Results of Wisconson Quarter Examinations = Die Damage
kpott...@aol.com
I've been following the posts on the new 2004-D Wisconsin die damage
error or variety quarters (call them what you want) and agree with Tom
DeLorey's earlier comments 100% (his comments are copied at the end of
this post). I received a set a couple of days ago from Bill Fivaz for
examination and they confirmed my worst fears. The coins represent
nothing but trivial die gouges. They are prominent -- more so than
average -- but they are NOT "extra leaves" by any stretch of the
imagination. They are die gouges (or possibly die dents) with an
estimated value of no more than $10 each by standards usually attached
to such items.
With all due respect to the opinions of those who are convinced these
are intentional die varieties, as far as I'm concerned, the images
provided by both Coin World and later by J.T. Stanton, (to several
specialists), and a look at the actual coins, proves beyond any
reasonable doubt in my mind that these are not intentional die
varieties but are instead some sort of die damage such as die dents or
gouges. I did not need to see the coins to know this as the images
referenced above were excellent but I decided to wait until I saw the
actual coins before commenting publicly.
First, it is my opinion that the States quarters program is one that
must move quickly and without much revision after a design is approved
and a sculpt made so that they can begin work on the next quarter.
These designs are in use today and gone (from the Mint's agenda)
tomorrow.
There is little reason to tinker with designs to constantly improve
their character as might be the case on long-lived designs such as the
Lincoln cent obverse where improved designs can effect die life,
aesthetic appeal, etc, for decades. Once a sculp is approved and an
epoxy made from which a master is created, there is very little
likelihood for the Mint to tinker with the designs. If you break a
master you simply make another from the same epoxy as the first.
Breaking a master has to be fairly rare and breaking two in a row has
to be about as rare as hen's teeth. Still, a second or third master
from an epoxy should be the same as the first.
Further, a look at the so-called extra leaves shows that they fall
short of exhibiting characteristics of an intended design.
On the so-called "high leaf" we see that it's base starts "sprouting"
from a chunk of cheese! It is not connected to the ear of corn at all
until its apex ends abruptly at a leaf from the corn stalk (stalk
unseen below and behind the cheese). Folks, mold grows on cheese but
not corn leaves! Additionally good sculpters (or engravers) do no
cause designs to end abruptly like this. They encourage overlapping of
designs to create depth -- it is one the basics a good
sculpter/engraver works into his/her designs instinctively (or so I am
told by those who have cut dies for me). In this case if that so-called
leaf was intended, it would have had its base start within the corn
(not from a chunk of cheese) and it would have tapered to a point that
overlapped slightly over the larger leaf above or ended earlier. It
would not end abruptly and awkwardly at the leaf unless its tip was
bent over to the side (which would have also been an option available
to the engraver to give it a natural feel -- but we do not see here
either).
On the so-called low leaf what we see is a crescent shaped doubled
curve with its base starting within the central area of the lower corn
which then skips the high points of the larger leaf and reappears
outside to continue its curve until it ends at the cheese. Corn leaves
do not grow right through the center of other leaves (like an arrow
shot through the leaf). If this was a deliberate design the so-called
extra leaf would have been coming out from under that main leaf or
would have been overlapping -- not created as a composite that shows it
piercing through in such an unnatural fashion. Additionally, neither
of the so-called extra leaves has any contoured flatness or texture.
The high variety is simply a tall narrow gouge while the high variety
is two narrow gouges (as if from a piece of jagged tooling)with too
quick of a taper. This one also shows an area of incuse field running
directly below the majority of the "doubled" area of the alleged
doubled leaf suggesting metal displacement due to damage to the die
from impact after the die was made. We often see these types of
depressions in the field around Mint marks from the era of when they
were punched into the individual dies prior to the 1990s (metal
displacement from impact). The fact is, the positions of these
so-called leaves are just too random and awkward to be deliberate
design modifications. They lack the contoured flatness and leafy
texturing of the "ligitimate" leaves. Simply put, they don't look like
they fit into the design because they don't.
They are certainly not the way a U.S. Mint engraver would design a coin
much less even a second-rate engraver of silver rounds just start
starting out.
The reason the low leaf appears to be skipping the high points is
because it is a gouge or dent that did not sink far enough to
obliterate the original design. This is most damaging to the
"deliberate design" theory since we know how these effects occur and we
know that designers do not design coins that way. The effect tells us
all we need to know. Die gouges, scratches, etc., skipping over lower
areas of the die (relief areas of design on the coin) are a well-known
diagnostic associated with die gouges, etc. To illustrate: I pulled a
silver round I had struck from a damaged die a few weeks ago with a
large die gouge running through the field and over some letters. The
die was damaged extensively with many scratches and a scattering of
gouges from being mishandled but I sent it in anyway to be polished in
an attempt to refresh it. On the 25 sample rounds I had struck from
this die it could be seen that most of the scratches and smaller gouges
were removed but the largest gouge remained. It can be seen here:
http://koinpro.tripod.com/Error_Coins/DieGouge.jpg. As you can see,
the gouge is large -- as large as those on the Wisconsin quarters --
and it skips over the letters. As gouges often go, it also has a sort
of leafy shape to it too!
