by Ken Potter – NLG

The 1980-D&S Lincoln cent variety has bit the dust! Referred to by some as a Dual Mint Mark and by others as an Over Mint Mark (OMM), it had been one of the most hotly debated varieties amongst specialists for over a decade. James Wiles, 20th Century Variety Coin Attributer for CONECA provided an image of a specimen submitted by collector, Gary Darlington. Wiles distributed the image via email and it took a panel of prominent variety coin examiners that he sent to image to less than 24 hours to reach consensus that it debunked what was previously thought to be a D&S.

The image was of an early-mid-die-state, (EMDS), a stage earlier than previously seen. Specialist, Billy Crawford created overlay images of two different stages demonstrating that they were from the same die. The EMDS specimen shows an irregular pattern of probable die damage as being the source of what looks every bit like the lower two-thirds of an S on mid-die-state (MDS) examples. Later stages are less convincing but the presence of the deceptive MDS seemed to legitimize the LDS.

George Allegado first discovered the variation in late-die-state (LDS) and reported it to Alan Herbert in early February of 1981. Herbert later reported upon it in Numismatic News. CONECA member, John Wexler, published a story on another LDS specimen in the May 1981 Error-Variety News, its image splashed on the front cover. This piece became the plate-coin in Wexler and Tom Miller’s, The RPM Book published in 1983 which kept the coin in the limelight for a number of years.

However, not all observers including this writer were sure the coin displayed a D&S. The coin was LDS and the outline of an S was questionable. It was eventually removed from the RPM Book files (then owned by me and later by CONECA after Wexler sold them in the late 1980s) at which point the variation became hotly debated. (more…)

By Ken Potter – NLG – CoinLink Content Partner

Some time ago a fellow sent in an error-variety coin with some very interesting questions. He said: “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 — the grading service states it’s an error? 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?

He made to very good points and I had to explain that it was both an error and a variety and that the grading service was technically wrong. My answer to him was as follows and aught to be of interest to others.

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. (more…)

Coins struck accidentally on planchets intended for other issues are known for quite a number of United States coin types, but they are rarely more spectacular than when occurring with dollar coins. This superb gem Eisenhower Dollar was struck at the San Francisco Mint for inclusion in the series of “blue pack” silver-clad dollars offered by the U. S. Mint at $3 apiece from 1971 to 1974.

At first glance it could almost pass for one of these silver-clad pieces, but inspection of its edge (made all the more easy through NGC’s unique EdgeView® holder) reveals the bright orange-red glow of a copper-nickel-clad planchet! This coin has the satiny texture typical of most silver-clad dollars and confirms that it was struck accidentally as part of that series.

The Denver Mint was assigned the role of preparing planchets for San Francisco’s production of the “blue” Ikes, but it was simultaneously making planchets of the copper-nickel-clad composition for its own press run of circulating coins. One of these ordinary planchets evidently found its way into a shipment of silver-clad planchets going to San Francisco and was struck and packaged as a silver-clad issue. While this scenario describes how such an error could have occurred, it did not play out very often. This is the first report of a 1973-S Dollar struck on a copper-nickel planchet.

If that weren’t enough to excite collectors, this coin is also a doubled-die obverse variety! It is DDO-2 as listed and illustrated in the book CONECA Attribution Guide to Eisenhower Dollar Die Varieties by James Wiles, Ph.D. This variety, previously known only in the normal silver-clad composition, is now confirmed on a copper-nickel-clad planchet intended for currency strikes. Collectors should check their “blue packs” for more new discoveries.

View The NGC Website for the fill article