like any other factory in the world, the Mint must knowingly make many of them as an expedient or for other logical reasons.
    However, on a more practical level I do realize that the term error is here to stay, like it or not, and that the terms error and variety carry certain connotations to many in the error-variety hobby.  So, I  will not debate the pros and cons of the terms and in most cases on a commercial level I will refer to those items most often referred to as errors as just that.
    On a more scholarly level I recognize that most items termed errors are not.  Certainly minor changes in a die due to age and use such as die chips, die dents, die breaks, clashes, die flow lines, etc., are no more errors than age lines on a person's face.  Another way of putting it is:  would you consider the effects of wear and tear on the tires on your car resulting from driving it back and forth to work to be errors?   Nonetheless, there are differing opinions as to whether or not normal wear and tear on a die should be considered an error when it is used to strike a perfectly acceptable coin.
    On the question of referring to your coin as struck with an "unfinished proof die," you are correct in alluding to this being incorrect terminology.  The fact is the die was finished completely, so calling it unfinished is inaccurate.  The proper terminology would be "improperly finished proof die" or something to that effect.  It would be proper to elaborate further by saying "... finished as a matte uncirculated die" or similar.
I hope that helps.
Ken Potter

"CONECA Questions & Answers Forum"

Photo © Ken Potter 1994 / Coin courtesy of  H. M. Kuykendall

    Q - November 29, 2005 -- "I am having a helluva time trying to find a photo of the 1969-D/D Roosevelt Dime (FS-020.4). While looking over my Mint Sets, I found that the '69-D dime looked a bit "different" (Maybe because my eyesight isn't what it used to be).  Could you please point me in the right direction for obtaining any references or information? I would greatly appreciate it, as I have spent about six hours over the past two days surfing the net without success--and all I have to show for it is a giant headache!
CONECA Member, Ed Hasson of PA 

    A - Hi Ed, your wish is my command.  The variety is pictured above!  FYI -- the coin was originally reported to me by H. M. Kuykendall of MD in November of 1994.  He found it in a Mint Set; it appears all come from that source.
    Ken Potter - CONECA Webmaster

"CONECA Questions & Answers Forum"

The images above were taken of the coin with side lighting which creates many harsh shadows but brings out some details lost with the brighter scanner shots below.  Notice the ghosting of the Lincoln cent bust showing through on the obverse which helps us orientate the obv/rev die alignment.

Images Courtesy Of Ken Potter

   Q: March 18, 2006 --  I have a neat partial brockage strike with some unusual characteristics.  I wonder if any of the CONECA error specialists have an explanation  for how all these effect occurred?
Al Blyth

The images were presented to several CONECA error coin specialists
for their opinions.  They are presented below.

    A #1: April 25, 2006 -- Regarding the backwards thinner impression side, this was created when this planchet went into coining chamber and rested onto an already struck coin that had itself flipped over but stayed in coining chamber, thus this coin received the impression from the first coin resting on the reverse. As to why the first obv. didn't show could have been because the obv was also capped by a blank which stayed there, then this coin flipped over and received additional strikes by the obv. blank cap and the now cleared rev die. The obv. blank cap may have become so thin that, that area, left space for another blank to enter into and above this now one sided struck coin and block out the obv dies yet again so that no impressions of the obv dies would be visible.
Neil Osina

A #2: April 26, 2006 -- Regarding the backwards thinner impression side which I call it's obv, this was created when this planchet went into coining chamber and resting on the bottom die was hit several times by a previously struck slightly off center coin that stuck to the top die and had capped that die. I do see what appears to be a ghost impression of Lincoln showing on this coin's "obv."
thus my first explanation of a flip over was inaccurate and too complicated.
Neil Osina

A #3: April 25, 2006 -- Such a depression is rather common on errors of this sort. I don't think it requires any exotic scenario. There's an outside chance that both cents remained stuck together (and stuck to one or the other die) for a second strike. That could create, or accentuate, a shallow central depression. But, again, since a shallow recess is rather common on full and nearly full brockage/broadstrike errors, I think it's simply an effect of the (single) strike. I HAVE seen one or two brockage/broadstrikes that were indented by a second planchet, and they look quite different from this specimen. The central part of the incuse design is largely obliterated and the circular depression is much more sharply defined.
Mike Diamond