As to these (Wisconsin quarters) showing deliberately placed gouges,
(another suggestion that has been advanced), it is my opinion that a
gouge is a gouge is a gouge (or a dent is a dent ...). How it got
there matters little. Minor is minor no matter how it is presented.
Second, there is not a shred of evidence that suggests they got there
through some deliberate action. Die gouges (or dents) are common on
coins and like finding angels in the clouds, you will find them where
you want if you look long enough. Coincidental? Perhaps. But, so
what?
I wonder? Are we now going to catalog every "conveniently" placed
gouge, die break or dent that comes along? If so, it is retroactive?
At what point (and who decides) which dents or gouges are major and
which are minor? If this is where we are heading, the Spadone book
should become a best seller overnight! Or will we segregate the
importance of gouges, dents and breaks by the era in which a coin was
made? I for one do not welcome a return to the days of marketing minor
flaws under fancy names that have nothing to do with what they actually
are -- especially when the fancy names mask a minor flaw and make it
sound far more important than it really is. These are minor flaws with
catchy nicknames -- and nothing more.
We have plenty of RPM, doubled dies, cuds, legitimate design
modifications, etc., still being discovered in quantities large enough
to keep all the attributers and collectors busy without bringing in the
minor flaws don't we?
I'd suggest we do not open the floodgates to the abuses of the past but
it now looks like it is too late!
Ken Potter
www.koinpro.com
tomde...@aol.com wrote:
> You forgot the 1944-D half, where somebody accidentally polished the
> designer's monogram off of the reverse die and then hand cut it back
> into the die. THAT is a cool variety.
> These Wisconsin quarters are just, in my opinion, random die damage
> that occurred near the corn by coincidence. Remember the 1890-CC
Morgan
> with the die gouge at the tailfeathers? Somebody heavily promoted it
> back in the late '60s and early '70s as the "TAILBAR VARIETY! EXTRA
> TAIL FEATHER!" at big premiums. The last one I had in stock, I priced
> $10 over a regular coin of the same grade, and it took about a month
to
> sell.
> Tom DeLorey
Bruce Remick
<kpott...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108217522.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hello All,
> I've been following the posts on the new 2004-D Wisconsin die damage
> error or variety quarters (call them what you want) and agree with Tom
> DeLorey's earlier comments 100% (his comments are copied at the end of
> this post). I received a set a couple of days ago from Bill Fivaz for
> examination and they confirmed my worst fears. The coins represent
> nothing but trivial die gouges. They are prominent -- more so than
> average -- but they are NOT "extra leaves" by any stretch of the
> imagination. They are die gouges (or possibly die dents) with an
> estimated value of no more than $10 each by standards usually attached
> to such items.
<<Snipps>>
I wasn't aware that there has been a serious claim that these "gouges" were
intentional creations. They seem to have picked up the "extra leaves" nickname
simply because of where the anomolies happened to appear among the design
elements on the coins. Regardless of what caused them, the two "extra leaves"
varieties appear to be accepted as collectable errors by the people who matter
most, and your estimated value of no more than $10 each doesn't appear to be in
line with the prices those people are willing to pay for them. I would think it
difficult to place a single blanket value limit on any and all errors of this
type. If a similar "gouge" was discovered on several walking liberty halves, I
doubt we would see the frenzied interest that the Wisconsin quarter varieties
have created. Why, this may even put Wisconsin on the map! :>)
Bruce
clad...@netzero.com
Certainly an excellent argument has been made that the designer did not
intentionally create either of these varieties or errors. But when you
consider that so far both have shown up in tandem and that they both
closely resemble an actual design feature it becomes extremely
difficult to attribute to mere chance. It seems most likely that it
was a mint employee engaging in play either alone or with others. It
would seem that when gouges are deliberate and appear to be part of the
design to the naked eye that they cross the gulf between error and
variety. In any case they are more interesting than many very popular
"varieties" such as the three legged buffalo or the 22-Plain cent.
Ira Stein
<<
Interesting, I too don't buy that these are random die gouges. In fact,
the outline of the more prominent example shows the outlining of the
"leaf" extending into the original design on the die.
This would indicate a rather hurried engraving on the softened die.
That then points to a little tomfoolery by a mint employee who then
hardened the die and struck off a few thousand.Then he did it again
with a leaf added in the upper position. I've sen die gouges on
countless coins in my long career, but nothing like this.
Learned numismatists often disagree on issues in their field, but call
in what you will, this appears to be a significant variety, regardless
of the value. $10...??
Whatsa' matter, miss out on this one, Ken?
Ira
tomde...@aol.com
random die gouges.
May I point out, again, that the 2004-D dime that made such a splash
last spring had a short, curved die gouge near a design element, in
that case Roosevelt's ear, that fooled many error and variety experts,
myself included, into thinking it was a doubled die error. Eventually I
was convinced that it was just die damage. It's proximity to a
similar-shaped part of the design fooled me into thinking it was
related to that design. It was not, and these lines on the Wisconsin
quarters are not related to the adjacent design. They are a
coincidence. The simplese answer is usually the correct one.
