Modern US Errors and Varieties in the Catalog - False/Misleading Info, Recommended Additions and Deletions [gelöst]

Sorry for the long post. I don't want to flood the forum with requests, especially ones that may be inconsequential and not important to some. I'm going to put them all in this one topic, if that's not okay feel free to delete this post, just let me know what would be the best method to request these changes.

Any changes relating to this will be minor. Adding, removing, or editing of a few years or the deletion of images. I'm just going to be giving a thorough explanation for each so it may look like a bigger change than it is.

My name is Tanner, I am a devoted collector of United States error and variety coins and I am working on a website to keep detailed information on some of the coins I have been able to find. I really appreciate Numista as it is a great way to keep a catalog of my own collection and to learn a bit about coins that I have a slight interests in (Ancient Rome, etc.).

I've noticed that some US errors and varieties are included in the catalog. Which is definitely important for collectors who are dedicated to a certain series or denomination, however, some of the information provided is misleading or flat-out incorrect and the inclusion or omission of some errors and varieties is questionable.

It just seems like the research that went behind adding errors to the catalog was not very in depth.

I'm going to go through each coin and go over what information needs to be changed and what changes should at least be considered. I hate to see misinformation about coins and the collecting hobby going around and I especially don't want Numista to be apart of it.

Abbreviations Used:
DDO = Doubled Die Obverse, typically used by CONECA, varietyvista.com, or by indianvarieties.com
FS = Fivaz-Stanton, Authors of The Cherrypickers' Guide
OMM = Overmintmark, typically used by CONECA, varietyvista.com
OVD = Overdate, typically used by CONECA, varietyvista.com, or by indianvarieties.com
RPD = Repunched Date, typically used by CONECA, varietyvista.com, or by indianvarieties.com
RPM = Repunched Mintmark, typically used by CONECA, varietyvista.com
Snow = Rick Snow, Author of The Flying Eagle and Indian Cent Attribution Guide

1 Cent "Indian Head Cent"
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2356.html

• 1865 "overdate variety reported"
  [list]
  
• According to the The Cherrypickers' Guide 6th Edition Volume I by Bill Fivaz and JT Stanton, a 1865 over 1864 variety was once thought to exist but was debunked in the mid-1990s as a repunched date. This variety is now Snow-1, RPD-001, FS-301
  
• Should be removed or at least changed to "repunched date"
  
• https://indianvarieties.com/cents/indian-head-cents/1865-indian-head-penny/1865-plain-5-rpd-001/
  

[*]1869 "overdate variety exists"

• According to the The Cherrypickers' Guide 6th Edition Volume I by Bill Fivaz and JT Stanton, an 1869 overdate was once thought to exist. It doesn't seem like it was ever confirmed to be a overdate but the repunched date (Snow-4, RPD-005, FS-303) looks like what was thought to be a overdate. There is no overdate for the 1869 cent.
  
• Should be removed or at least changed to "repunched date"
  
• https://indianvarieties.com/cents/indian-head-cents/1869-indian-head-penny/1869-rpd-005/
  

[*]1873 "doubled LIBERTY"

• Doubled Die Obverse. Listed as Snow-2, DDO-001, FS-101.
  
• Should be kept.
  
• https://indianvarieties.com/cents/indian-head-cents/1873-indian-head-penny/1873-ddo-001/
  

[*]1888 "overdate variety reported"

• This one has been confirmed, Snow-1, OVD-001. Also listed in The Cherrypickers' Guide as FS-301.
  
• Should be kept.
  
• https://indianvarieties.com/cents/indian-head-cents/1888-indian-head-penny/1888-ovd-001/
  

[*]1894 "doubled date variety"

• Repunched Date. Listed as Snow-1, RPD-001, FS-301.
  
• Should be kept.
  
• https://indianvarieties.com/cents/indian-head-cents/1894-indian-head-penny/1894-rpd-001/
  

[/list]

1 Cent "Lincoln - Wheat Ears Reverse"
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces908.html

• "Overstruck Varieties"
  [list]
  
• This is extremely misleading
  
• Definition of overstrike: to impress (a finished coin) with the design of another coin
  [list]
  
• That is not what these are
  

[*]What are labeled as overstruck are actually repunched mintmarks.
[*]Mintmarks were added to the die by hand, so they could be mistakenly repunched multiple times.
[/list]
[*]1909-S "S over Horizontal S"

• Repunched Mintmark. Listed as RPM-002, FS-1502.
  