A #4: April 25, 2006 -- Let's start with the fact that the split is through the N of ONE on the "mooshed" side, but opposite it on the "normal" side. A normal coin in a dual or quad press, one die of which is already capped, fails to eject properly. It bounces and spins around in the press and ends up under the cap. The next stroke bonds the coin to the cap, and begins the mooshing. Eventually it hits this coin, and the extra thickness of the cap causes excess spreading of this coin.
What do you think?
Tom DeLorey

"CONECA Questions & Answers Forum"

Image Courtesy Of H Metivier

    June 12, 2005 -- Q: I have an 1853 With Arrows Liberty Seated dime with a Major Die Break (Cud) along the lower left rim.  I would like your opinion now that you have seen the coin. I grade it at least AU-55. Do you agree? Also, in your opinion, could it be unknown or possibly one of just a few that survived? After all it is 152 years old and probably been in the ground most of that time. 
H Metivier

    A:  In looking in Cud Book by Sam Thurman and Arnold Margolis, and the Complete Guide to Liberty Seated Dimes by Brian Greer I find that neither reference list this variety.  Unfortunately, however, this is not an exhaustive search of reference material which might include club journals and other books that I do not own on the subject. Thus is impossible to me to comment on rarity. It might be well-know to specialists of the series. You might try making contact with our Seated Liberty & Barber Coinage Examiner, Chris Pillod here: http://www.conecaonline.org/content/coneca_attributers.html or try the Liberty Seated Coin Club here: http://www.numismalink.com/lscc.html 
I prefer to not grade coins based on images but yours does appear to be upper end. Still, you said it came out of the ground so it probably has environmental damage that would lessen its net grade.
Thanks!
Ken Potter

"CONECA Questions & Answers Forum"

Images Courtesy Of Coin Owner

    December 29, 2004 -- Q: I am in possession of this 2004 silver proof set which has two of what I believe to be error coins. The first is the Lincoln cent which has a die crack that runs from the "R" in LIBERTY to the back of Lincolns head. The second error is what appears to be a disappearing "2" in the date similar to the weak 3 error found on some of the Lincoln cents in 2003 proof sets. 
Best Regards,
David 
Woburn, MA 

    A: What I see on the cent appears more to be a flaw in the plating, i.e., a plating blister of sorts. This is not uncommon, is considered a minor flaw and is not too very collectable in terms of demand for the type. It is most often looked upon as a detractor to the value and desirability of the coin rather than as an error.
    The ten-cent piece is probably the result of an overpolished (abraded) die.  Again, it is nothing particularly desirable to error-variety collectors.
We sometimes see such items as the above promoted on eBay but few if any serious collectors bid on them.  However, a newbie or two can drive them up in price anyway and then later find out it is something nobody in the error-variety community at large wants. If they decide to dump there recent purchase by listing it again on eBay they can initiate a sort of hot potato effect as one newbie after another finds out they've won an essentially worthless item.  In order for them to sell it, they rely on finding another newbie, which is not particularly hard on eBay as there are many new fish to fry entering the market on a regular basis.  I mention this only because you will see items like this on eBay from time to time, more often than not, accompanied by exaggerated claims of rarity and desirability.
    With that said, however, it should be pointed out that we do not discourage collectors from collecting what they enjoy.  Even minor errors or varieties have educational value and are worth assembling into collections for study and/or enjoyment if that is what a collector enjoys.  They key here it to recognize they have very little value but to enjoy them for what they are and to not pay much for them.  
Sincerely yours,
Ken Potter

Opinions expressed in articles or other features posted on the CONECA web site do not necessarily represent official CONECA policy or those of it's officers.  The act of submitting material shall constitute an expressed warranty by the contributor that the material is original; if not, the source and permission must be provided.


Back To The CONECA Homepage