Obviously some technician at the Denver Mint is doing something wrong
that is leaving short, curved die gouges in dies. He is not making
design changes.
Tom DeLorey
James Higby
"Ira Stein" <ir...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108225378....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Interesting, I too don't buy that these are random die gouges. In fact,
> the outline of the more prominent example shows the outlining of the
> "leaf" extending into the original design on the die.
>
> This would indicate a rather hurried engraving on the softened die.
> That then points to a little tomfoolery by a mint employee who then
> hardened the die and struck off a few thousand.Then he did it again
> with a leaf added in the upper position. I've sen die gouges on
> countless coins in my long career, but nothing like this.
>
> Learned numismatists often disagree on issues in their field, but call
> in what you will, this appears to be a significant variety, regardless
> of the value. $10...??
>
> Whatsa' matter, miss out on this one, Ken?
>
> Ira
>
large cent: the result of "an idle hour at the mint."
James
bri
My question is how can you tell when something like this is intentional or
not? Could that high stick thingy be a planchet blister?
I have a friend I just talked to who has worked with die presses for many
years stamping out many different things including coins at one time. He
says that on rare occasions they will try to fix a damaged die if it's not
too badly damaged. Time is money. He says they'll sometimes take welders,
grinders and cutting torches to them to fix them. What they won't have lying
around in the shop is fine engraving tools that could make very fine and
small, detailed designs on hardened steel dies. And it would take some real
bashing with a heavy hammer to cut into hardened steel working dies or some
very sharp and much harder really expensive engraving tools.
Then after that some workers at the Mint would have had to sneak in the
tools they would have needed if this was done intentionally by someone. I
seriously doubt the US Mint has those kinds of tools at production
facilites. So the idea that some workers fiddled secretly at night with some
dies is pretty far fetched I'd say.
mikediamond
normal quarters. I agree with Ken and Tom that this is die damage that
occurred after hubbing was completed. I do not know if it was
accidental or intentional. Here is the result of my analysis:
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=364966
-- Mike Diamond
Edwin Johnston
It seems to me that Ken Potter is saying that whether or not the gouges
were intentional, they are of little value in the grand scheme of things.
However, if they were intentional, I would speculate that the CIA had
something to do with it. I say this due to previous CIA involvement with
US postal stamps errors from previous years -- sometimes in the creation
of those very errors, or other times as convenient possessors of those
errors in large quantities. This is entirely speculation at this point
on my part, but it's also to encourage folks to do some research on CIA
involvement in such things. (Just for kicks.)
Cheers!
numis...@aol.com
recently?
Wolley Segap
Edwin Johnston <e...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> However, if they were intentional, I would speculate that the CIA had
> something to do with it. I say this due to previous CIA involvement with
> US postal stamps errors from previous years -- sometimes in the creation
> of those very errors, or other times as convenient possessors of those
> errors in large quantities.
Uh-huh.
I may regret this question later, but what the hell: Why would they do
such a thing?
Edwin Johnston
Who knows what motivates folks in the land o' spooks? In the case of the
"CIA Invert" stamp it was pure greed. Those puppies are valued at
$14,000 a piece. Beyond that there are psychological operations aimed at
whatever ends, false flag operations, plus all sorts of things created
to take people's attention away from what they don't want them to focus
on. A veritable house o' mirrors at times.
Again, I stress that it is pure speculation on my part, if for some
reason it is an intentional gouge, which we have no evidence of in any
case at this point.
Maybe it's my way of adding to the hype that Ken Potter so reasonably
deflated in his piece here.
If you ever meet me at a coin show, you can use the secret Masonic
handshake.
Edwin Johnston
> Ed, have you noticed any black helicopters in your neighborhood
> recently?
>
Well, considering that both Presidents Bush lived here in Houston, which
is also a grand hub in the energy production field, many consider this
to be the belly of the beast, CIA-wise. If you recall the Kennedy
assassination lore, David Ferrie, an alleged accomplice and CIA op was
in Houston to fly the assassins off south o' the border. Of course I was
too young at the time ...
No, never seen no black helicopters, don't believe that Bush blew up the
World Trade Center, don't feel that the Jews secretly control world
finance and the Federal Reserve Bank, etc., etc. But I do read the news,
from competent professional sources, so I do feel free to speculate
based on things that are already entered in the historic record.
You can call it a bit of creative whimsy, with tongue planted firmly in
cheek, which should be no more annoying that the speculations already at
hand concerning this Minnesota coin.
Wolley Segap
Edwin Johnston <e...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> >>However, if they were intentional, I would speculate that the CIA had
> >>something to do with it.
> >
> > I may regret this question later, but what the hell: Why would they do
> > such a thing?
>
> Who knows what motivates folks in the land o' spooks? ...
> Beyond that there are psychological operations aimed at
> whatever ends, false flag operations, plus all sorts of things created
> to take people's attention away from what they don't want them to focus
> on. A veritable house o' mirrors at times.
Uh huh. But there's nothing more in what you've said to implicate the
CIA in this situation than in, say, MacDonald's slowness in lessening
transfatty acids in their burgers.