• Change to repunched mintmark.
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/02a%20LC%20RPMs%20Vol%201/1909SRPM002.htm
  

[*]1917 "Matte Proof"

• This coin does not exist, it has been removed by the Red Book
  
• Should be removed
  

[*]1917 "doubled die obverse"

• Doubled Die Obverse. Listed as DDO-001, FS-101.
  
• Should be kept
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/01a%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%201/1917PDDO001.htm
  

[*]1922 No D and Weak D

• Die #2 and Die #3 are in the catalog but not Die #1?
  
• Die #1 - Weak reverse (sometimes weak D)
  
• Die #2 - Strong reverse
  
• Die #3 - Weak reverse (sometimes weak D)
  
• Should be edited
  
• Use The Cherrypickers' Guide as a reference
  

[*]1922-D "weak reverse"

• No such variety
  
• Seems like an accidental listing meant to be one of the 1922 no D or weak D dies.
  
• Should be removed
  

[*]1936 "doubled die obverse"

• Multiple varieties known
  
• Should be noted that there are multiple variations
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/01a%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%201/1936PDDO001.htm
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/01a%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%201/1936PDDO002.htm
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/01a%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%201/1936PDDO003.htm
  

[*]1941 "doubled die obverse"

• Again multiple varieties
  
• Should be noted that there are multiple variations
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/01a%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%201/1941PDDO001.htm
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/01a%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%201/1941PDDO002.htm
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/01a%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%201/1941PDDO005.htm
  

[*]1944-D "D over S"

• Overmintmarks (Another form of repunched mintmark similar to RPD vs OVD).
  
• #1 listed as OMM-001, FS-511
  
• #2 listed as OMM-002, FS-512
  
• Change to overmintmark or repunched mintmark.
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/02a%20LC%20RPMs%20Vol%201/OMMs%201944D.htm
  

[*]1946-S "S over D"

• Overmintmark. Listed as FS-511, OMM-001
  
• Change to overmintmark or repunched mintmark.
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/02a%20LC%20RPMs%20Vol%201/1946SOMM001.htm
  

[*]1946-S inverted mintmark

• Numista has a picture of it in the comments but is not in the catalog, which is weird.
  
• Not only that, but the picture (the one on the right) is photoshopped!
  [list]
  
• That one is not a real coin!
  

[*]The real inverted mintmark is a ball-serif style S, while the one pictured is a trumpet tail style w/ sharp serifs.
[*]You can see on the mintmark in that image that the lighting changed. Someone took an image of a 46-S cent into photoshop and just flipped the mintmark.
[*]See links to compare.
[*]Delete image, add coin to catalog.
[*]Mintmark Styles: http://www.varietyvista.com/01a%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%201/San%20Francisco%20Mintmark%20Styles.htm
[*]Inverted Mintmark: http://www.varietyvista.com/01a%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%201/1946SIMM001.htm
[/list]
[*]1956 "D over D"

• Again multiple varieties and again not an overstruck coin.
  
• Change to repunched mintmark and note there are multiple varieties.
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/02a%20LC%20RPMs%20Vol%201/1956DRPM001.htm
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/02a%20LC%20RPMs%20Vol%201/1956DRPM008.htm
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/02a%20LC%20RPMs%20Vol%201/1956DRPM018.htm
  

[/list]

1 Cent "Steel Cent"
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3173.html

• 1943-D "boldly doubled mintmark"
  [list]
  
• Repunched mintmark. Listed as FS-501, RPM-001
  
• There are multiple other repunched mintmarks for 1943-D cents but "boldly repunched" refers to this one.
  
• Should be kept.
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/02a%20LC%20RPMs%20Vol%201/1943DRPM001.htm
  

[/list]

1 Cent "Lincoln Memorial Cent"
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces42.html

• 1960-D "small D over large date"
  [list]
  
• This is a Doubled Die Obverse AND a Repunched Mintmark.
  
• Listed as FS-101, DDO-001 and FS-501, RPM-100
  
• Should be noted "D over D, small date over large date" Wording is confusing
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/01b%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%202/1960DDDO001.htm
  

[*]1971-S "doubled die obverse"

• Actually a proof coin
  
• Multiple variations but clearly refers to the rarer FS-102, DDO-002
  
• Mention it is a proof coin
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/01b%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%202/1971SDDO002.htm
  

[*]1972 "doubled die obverse"

• MANY strong and very similar variations (9 are listed in The Cherrypickers' Guide)
  
• Although it does refer to the strongest one, note there are multiple variations
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/01b%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%202/DDO%201972.htm
  

[*]1982-D small date copper

• Transitional error coin
  
• 1982-D small dates were all meant to be copper-plated-zinc planchets
  
• Some 1982-D small dates were found on 95% copper planchets
  
• There are at least 2 known, and has become a very popular coin in the hobby
  
• Should be added to the catalog
  
• https://www.coinworld.com/news/precious-metals/ngc-confirms-second-bronze-1982-d-small-date-cent.html
  

[/list]

Side-thought: Why are the 1982 zinc cents separate from the 1983-2008 zinc cents?

