Is it an Error Coin or a Variety?

By Ken Potter on Monday, February 15, 2010
Filed Under: Errors, Items of Interest, US Coins

By way of introduction, I am an error and variety coin specialist from Michigan. As a charter life member of the Combined Organizations of Numismatic Error Collectors of America (CONECA) and a founding member of the National Collector’s Association of Die Doubling (NCADD), I serve both groups independently as their official attributor of world (non-U.S.) hub doubled dies and I privately list all types of die varieties on both U.S. and other world coins in the Variety Coin Register(r). I am also a columnist for Coin World, World Coin News, Canadian Coin News, Cherrypickers’ News and several club publications.

While I plan to examine issues other than errors and varieties, most of what I plan for this column will relate to my area of expertise. Before getting started I should mention that varieties listed within the Variety Coin Register(r) (VCR) are assigned a primary VCR number and a secondary number that defines the variety type or class. This reference number will accompany the description for most varieties shown in this column. I believe the system is rather self- explanatory but if anybody desires a detailed explanation they may contact me via e-mail and request “Form#VCR”.

Another item in need of explanation is how I differentiate between errors and varieties. The lines of demarcation are not always clear and tend to vary between specialists. One area of agreement is that any mechanically misstruck coin or a coin struck on an improperly prepared planchet is an error coin. It is also a consensus that any coin displaying a deliberate change in design is considered a “die variety”. Thus a coin struck “off-center” or “struck on a damaged planchet” is considered and “error” while a coin exhibiting a change in the style of lettering, etc., is considered a deliberate “variety”.

Some specialists argue that certain “varieties” such as repunched Mint marks (RPMs) and hub doubled dies are actually “errors” because there is no intent by the Mint to prepare a “flawed” die. Others argue many RPMs and doubled dies are more appropriately defined as a “variety”; they believe they’re deliberately released and contend that many issuing authorities consider such flaws trivial and an expected byproduct of tolerances and processes in place (a stance with which I pretty much agree).

It is also known that some “overdates” were deliberately created by the Mint to extend the life of an otherwise obsolete die, while it is presumed that others were created in error. While most specialists agree, determining which dies were deliberately overdated and which were not is often an exercise in futility. Thus we cannot know for certain if we can accurately apply the term “error” to many “overdates”.

From my standpoint the subject is moot as all errors are (according to Webster’s definition) “varieties”. Each collector has his/her own feelings on what constitutes a variety or an error and the hobby could debate the subject to infinitum. I refuse to debate the topic feeling we can all agree to disagree (when necessary) without any harm to the hobby.

To be practical, I tend to refer to doubled dies and most other types of “die errors” as being “varieties”, and items such as “double strikes” and off-center strikes” as “errors” because this is the most commonly accepted nomenclature associated with each area currently in use in the hobby.

(This Article Re-posted with Permission of Mr. Potter)

Tags: Coin varieties, error coins, ken Potter

About the Author

Ken is a prolific author and photographer with regularly featured columns in almost all of the Numismatic publications. He is the current webmaster and editor of the CONECA web site. He is CONECA’s longest serving doubled die attributer, and has conducted numerous seminars on minting varieties and errors. He has operated a mail order business since 1973.

2 Comment(s)

Gary Scott | Apr 25, 2010 | Reply

well to me i think it is time all varieties start getting reconition as some sort of Error coin,to many are staying in circulation and losing the grade,it would Boom the Error coin market with High grade machine strikes no doubt,Thanks Coinsguy2010
Keith Riechers | Jul 17, 2011 | Reply

Just wanted to show a vote of concurrence to Ken’s position on these matters. It seems to me that to debate these matters is futile, and I’m thankful for folks like Ken who are willing to evaluate, identify, and catalog the varieties and errors (and I’ve collected both) – so the numismatic community can judge for themselves what’s relevant and collectable.

Like antiques, one persons junk is another persons treasure.

For me, I call them the fun coins. Some of them (like the accented hair of the 1964 Kennedy half) have an interesting story to go with it. Some are just interesting to look at and identify the cause. Some are too expensive because everyone else feels the same way and there aren’t enough to go around (but fortunately there’s many more that have been identified and are still at reasonable prices, thanks to folks like Ken). It’s also why I look at my change every now and again, or occasionally grade a roll of coins, to see if I lucked out (and it does happen) and can find something interesting (like I used to do when I was a kid and just beginning to collect coins).

Our hobby is indeed diverse. From five-ounce silver quarters, to territorial gold, to patterns, tokens, medals, and over a hundred years of Lincoln cents and much more. Who can possibly and authoritatively define what’s collectable – only the collecting community at-large can answer this (and they do – they vote with their limited funds for purchase).

Thanks Ken, and to all of you who help to show the diversity within our hobby and what’s available for those who have an interest in these aspects of it.