gxseries Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Apparently this is the definition of overstrike from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_coin_errors Overstrike In the past, it was a common practice for a mint to use a certain die until it broke. As some dies would last for multiple years, a figure would be punched over the old date. For example, some 1942 Mercury dimes show a 1 beneath the 2. That is an OVERDATE not overstrike And it's referenced to this site too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numismatic nut Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Is this why teachers think wiki is a bad site to get info off of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 most information on wiki is pretty accurate...in fact a study was conducted between wiki and other encyclopedias and it was found that although wiki had a few more errors, it was far more extensive in the information it provided on most topics (is some cases 3x more information) thus in the end, it balanced out. On the whole most wiki articles are pretty accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henare Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 so fix it yourself! that's the whole point of wikipedia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedeadpoint Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 exactly! some college professors and high school teachers are actually assigning students to do reseaerch projects to add to wikipedia pages based on wikipedias research standards (ie everything is cited/referenced, logical arguments, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristofer Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 I think wikipedia is a fantastic resource and as people become more comfortable with it, it will become a more widely accepted resource in research. I've never seen major issues go unnoticed for more than a few hours. I tested this by making myself one of the founding members of myspace. I wasn't a founding member for long!! This wiki error is more of a mix up more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted February 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Overstrike or overdates are never meant to be error - I don't see how it can be classified as errors as they are usually intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristofer Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 I think wikipedia is a fantastic resource and as people become more comfortable with it, it will become a more widely accepted resource in research. I've never seen major issues go unnoticed for more than a few hours. I tested this by making myself one of the founding members of myspace. I wasn't a founding member for long!! This wiki error is more of a mix up more than anything. When I use error in this sentence it is modifying wikipedia, not indicating I consider overstrikes, etc. as errors. I don't know if that is what you were referring to gx, but I wanted to clarify if I was misunderstood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Ill get in there and correct this posting this morning.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreasureGirl Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Wikipedia is great for doing anything except legitimate papers, IMO. I agree with one of my professors: you should be able to use it for little assignments like journals but only as long as you can verify the information somewhere else. EDIT: Forget wikipedia, look what AOL has to say: "Rarest Coins As a general rule the more rare a coin is the more it's worth, so what's the rarest coin ever? It's a debatable subject as not all experts always agree, but if the Double Eagle isn't at the top of that list it's sure near it. Back in 2002 the only Double Eagle coin left to be in private hands (or so everybody thought) sold for $7.9 million dollars." Talk about omitting important info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristofer Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Wikipedia is great for doing anything except legitimate papers, IMO. I agree with one of my professors: you should be able to use it for little assignments like journals but only as long as you can verify the information somewhere else. Pish Posh I use wikipedia for EVERYTHING!! Including my dissertation! did you know that if you eat too many eggs you'll grow wings and fly? My university didn't believe me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercoins Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Actually the 1942/1 dimes are not over dates. They are doubled dies. An over date is when a date digit punch of a corrected date is hand punched over an incorrect date. This ended in the late 19th century. Over dates are very closely related to repunched dates. "Re-punched" meaning they had to be "punched" in the first place. All dates on all 20th century designs were hubbed at once with the rest of the design into the individual dies -- they were not individulaly punched. Any time two different designs (i.e. two different dated hubs) were used to press a single die, the proper terminology used would be a class 3, design hub doubled die. Any time the design changed between hubbings of a given die, the result would be a class 3, design hub doubled die. In case this elicits confusion, up until 1997 all coin dies made by the US Mint were impressed a number of times with heating the dies between impressions to help the process. Using two different designs on the hubs in the same period on the same dies gave way to these sorts of problems. The 1960 cents with small and large date hubbings on the same die (1960lg/sm date proofs, etc.) are the exact same thing technically as the 1918/7D nickels. Only difference is that one had the same date, yet different design, used in different hubbings and the other had two different dated hubs. So...correct terminology dictates that the date had to be hand punched into the dies in order to achieve an over date...and the date was not hand punched into coins beginning with the Lincoln cent, Buffalo nickel, Mercury dime, Standing Liberty quarter, Walking Liberty half dollar, Peace dollar, or any of the indian gold series. Basically all the designs that comprise the type coins you would find that are dated 1917...of course because Barber designs were still used in 1916, and those could have over dates. So...agree with it or not, doesn't matter. It's a fact. ALL reports and opinions otherwise are incorrect, technically speaking. Whether you call the 1918/7D nickel or a 1942/1 dime doubled dies (which they are) or an over date (which they are not) doesn't really matter to me. You now know the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercoins Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 To add, and regarding the subject of the thread, an online source is only as good as its author(s). Information is exceedingly easy to publish online, and can be done by anyone. Incorrect information is just as easy to publish online. Because online information is not policed and does not cost much (if anything) to publish, reliability of such information should always be questioned without knowing its actual source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristofer Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 To add, and regarding the subject of the thread, an online source is only as good as its author(s). Information is exceedingly easy to publish online, and can be done by anyone. Incorrect information is just as easy to publish online. Because online information is not policed and does not cost much (if anything) to publish, reliability of such information should always be questioned without knowing its actual source. I question nothing, eggs can make you fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 To add, and regarding the subject of the thread, an online source is only as good as its author(s). Information is exceedingly easy to publish online, and can be done by anyone. Incorrect information is just as easy to publish online. Because online information is not policed and does not cost much (if anything) to publish, reliability of such information should always be questioned without knowing its actual source. Including everything YOU put online But to be honest...it is no more or less 'policed' than any other information source. Each article is checked over on wiki just like any other. When I posted an article they kept hounding me until I quoted my sources and cleaned it up. I have seen such horrendous mistakes made in published books, I would say they arent policed any better. One simply has to seek out many different sources regardless of how it is published be it a book or online, and try to develop a clear picture of the truth. Many great works are now accessible online through google books or through universities. As for Wiki...its a good place to start when learning about a subject...I wouldnt use it as my only source. My dictionary defines overstrike - To strike beyond. Lets also remember that wiki attempts to define and explain FAR MORE than most infomation sources.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercoins Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 Certainly...I don't mind being put under the same scrutiny as any other information source. I know what I publish is correct because I research it, collaborate with others, and go straight to the source for a lot of information. With enough homework on their part, a number of people have come to rely on what I've published. For those who have just found my information - I would EXPECT them to rely on other sources as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syzygy Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 To add, and regarding the subject of the thread, an online source is only as good as its author(s). Information is exceedingly easy to publish online, and can be done by anyone. Incorrect information is just as easy to publish online. Because online information is not policed and does not cost much (if anything) to publish, reliability of such information should always be questioned without knowing its actual source. In general, I am in agreement with your sentiments. Further, a distinction between online information (e.g. Wiki) and print is the degree of review, when the review occurs and the consequences of false information discovery (perhaps this is what you mean by policed). For professional journals, scientific in general or numismatic in particular: The prepublication review process tends to be much more rigorous. The consequence of publication of erroneous information is more severe - reduction in reputation and credibility. The degree of citation is more credible. Correction of erroneous information is less efficient, requiring published errata or, more likely, modification in subsequent publications. On the otherhand, it is a dynamic situation. Many print journals are online also (and earlier). Many online sources (such as Wiki) are continuing to improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stilson Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 Wiki does have problems, but some of the information is above a lot other single on line sources you can find. Vamworld is one. Yep there is problems. Like close ups of peace dollars under the morgan section a while back. But that was corrected. With the group of regulars that is involved there it is a pretty good source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted March 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 I'm going to stab this thread harder - how exactly is an overdate even considered error when it's clear that die masters intentionally re-engraved the dates as either there was a lack of die or they were being budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristofer Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 I'm going to stab this thread harder - how exactly is an overdate even considered error when it's clear that die masters intentionally re-engraved the dates as either there was a lack of die or they were being budget. Because they... re..engraved it... on accident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coinmelt Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 Wiki is still solid .. simply the person that posted that is not. The thing that makes wiki great and bad is that anyone can come in and update information. So, don't complain about the mistakes - FIX THEM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conder101 Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 All dates on all 20th century designs were hubbed at once with the rest of the design into the individual dies -- they were not individulaly punched I don't believe the date was added to the hubs until 1907. The only 20th century overdate before then, the 1901/0-S half eagle, was the result of overdating using a logotype punch. (Although from the pictures I've seen I'm not completely convinced it is a true overdate and that it may be the result of a defective logotype punch, just as the 1861/0 half dime is. I'm going to stab this thread harder - how exactly is an overdate even considered error when it's clear that die masters intentionally re-engraved the dates as either there was a lack of die or they were being budget. It could be argued that most of the repunched overdates are not errors because they were deliberate. There are a few such as the so called 1851/81 large cent that have to be considered to be an error because even though the repunching was deliberate, the fact that the first punching of the date upside down definitely was an error. And the 20th century overdates are errors because they were created by doubled dies which were NOT intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satootoko Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 although wiki had a few more errors, it was far more extensive in the information it provided on most topics (is some cases 3x more information) thus in the end, it balanced out.So three paragraphs of mis-information is better than one accurate paragraph? Forgive me if I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.