1 Cent "Lincoln Memorial Cent"
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces43.html

• "Struck with proof dies"
  [list]
  
• A LOT wrong with these
  
• What makes a proof coin a proof coin is the preparation of the die, not the blank, not the die's design
  
• The 1998-2000 (no mintmark) ones are struck with a die with the proof design ("Wide AM") not a proof die. If it were struck with a proof die, it would look like a proof and have a cameo.
  
• The 1998-1999 S proofs were struck with a die with the circulation design ("Close AM") that was prepared as a proof die so it looks like a proof and has a cameo.
  
• The 1992 and 1992-D ones aren't even the proof design
  [list]
  
• The 1992 proofs used the same design as the circulation coins.
  
• The 1992 "Close AM" cents have the reverse design meant for 1993 cents (The following year!)
  
• Please delete the image of the 1992 reverses, as it has incorrect information.
  

[*]1998, 1999, 2000

• Change to "Wide AM Proof Reverse Design"
  

[*]1998-S, 1999-S

• Change to "Close AM Circulation Reverse Design"
  

[*]1992, 1992-D

• Change to "Close AM Reverse of 1993"
  

[*]1988, 1988-D

• Add these ones
  
• Very similar variety to the last one
  
• "Flared G Reverse of 1989"
  
• 1988 and 1989 cents have a Wide AM but the 1989 has a different font on the FG initials
  [list]
  
• Some 1988 cents were made with the 1989 dies and have the different font on the initials
  

[*]Is listed in The Cherrypickers' Guide as FS-901
[/list]
[*]1983

• Delete this
  
• I have no idea what this is and could find nothing online or in any references
  
• Where is this from?!
  

[*]All of the reverse designs, including the accidental mixups are listed here:

• http://www.varietyvista.com/01b%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%202/Memorial%20Reverse%20Design%20Varieties.htm
  

[/list]
[*]1983 doubled die reverse

• I am surprised this is not in the catalog.
  
• This is an extremely strong, rare, noticeable, and popular variety.
  
• Doubled Die Reverse listed as FS-801. DDR-001
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/01b%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%202/1983PDDR001.htm
  

[/list]

3 Cents "Three Cent Nickel"
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces5336.html

• 1887 "7 over 6"
  [list]
  
• There is a proof version and a normal version.
  
• The proof is a lot more noticeable
  
• See The Cherrypickers' Guide
  

[/list]

½ Dime "Seated Liberty Half Dime" with stars, no arrows
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces14854.html

• 1849 "9 over 6"
  [list]
  
• There is debate over if it is a 9 over 6 or a 9 over 8
  
• The Cherrypickers' Guide lists it as a 9 over 8
  
• At least change it to "possible 9 over 6"
  

[/list]

5 Cents "Shield Nickel" without rays
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4411.html

• 1879 "9 over 8"
  [list]
  
• PCGS recognizes this variety but not NGC or The Cherrypickers' Guide
  
• May be some debate on this one
  
• Also a proof coin
  
• Change to "possible" and note it is a proof
  

[/list]

5 Cents "Buffalo Nickel" flat ground
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1109.html

• 1914 "4 over 3"
  [list]
  
• Some debate on this one.
  
• Maybe change to "possible"
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/03%20Buffalo%20Nickels/Research%20on%20the%201914.3%20Dies.htm
  

[*]1916 "overdate"

• Never heard of this one.
  
• None are listed by CONECA, varietyvista.com, doubleddie.com, PCGS, NGC, The Cherrypickers' Guide, or any reference I can find.
  
• Could be confusion with the Doubled Die Obverse, which is already in the catalog
  
• Delete this one.
  