You obviously have some reason for implicating the CIA. What is it?
Or are you just - oh, I don't know - nuts?
Edwin Johnston
I guess I'm only nutz to be passing the time of day on the coin
collecting newsgroup having some fun speculating about American
government agencies concerning an item of commerce that has been subject
to national hype for some days now. Oh, and of course in suffering the
misreadings of fellow NG posters.
It's OK to finger mint employees here for surreptitious acts without a
shred of evidence to support it, but mention three little letters and
there's a ton of baggage to be dropped on you. I should have said
"Housing and Urban Development".
But, remember, we all have to watch out for the development of a
"Commerce Czar" who would rule over the merger of the US Mint and the
Bureau of Printing and Engraving, which would soon phase out "real
money" to be replaced by remote-controlled e-commerce and the whole
"Mark of the Beast" thing.
Talk about your corn!
Wolley Segap
Edwin Johnston <e...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> Wolley Segap wrote:
> > You obviously have some reason for implicating the CIA. What is it?
> >
> > Or are you just - oh, I don't know - nuts?
>
> I guess I'm only nutz to be passing the time of day on the coin
> collecting newsgroup having some fun speculating about American
> government agencies concerning an item of commerce that has been subject
> to national hype for some days now. Oh, and of course in suffering the
> misreadings of fellow NG posters.
I misread nothing. I quoted from your original post.
> It's OK to finger mint employees here for surreptitious acts without a
> shred of evidence to support it, but mention three little letters and
> there's a ton of baggage to be dropped on you.
I didn't engage in that speculation. In fact, I challenged the
speculation. Perhaps you missed my comments on the issue.
> I should have said
> "Housing and Urban Development".
I still would have asked about your sources.
Edwin Johnston
Obviously just another MOSSAD plant on this NG.
For my sources please consult the following detailed audio report:
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/lyle_24/myhero.swf
Wolley Segap
Edwin Johnston <e...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
Well, FINALLY a valid response. I understand what you mean now.
To the group: He's right - it's a CIA operation, without question.
John Carney
> Obviously just another MOSSAD plant on this NG.
> For my sources please consult the following detailed audio report:
> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/lyle_24/myhero.swf
*SPLORF!!!*
--
John
Visit the RCCers favorite coins web page
http://mysite.verizon.net/jcarney44/coins/rccers.html
kpott...@aol.com
attached to the coins also implies that. Additionally, $10, was not my
estimated value per se. It was my estimate of what they could be worth
if they were marketed as being what they are -- die gouges. It is my
opinion --- and that is all -- that without the fancy nicknames (that
tend to mask the true identity of the variations and suggest them to be
far more important than they are) that we would not have seen the
strong interest in them that we have so far.
Just an opinion :)
Ken
kpott...@aol.com
You missed the point. The $10 was my assessment of what I think they
would have been bringing if they had been marketed without the
misleading nicknames that alluded to the variations being something
more significant than what they are. Of course $10 is not the actual
prices they are selling for. Anybody can see that.
Did I miss out? Actually, I've been offered these in quanties and
passed on them without even making an offer or asking what the sellers
wanted. I want nothing to do with this promotion. You did not see me
promoting the 1982 No Mint mark quarters (from grease filled dies), the
1989 No VDB cents or any of the other highly touted minors in the past
couple of decades and you will not see my name attached to these in
that regard either.
Yes, I may be missing out on thousands of dollars in profits but I'm
funny in that I have to believe in a variety being something
significant before I will handle it.
This in no way questions the integrety of those that are handling the
coins. I'm sure they believe them significant. I see them as another
overpromoted minor that is here today and will probably be gone
tomorrow in terms of being fashionable.
Take care.
Ken
Bruce Remick
<kpott...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108261677.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I still feel that most of the people who are buying and searching for these
Wisconsin quarters don't care about the technical cause for the "extra leaves".
Their degree of interest in the errors isn't dependent on the mechanics of how
the errors occurred. The importance of a particular type of error to an error
expert doesn't always correspond to the importance a collector places in it. As
challenging as it is for experts like yourself to determine and document exactly
how this happened, the most important thing to collectors is to somehow get one
or both of the quarters for their collection while they might be found at face
value.
The fact that these "errors" occurred on a state quarter has prompted special
interest (and price volatility) because of the large number of collectors-- new
and old-- saving state quarters. The fact that both the "gouges" look like
mysterious additional leaves in the original design creates intrigue that fuels
more than normal interest among collectors. The "extra leaf" nickname is a
natural; most other varieties of this type have received descriptive "Bugs
Bunny"-type nicknames. Few collectors know or care what the technical cause for
each error was. Had these "gouges" been located off by themselves near the coin
rim, there might not be as much fascination unless someone came up with a
descriptive "smiling cow" or "flying saucer" nickname that caught on.
Bruce
John Baumgart
<kpott...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108217522.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hello All,
>
> 8< 8= 8< 8= 8< 8= 8< 8= 8< 8= 8< 8= 8< 8= 8< 8=
>
> As to these (Wisconsin quarters) showing deliberately placed gouges,
> (another suggestion that has been advanced), it is my opinion that a
> gouge is a gouge is a gouge (or a dent is a dent ...). How it got
> there matters little. Minor is minor no matter how it is presented.
