By Mike Byers – MintErrorNews

Unique 1866 $2½ Struck on 3 Cent Nickel Planchet Certified by NGC

This numismatic discovery was certified in 2007 by NGC. It is one of two known U.S. Liberty gold coins struck on wrong planchets and certified by either NGC or PCGS as a mint error. The other known piece is a unique 1851 $20 Liberty struck on a cent planchet and certified by NGC.

Coincidentally, in 1975 I bought the 1851 $20 Liberty on a Large Cent planchet from Fred Weinberg. It was one of the highlights from the famous Dr. J. Hewitt Judd Collection. Judd listed it with illustration in Appendix B of his pattern book as a mint error. Until the discovery of this 1866 $2½ struck on a 3 Cent Nickel planchet, it was the only known U.S. gold coin struck on a wrong planchet. The $20 struck on the Large Cent planchet now resides in an East Coast collection of mint errors and is valued by many mint error specialists at over $150,000 should it ever become available.

This unique 1866 $2½ is an incredible discovery for many reasons. An 1866 $2½ has an extremely low mintage with only 3,080 struck and is one of the rarest dated $2½ Liberties known. It is a five-figure coin in just mint state 60 and a true gem, if it existed in this grade, would be worth well into six-figures.

This mint error is in gem condition. It was fully struck and has pristine fields and a flawless portrait. I would describe this coin as struck. It weighs 2.04 grams since it was accidentally struck on a 3 Cent Nickel blank planchet. It is incredible that this coin was preserved in this condition.

There are other U.S. gold coins struck as patterns and die trials on different alloys and/or with different designs. These are listed in Judd in the regular section along with the patterns. It is possible that one of these listed may actually be a mint error struck by mistake on a wrong planchet. But until one is authenticated and certified by PCGS or NGC as a mint error, only the $20 on a Large Cent blank and this 1866 $2½ on a 3 Cent Nickel planchet have been verified. I’ve handled patterns, die trials, splashers and other numismatic rarities since 1975 and I’ve never come across a U.S. gold coin which I genuinely believe was struck by mistake (mint error) on a wrong planchet other than the two I mention above. (more…)

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…)