[*]1938 "D over S"

• Many variations
  
• Should note there are multiple variations
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/03%20Buffalo%20Nickels/OMMs%201938-D.htm
  

[/list]

5 Cents "Jefferson Nickel" 1st portrait
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces44.html

• 1955-D "D over S"
  [list]
  
• MANY variations
  
• Should note there are multiple variations
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/05%20JN%20RPMs/OMMs%201955D.htm
  

[/list]

5 Cents "Jefferson Wartime Nickel" 1st portrait
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces45.html

• 1943-P "Doubled Die Obverse"
  [list]
  
• Many variations
  
• Should note there are multiple variations
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/04a%20JN%20DD%20Vol%201/DDOs%201943-P.htm
  
• Also includes a 1943 over 1942 doubled die / overdate.
  [list]
  
• This one should be separated from the others
  
• DDO-003, FS-101
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/04a%20JN%20DD%20Vol%201/1943PDDO003.htm
  

[/list]
[*]1945-P "Doubled Die Reverse"

• Surprised this one is not listed.
  
• Extremely strong and popular variety
  
• Listed as DDR-001, FS-801
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/04a%20JN%20DD%20Vol%201/1945PDDR001.htm
  

[/list]

1 Dime "Seated Liberty Dime" w/o stars, date arrows removed
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces18058.html

• 1891-O "Horizontal O"
  [list]
  
• Actually a Repunched Mintmark "O over Horizontal O"
  [list]
  
• Not just a horizontal mintmark
  

[*]Listed as RPM-002, FS-501
[*]http://www.varietyvista.com/1891ORPM002%20dime.htm
[/list]
[*]1891-S "Overpunched S"

• Repunched Mintmark "Large S over Small S"
  
• Listed as RPM-001, FS-501
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/1891SRPM001%20dime.htm
  

[/list]

1 Dime "Mercury Dime"
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces51.html

• 1919 "Doubled Die Obverse"
  [list]
  
• Image in the comments, yet not in the catalog?
  
• Strong, rare, and very popular variety
  
• Listed as DDO-001, FS-101
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/06%20Mercury%20Dime/1919PDDO001.htm
  

[*]1931 "Doubled Die Obverse and Reverse"

• This straight-up does not exist
  
• I can find a single confirmed doubled die on the 1931 dime let alone one with a doubled die on front and back.
  
• Remove this one
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/06%20Mercury%20Dime/DDO%20Listings.htm
  

[*]1931-S, 1937, 1937-S, 1939 "Doubled Die Obverse"

• Strange choices
  
• Not very strong and not very popular
  
• I see no reason to remove them now
  

[*]1941-S

• Again, does not exist
  
• Not a single one listed for 1941-S
  
• Remove this one
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/06%20Mercury%20Dime/DDO%20Listings.htm
  

[/list]

¼ Dollar "Seated Liberty Quarter" without motto
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces4942.html

• 1853 "Recut Date"
  [list]
  
• Repunched Date. "recut" is old terminology but not necessarily wrong.
  
• Listed as FS-301.
  

[*]1856-S/S

• Repunched Mintmark. "Large S over Small S"
  
• Why is S/S in the mint on this one and not any of the other ones?
  [list]
  
• Just inconsistent
  

[*]The large over small is what makes this one remarkable, should be noted
[/list]
[/list]

¼ Dollar "Seated Liberty Quarter" without motto, with rays and date arrows
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces24992.html

• 1853 "Overdate"
  [list]
  
• 1853 over 1854 overdate!
  
• Very unusual error and should be recognized as such
  
• Listed as FS-301
  
• http://www.seateddimevarieties.com/Quarter_QOM/1853_4_overdate.htm
  

[/list]

¼ Dollar "Standing Liberty Quarter" Stars Below Eagle; Variety 2
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3573.html

• 1918-S "overdate"
  [list]
  
• 1918/7 Doubled Die Obverse / Overdate
  
• Listed as DDO-001, FS-101
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/08%20Standing%20Liberty%20Quarters/1918SDDO001.htm
  

[/list]

¼ Dollar "Washington Silver Quarter"
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces54.html

• 1942-D "Doubled Die Obverse"
  [list]
  
• Very surprised this one is not in the catalog
  
• One of the strongest doubled dies period
  
• Listed as DDO-001, FS-101
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/09a%20WQ%20Vol%201/DDO%20Detail%20Pages/1942DDDO001.htm
  

[*]1950-D "Mintmark Variety"

• Overmintmark "D over S"
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/09b%20WQ%20Vol%202/RPM%20Detail%20Pages/1950DOMM001.htm
  

[*]1950-S "Mintmark Variety"

• Overmintmark "S over D"
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/09b%20WQ%20Vol%202/RPM%20Detail%20Pages/1950SOMM001.htm
  

[*]1953-D "D over S"

• Not in the catalog, should be considered for inclusion
  
• Hard to spot, but very rare and somewhat popular
  
• http://www.varietyvista.com/09b%20WQ%20Vol%202/RPM%20Detail%20Pages/1953DOMM001.htm
  

[*]1956 "Double Bar 6"

• Never heard of this one.
  