> Second, there is not a shred of evidence that suggests they got there
> through some deliberate action. Die gouges (or dents) are common on
> coins and like finding angels in the clouds, you will find them where
> you want if you look long enough. Coincidental? Perhaps. But, so
> what?
There is not a shred of evidence that suggests how the gouges were
introduced, deliberate or otherwise. Two different dies from the same mint
showing prominent die gouges that happen to make the design look modified
are apparently interesting enough to enough people to cause quite a stir,
whether the gouges were added deliberately or through other means. If
gouges like this were commonplace in modern U.S. Mint products, then I'd
agree with your "so what" assessment, but they're not. In such a widely
collected and inspected series as the state quarters, nobody has found a die
flaw like this until now.
> I wonder? Are we now going to catalog every "conveniently" placed
> gouge, die break or dent that comes along? If so, it is retroactive?
> At what point (and who decides) which dents or gouges are major and
> which are minor?
The marketplace decides. At what point does a doubled die or repunched
mintmark become a major deal? When the marketplace decides. At what point
did a silly little letter having nothing to do with the design elements, but
indicating place of manufacture become a major deal? Not before Heaton's
treatise in 1893 "hyped" them.
In the Morgan dollar series, many die gouges have been cataloged, and some
coins exhibiting them have become quite valuable. The 1921-S VAM 1B shows 7
different states of gouges being added and polished away from a single die.
Some states are more common than others, some are apparently quite rare, and
some people are ready to pay a lot of money for the rare ones.
> If this is where we are heading, the Spadone book
> should become a best seller overnight! Or will we segregate the
> importance of gouges, dents and breaks by the era in which a coin was
> made? I for one do not welcome a return to the days of marketing minor
> flaws under fancy names that have nothing to do with what they actually
> are -- especially when the fancy names mask a minor flaw and make it
> sound far more important than it really is. These are minor flaws with
> catchy nicknames -- and nothing more.
> We have plenty of RPM, doubled dies, cuds, legitimate design
> modifications, etc., still being discovered in quantities large enough
> to keep all the attributers and collectors busy without bringing in the
> minor flaws don't we?
I would contend that the majority of cataloged doubled dies and RPMs are
also minor flaws far less interesting to see than the strategically located
WI 25c die gouges. Let's look at the 1995 DDO cent, which is the last
significant doubled die to come out of the Mint as far as I'm concerned,
easily visible under low magnification. A coin that sold for $200 back in
1995 now goes for about $35. The WI quarter die gouges are visible with the
naked eye and likely even palpable. Sounds more exciting, looks more
exciting to enough people out there that the high prices are being supported
for now, while the 1995 cent has found its level.
The WI "extra leaf" die gouge quarters will also probably find their level
somewhere. If the die gouges were in rather innocuous areas, then maybe
your $10 price tag would be correct. Since both of these landed in a place
that makes the design look altered, I think the level will be much higher
than that, regardless of whether or not it is determine how the gouges got
there. If it turns out to be mint employee chicanery, all the better for
those buying them now.
John Baumgart
tomde...@aol.com
in the same year with a similar die gouge, the 2004-D dime with the
curved die gouge near the ear. That doesn't make the three different
die gouges commonplace, but it does help push them towards that "so
what" category.
Tom DeLorey
Alan Williams
I do not want to drive the thread OT, but feel compelled to ask if this
wisconsin situation means I have been wrong to put all those 'Cracked
Skull' and 'No Neck' Lincolns I find back into circulation? ;-)
Maybe I should fire up my first Ebay Auction for a 1962 'Lightning Bolt'
dime that has the Mother of All Die Cracks on it!
Alan
'or perhaps it's the creation of an idle hour'
John Baumgart
<tomde...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108274026.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
To me it's all where in where the die gouges landed. The one in the dime
was rather well hidden in comparison to the ones on the quarters, which,
even if created by chance, look like additional design elements at first
glance. Had the gouge on the 2004-D dime made the coin look like Roosevelt
was smoking a joint, my guess is that it would be worth more.
To draw another analogy, someone throwing three darts at a dartboard without
looking and hitting three triple-20s is going to get a lot more notice (and
free drinks) than someone whose darts land in non-memorable locations of the
board (or wall).
John Baumgart
Aram H. Haroutunian
And, of course there is the 3-Legged Nickel and the 1922 "no D"
Lincoln Cent, both the result of over-polished dies, usually of no
great consequence. The reason they ARE of great consequence is not
the type of error or how it occurred, but rather the years of heavy
promotion, IMHO. So much is perception and widespread agreement in
this hobby. Otherwise, why would the 1806/5 Draped Bust Quarter carry
a premium when it is one of the more readily available marriages of
the year 1806? The premium it carries is not related to its scarcity,
but rather the perception that, as an "overdate" it should attract a
wider field of buyers. This, in spite of the fact that so many coins
in the Bust series ARE overdates. Puzzlers such as this abound.
Aram.
