e-mail from NGC

[regandon]

I tried to include my Columbus Proof half in my registry set, but it was a no go. Here is the e-mail NGC set me explaining why.

 

Mr. Regan,

 

Mint error coins are not eligible for traditional competative sets. However, you may add this coin to a Signature set.

 

I hope this information is helpful. Thank you for your interest.

 

Amy T. Lorenzo

NGC

 

If it is a true Mint Error, should they not include it on the tag ?

 

http://www.omnicoin.com/coin_view.aspx?id=911140

 

I am still new to this site of knowledgeable collectors. So if this was not the forum to post this in then I am sorry.

[Sir Sisu]

...

 

If it is a true Mint Error, should they not include it on the tag ?

 

http://www.omnicoin.com/coin_view.aspx?id=911140

 

I am still new to this site of knowledgeable collectors. So if this was not the forum to post this in then I am sorry.

 

 

The fact that "Die Cracks" was included on the label implies a genuine Mint error.

[bill]

The fact that "Die Cracks" was included on the label implies a genuine Mint error.

 

I agree with the other thread on this coin. Die crack refers not to an error, rather to a die state. Its probably less useful a notion today when dies are machine produced and produce many coins. It is more useful for tracing the life of dies in the early 1800s when more hand production was involved and they had much shorter lives. I believe die cracks on later coins become collectible varieties because they are dramatic, create interesting effects that attract collectors, or are highly unusual such as a die crack on a proof coin (evidence of a slip in quality control). So, I would vote for genuine die state as opposed to error. An error, in my mind, implies something happening out of synch with the normal process (broadstruck, no collar, off struck, wrong planchet, clipped planchet, etc.). In this sense, a cud would reflect a die state as opposed to an error.

 

The new ANA Journal has an article on the history of die production in the US. Understanding the history of dies helps one unerstand why some early series are collected by varieties and why there are so few varieties among modern coins and why the latter are so interesting and what they tell us about the inner workings of a modern mint.

 

Its been years since I was on a tour of the Denver mint, but i assume they still use an assembly line for quality control. I watch many coins pass on the conveyor belt while an inspector would pick a coin for examination. Even assuming a slower pace and more careful control for proof coins, a few examples of die cracks could get past before they were recognized and production could be stopped. Then again, we don't necessarily know the rules for what woulod stop production. No matter how strict, eveyone has a bad day every now and then. Documenting and collecting die states like cracks on proofs still has some value an interest for the student of production methods.

[Sir Sisu]

...

If it is a true Mint Error, should they not include it on the tag ?

 

 

 

I just finally got around to reading the other thread. I misunderstood the depth of the question. Rather than a semantical clarification of terms, I thought the original question in this thread had more to do with whether this happened at the Mint or not.