• After some research it seems it was included in the Numismatic Week price guide before
  
• This appears to simply be a die chip, very common on modern US coins. Definitely not doubled.
  
• It is not recognized by any reputable reference for varieties
  
• Remove this one
  
• Seems to be just someone pushing a cool coin he found to become a popular variety to inflate value
  [list]
  
• But not a very collectible error being a die chip
  

[*]https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1956-double-bar-5-washington-quarter-variety.59453/
[*]http://board.conecaonline.org/showthread.php?2398-1956-Washington-Quarter-help&p=7346#post7346
[/list]
[*]"Reverse Dies"

• Maybe change to reverse designs
  
• Not technically a proof die, same argument as the 1990s lincoln cent mismatched designs
  

[/list]

Man this is way too long, my bad. Not going to look at half dollars or dollars now.
Delete if it goes against any rules.
Please fix some of these issues if you agree.
Let me know what you think.

Not sure what happened with the formatting either, this looks like a mess. Really sorry about that.

As far as I am concerned errors shoudn't be in the main catalog at all, such information should be included in the personal commentary lines.
I know that some errors and variants overlapp but we should keep the date lists as comprehensive and clear as possible.

Idolenz:

I completely agree with you. I don't think it's fair to those who try to build sets that they'd have to get some of these obscure variations to get that double checkmark here on Numista.
There's a lot of inaccuracies and some coins that aren't even real, how can anyone make sets?
And some very popular, worthwhile varieties are omitted yet some very minor and unknown ones are there.
It's very confusing.
Honestly, if we decide to remove all of them I'd be fine with that. I can put the variety in the comments, it's what I do now.
But as of right now, Numista has them in the catalog and they seriously need to be edited down and reevaluated.

I think we should start separating errors, variants and PMD, not only to US, but for all the countries:

As I see, variants are different versions of same coin, mostly caused for being used different dies. In past years dies were made by hand separately, if a die turned wore or broke, minthouses would make a new die, copied by hand from the previous one, so was usual to find differences, like different typography, missing or added details in the design, smaller or bigger images, and even the use of inverted letters, like inverted "V" for "A", and a lot of details. Similar thing can happen when same coin is minted by different minthouses, being different years or the same, we can have variants on the design, only different mintmark, or even just owing to different material, dimensions or other differences, that allow to determine the minthouse where they were produced.

What I call "Design Errors" are those that have a mistake, produced by a error on production of the die, like lettering: CHIIE instead of CHILE, BBASIL instead of BRASIL, or missing part of design, if they are different to the other coins of the same type. Usually they are considered variants by main catalogs.

What I call "Mint Errors" are caused by defective procedures or altered dies, like out of center, DDO, die cracks, or anything that occurs AFTER the making of the die, or due to an issue during use.

Now, what to show or not in catalog?

I think all variants should have a separate year line; if they are catalogued separately by main catalogs, then is easy, if no catalog show variants, we should determine if add a year line for it or not. (if the difference is way hard to find, like a small separation between letters (say less 1mm), maybe is not worth to complicate catalog., if difference is clear, like different number of lines in a reeded background, or missing or extra leaves in a wreath, should be OK. Also design errors should have a year line, even if catalogs don't detail them.

Now I think Mint Errors should not have a separate year line, but would be OK to mention it in comments of year line. I would like to see explanations of the mint errors in comments section, and with images whenever possible (would be great to see in year line "DDO exists, see comments" or "Die crack exists see comments".

Please keep in mind usually country referee is not expert on errors, maybe they know about it a lot or nothing, so sending requests to add and fix this information will be a great help for them. Usually the country referee is not the expert for said country, in spite knows about it and has good reference literature to help on processing requests.

Seems to me this would be a perfect article for numisdocs. It also seems to me that these updates should be presented item by item to the referee. Like every update or question request is here on numista. All of this discussion and the ref is not a part of it. I do not think that is appropriate.

Wow... that is a lot of information.

For future reference, please try to only keep one topic per thread. For what you are doing, I think every page you are discussing would be better as its own thread. That would equate to seventeen threads which--while it may seem like a lot--would be much easier to track and deal with.