Richard L. Hall
"Aram H. Haroutunian" <bust...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dvbv01hkiahk4nfuq...@4ax.com...
True, some coins are heavily promoted. But if they don't make the standard
reference, e.g., the Redbook, chances are they will just become a memory.
And if the Redbook ever starts listing die gouges, even those as interesting
as this one, it will soon be the size of the Standard Catalog of World
Coins, in 3 volumes. Initial hype usually dies quickly.
tomde...@aol.com
permission, concerning the Wisconsin so-called extra leaves quarters):
"It is my intention to only mention them in a footnote, and not as a
line listing."
Tom DeLorey
John Baumgart
<tomde...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108345608....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Was the 1995 DDO cent a line item in the 1996 Red book? Assuming the market
for the "extra leaf" quarters eventually stabilizes and the coins can be
determined to remain interesting to mainstream collectors of state quarters,
would it then be appropriate to include them in your opinion?
John Baumgart
Richard L. Hall
<tomde...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108225674....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I certainly must agree with Ken, since he agrees with me that these are
> random die gouges.
>
>
> Obviously some technician at the Denver Mint is doing something wrong
> that is leaving short, curved die gouges in dies. He is not making
> design changes.
>
Or maybe he has a mototool and a lot of time on his hands.
tomde...@aol.com
line item, but without a price as new varieties often make their debut.
It was priced in the 1997 edition at $30 in MS-65.
Tom DeLorey
Ed. Stoebenau
>
>Certainly an excellent argument has been made that the designer did not
>intentionally create either of these varieties or errors. But when you
>consider that so far both have shown up in tandem
This really only suggests that they were made at about the same
time and moved through the same channels after striking. It says
nothing about how the dies were made, and being intentionally
made would in no way necessitate this condition.
>and that they both
>closely resemble an actual design
But they don't. The "high leaf" variety is just a curved line
and looks nothing at all like the other unquestionably actual
corn leaves. In addition, at best, it represents something
growing in the cheese rather than an extra leaf for the corn.
Finally it has an irregular appearance; and seems very likely to
have formed from scrap metal.
The "low leaf" variety may have a slightly more greater
appearance to the real leaves, but even then is quite different.
It is still much narrower, and with much less texture; it doesn't
look much like corn in any case. Plus, it looks a lot like the
"high leaf" variety, but made of two curved lines rather than
one. In addition, the "low leaf" variety has its leaf "float"
through the other leafs in some ghost-like fashion, unlike the
leaves of real plants. The appearance of this (the leaf showing
on what would be the high points of the die only w/i the real
leaves, and not their low points where the design has its highest
relief) also suggests to me that it was formed at once; that an
engraving or scratching motion cannot explain its appearance.
At best if someone wants to claim these varieties were
intentionally formed, one has to claim that some mint operator
stopped a press, grabbed some small steel scrapings, and placed
them on the die, placed a blank over the scrapings to prevent a
die clash, and then restarted the press, and do this twice! This
rather stretches credibility. (Plus, and one of the minting
gurus should correct me if I'm wrong, aren't coins nowadays
struck horizontally, and thus such a scenario would be thwarted
by gravity anyway?)
>feature it becomes extremely
>difficult to attribute to mere chance. It seems most likely that it
>was a mint employee engaging in play either alone or with others. It
>would seem that when gouges are deliberate and appear to be part of the
>design to the naked eye that they cross the gulf between error and
>variety. In any case they are more interesting than many very popular
>"varieties" such as the three legged buffalo or the 22-Plain cent.
Yes, they rise to the level of Bugs Bunny halves, BIE cents,
atheist cents, tail bar Morgans, and the like.
(As an aside, at http://www.coinworld.com/bw1_big.jpg for the
"low leaf" variety is there additional die damage present just to
the left of the real leaf, or is that something else?)
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143
Ed. Stoebenau
<will...@atlanticbb.net> wrote:
>I do not want to drive the thread OT, but feel compelled to ask if this
>wisconsin situation means I have been wrong to put all those 'Cracked
>Skull' and 'No Neck' Lincolns I find back into circulation? ;-)
>
>Maybe I should fire up my first Ebay Auction for a 1962 'Lightning Bolt'
>dime that has the Mother of All Die Cracks on it!
Do what I do and make a roll set of 1983 cracked skull Lincolns.
What is especially interesting is when you can match a few of
them as being from the same die.
Scott Clardy
appears somewhat suspicious. I am referring to the Fat Leaf. I found some of
these and it appears that the veins on the leaves have been polished smooth,
but the rest of the coin looks normal. Oddly enough these showed up in
quantity from a couple of boxes I bought from San Antonio. To many to
consider just a fluke.
I wonder how many of these need to appear to consider it a variety? I found
enough I want in on the ground floor of the frenzy.
<kpott...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108217522.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hello All,
> I've been following the posts on the new 2004-D Wisconsin die damage
> error or variety quarters (call them what you want) and agree with Tom
> DeLorey's earlier comments 100% (his comments are copied at the end of
> this post). I received a set a couple of days ago from Bill Fivaz for
> examination and they confirmed my worst fears. The coins represent
> nothing but trivial die gouges. They are prominent -- more so than
> average -- but they are NOT "extra leaves" by any stretch of the
> imagination. They are die gouges (or possibly die dents) with an
> estimated value of no more than $10 each by standards usually attached
> to such items.
> With all due respect to the opinions of those who are convinced these
> are intentional die varieties, as far as I'm concerned, the images
> provided by both Coin World and later by J.T. Stanton, (to several
> specialists), and a look at the actual coins, proves beyond any
> reasonable doubt in my mind that these are not intentional die
> varieties but are instead some sort of die damage such as die dents or
> gouges. I did not need to see the coins to know this as the images
> referenced above were excellent but I decided to wait until I saw the
> actual coins before commenting publicly.
> First, it is my opinion that the States quarters program is one that
> must move quickly and without much revision after a design is approved
> and a sculpt made so that they can begin work on the next quarter.
> These designs are in use today and gone (from the Mint's agenda)
> tomorrow.
> There is little reason to tinker with designs to constantly improve
> their character as might be the case on long-lived designs such as the
> Lincoln cent obverse where improved designs can effect die life,
> aesthetic appeal, etc, for decades. Once a sculp is approved and an
> epoxy made from which a master is created, there is very little
> likelihood for the Mint to tinker with the designs. If you break a
> master you simply make another from the same epoxy as the first.
> Breaking a master has to be fairly rare and breaking two in a row has
> to be about as rare as hen's teeth. Still, a second or third master
> from an epoxy should be the same as the first.
> Further, a look at the so-called extra leaves shows that they fall
> short of exhibiting characteristics of an intended design.
> On the so-called "high leaf" we see that it's base starts "sprouting"
> from a chunk of cheese! It is not connected to the ear of corn at all
> until its apex ends abruptly at a leaf from the corn stalk (stalk
> unseen below and behind the cheese). Folks, mold grows on cheese but
> not corn leaves! Additionally good sculpters (or engravers) do no
> cause designs to end abruptly like this. They encourage overlapping of
> designs to create depth -- it is one the basics a good
> sculpter/engraver works into his/her designs instinctively (or so I am
> told by those who have cut dies for me). In this case if that so-called
> leaf was intended, it would have had its base start within the corn
> (not from a chunk of cheese) and it would have tapered to a point that
> overlapped slightly over the larger leaf above or ended earlier. It
> would not end abruptly and awkwardly at the leaf unless its tip was
> bent over to the side (which would have also been an option available
> to the engraver to give it a natural feel -- but we do not see here
> either).
> On the so-called low leaf what we see is a crescent shaped doubled
> curve with its base starting within the central area of the lower corn
> which then skips the high points of the larger leaf and reappears
> outside to continue its curve until it ends at the cheese. Corn leaves
> do not grow right through the center of other leaves (like an arrow
> shot through the leaf). If this was a deliberate design the so-called
> extra leaf would have been coming out from under that main leaf or
> would have been overlapping -- not created as a composite that shows it
> piercing through in such an unnatural fashion. Additionally, neither
> of the so-called extra leaves has any contoured flatness or texture.
> The high variety is simply a tall narrow gouge while the high variety
> is two narrow gouges (as if from a piece of jagged tooling)with too
> quick of a taper. This one also shows an area of incuse field running
> directly below the majority of the "doubled" area of the alleged
> doubled leaf suggesting metal displacement due to damage to the die
> from impact after the die was made. We often see these types of
> depressions in the field around Mint marks from the era of when they
> were punched into the individual dies prior to the 1990s (metal
> displacement from impact). The fact is, the positions of these
> so-called leaves are just too random and awkward to be deliberate
> design modifications. They lack the contoured flatness and leafy
> texturing of the "ligitimate" leaves. Simply put, they don't look like
> they fit into the design because they don't.
> They are certainly not the way a U.S. Mint engraver would design a coin
> much less even a second-rate engraver of silver rounds just start
> starting out.
> The reason the low leaf appears to be skipping the high points is
> because it is a gouge or dent that did not sink far enough to
> obliterate the original design. This is most damaging to the
> "deliberate design" theory since we know how these effects occur and we
> know that designers do not design coins that way. The effect tells us
> all we need to know. Die gouges, scratches, etc., skipping over lower
> areas of the die (relief areas of design on the coin) are a well-known
> diagnostic associated with die gouges, etc. To illustrate: I pulled a
> silver round I had struck from a damaged die a few weeks ago with a
> large die gouge running through the field and over some letters. The
> die was damaged extensively with many scratches and a scattering of
> gouges from being mishandled but I sent it in anyway to be polished in
> an attempt to refresh it. On the 25 sample rounds I had struck from
> this die it could be seen that most of the scratches and smaller gouges
> were removed but the largest gouge remained. It can be seen here:
> http://koinpro.tripod.com/Error_Coins/DieGouge.jpg. As you can see,
> the gouge is large -- as large as those on the Wisconsin quarters --
> and it skips over the letters. As gouges often go, it also has a sort
> of leafy shape to it too!
> As to these (Wisconsin quarters) showing deliberately placed gouges,
> (another suggestion that has been advanced), it is my opinion that a
> gouge is a gouge is a gouge (or a dent is a dent ...). How it got
> there matters little. Minor is minor no matter how it is presented.
> Second, there is not a shred of evidence that suggests they got there
> through some deliberate action. Die gouges (or dents) are common on
> coins and like finding angels in the clouds, you will find them where
> you want if you look long enough. Coincidental? Perhaps. But, so
> what?
> I wonder? Are we now going to catalog every "conveniently" placed
> gouge, die break or dent that comes along? If so, it is retroactive?
> At what point (and who decides) which dents or gouges are major and
> which are minor? If this is where we are heading, the Spadone book
> should become a best seller overnight! Or will we segregate the
> importance of gouges, dents and breaks by the era in which a coin was
> made? I for one do not welcome a return to the days of marketing minor
> flaws under fancy names that have nothing to do with what they actually
> are -- especially when the fancy names mask a minor flaw and make it
> sound far more important than it really is. These are minor flaws with
> catchy nicknames -- and nothing more.
> We have plenty of RPM, doubled dies, cuds, legitimate design
> modifications, etc., still being discovered in quantities large enough
> to keep all the attributers and collectors busy without bringing in the
> minor flaws don't we?
> I'd suggest we do not open the floodgates to the abuses of the past but
> it now looks like it is too late!
> Ken Potter
> www.koinpro.com
>
> tomde...@aol.com wrote:
> > You forgot the 1944-D half, where somebody accidentally polished the
> > designer's monogram off of the reverse die and then hand cut it back
> > into the die. THAT is a cool variety.
> > These Wisconsin quarters are just, in my opinion, random die damage
> > that occurred near the corn by coincidence. Remember the 1890-CC
> Morgan
> > with the die gouge at the tailfeathers? Somebody heavily promoted it
> > back in the late '60s and early '70s as the "TAILBAR VARIETY! EXTRA
> > TAIL FEATHER!" at big premiums. The last one I had in stock, I priced
> > $10 over a regular coin of the same grade, and it took about a month
> to
> > sell.
> > Tom DeLorey
>
Scott Clardy
auctions and search for "Wisconsin Fat Leaf". A person has a real good pic
of them.
"Scot Kamins" <kam...@SpamTrapDogeared.com> wrote in message
news:kamins-8014DE....@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <111jqdm...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Scott Clardy" <scl...@ktis.net> wrote:
>
> > Ok, but what if a third variety appeared in the Wisconsin D's. Another
that
> > appears somewhat suspicious. I am referring to the Fat Leaf. I found
some of
> > these and it appears that the veins on the leaves have been polished
smooth,
> > but the rest of the coin looks normal. Oddly enough these showed up in
> > quantity from a couple of boxes I bought from San Antonio. To many to
> > consider just a fluke.
> >
> > I wonder how many of these need to appear to consider it a variety? I
found
> > enough I want in on the ground floor of the frenzy.
>
Bill Krummel
"Scott Clardy" <scl...@ktis.net> wrote in message
news:111k3t7...@corp.supernews.com...
>I don't have a good picture but you can see them if you go to completed
> auctions and search for "Wisconsin Fat Leaf". A person has a real good pic
> of them.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=524&item=3959591985
Looks like a filled die error to me. The only way this quarter variety is
bringing the money it is bringing ($20-$40+) is because of the high and low
leaf varieties. Otherwise, the fat leaf would go nowhere, imo. Maybe a
buck or two, but that would be it. Bill
JHL
weeds.
(tongue in cheek)
Scot Kamins
> Ok, but what if a third variety appeared in the Wisconsin D's. Another that
> appears somewhat suspicious. I am referring to the Fat Leaf. I found some of
> these and it appears that the veins on the leaves have been polished smooth,
> but the rest of the coin looks normal. Oddly enough these showed up in
> quantity from a couple of boxes I bought from San Antonio. To many to
> consider just a fluke.
>
> I wonder how many of these need to appear to consider it a variety? I found
> enough I want in on the ground floor of the frenzy.
How about posting a picture of one at a website or on ABPN?
Scott Clardy
the field area is a raised spot almost looking like his breath hitting the
leaves. It looks very conspicuous because of that. Someone has definitely
polished this out. I have found both the up and down leafs and could see
where they might escape inspection, but this one just jumps out at you. Some
things you need good light to see but this one is a low light naked eye
thing. I think the QC guys at the mint need glasses.
Like I said a couple I could imagine getting through like this but I have
found about 500 in three different boxes.
"Bill Krummel" <dqu...@netins.net> wrote in message
news:cvd4e9$62b$1...@news.netins.net...
Harv
> I would agree that it looks like a filled die, but in front of the cow in
> the field area is a raised spot almost looking like his breath hitting the
> leaves.
Her breath, not his.
Harv
(Not going to get up early to go to the farmyard to collect the chicken eggs
and milk the bull..) ..
Scott Clardy
I deserve that. What self respecting bull would wear a bell around his neck.
"Harv" <ha...@biteme.com> wrote in message
news:qiASd.22398$xX3....@twister.socal.rr.com...