But you already made this topic, so let's try to figure everything out.

I will contact the referees about this thread, and here are all pages that must be dealt with. I will edit this post accordingly when each one has been dealt with:

5 Cents "Jefferson Wartime Nickel" 1st portrait
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces45.html

• 1945-P "Doubled Die Reverse"
  

1. Surprised this one is not listed.
   
2. Extremely strong and popular variety
   
3. Listed as DDR-001, FS-801
   
4. http://www.varietyvista.com/04a%20JN%20DD%20Vol%201/1945PDDR001.htm
   

¼ Dollar "Washington Silver Quarter"
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces54.html

• 1942-D "Doubled Die Obverse"
  

1. Very surprised this one is not in the catalog
   
2. One of the strongest doubled dies period
   
3. Listed as DDO-001, FS-101
   
4. http://www.varietyvista.com/09a%20WQ%20Vol%201/DDO%20Detail%20Pages/1942DDDO001.htm
   

• 1953-D "D over S"
  

1. Not in the catalog, should be considered for inclusion
   
2. Hard to spot, but very rare and somewhat popular
   
3. http://www.varietyvista.com/09b%20WQ%20Vol%202/RPM%20Detail%20Pages/1953DOMM001.htm
   

1 Cent "Indian Head Cent"

Seemingly alright:

• 1873: I sent a request to add (Doubled Die Obverse) at the end of it--this should make it more accurate, but I think keeping the original comment may also help since the doubled LIBERTY is the most obvious part of the doubling.
  
• 1888: I sent a request to change 'reported' to 'exists'.
  

Questions:

• 1865: Wants to remove comment or change to 'Repunched date'.
  
• 1869: Wants to remove comment or change to 'Repunched date'.
  
• 1894: Listed as 'doubled date variety', but you say 'Repunched date'.
  

Is 'Double date' the same thing as 'Repunched date'? If so, we should probably decide on one and keep all this consistent. If not... please excuse my ignorance.

I really appreciate you taking the time to read through this and potentially work out some changes. I know fixing some of this information could greatly benefit Numista and it’s current or future users.

Yes, doubled date and repunched date are the same in this case. Repunched date is a bit more specific to the cause of the doubling and it’s also the more commonly used term for these errors/varieties. I’d say “repunched date” is the one to stick with.

The 1865 and 1869 “overdates” are no longer believed to be overdates. They are still considered repunched dates though, so still a variety that people collect, but they’re not as significant as they used to be when they were considered overdates. Being a less popular repunched date now, they probably aren’t worth including in the catalog. If you want to simplify the catalog, remove a few unnecessary varieties, these two would be good to remove.

Thank you for your comment!

I went with 'Repunched date (double date) variety'. Probably will not hurt to include both.

The first two requests have been approved, next three are pending.

Verweis : "Idolenz"​As far as I am concerned errors shoudn't be in the main catalog at all, such information should be included in the personal commentary lines.
​I know that some errors and variants overlapp but we should keep the date lists as comprehensive and clear as possible.

​First, Tanman...thank you for the time and energy you put into formulating all of this info for the catalog. Much like Idolenz, I generally prefer to keep errors and varieties in the note section with clear and concise info much like what you have provided. It keeps the year lines less confused and makes it easier to manage from both a catalog and user standpoint. There is always the option for the individual to note for themselves if they have say the overdate variety.

There are cases where i am ok with adding the line...one of them would be the eagle feathers on the Morgan dollar...this is a widely known and easy to determine variety. Also the half dollars with the 3x2 stars...again easy to determine and generally well known.

I hope that makes sense...

Two pages should be done now.
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2356.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces908.html

This page is also done:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3173.html

I read there are such thing as 1944 steel cents, but do you happen to have any information on those? I am mainly wondering if they are plain steel or zinc clad steel, like the page indicates. If the latter, they should also be included on the page.

Yep, the 1944 Steel Cents are zinc coated steel like the 1943's. The 1943 Bronze and the 1944 Steel are known from all three mints.

https://www.coinworld.com/news/precious-metals/off-metal-1943-1944-lincoln-cents-at-fun-sale.html
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1944-1c-steel/82722
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1944-d-1c-steel/82725
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1944-s-1c-steel/82731

Thank you! Request submitted.

Regarding 1982: I am getting a little confused. The reason we only have this date on the copper page, I think, is because that is what Krause says. But Krause is obviously wrong, so we need to figure this out. We have (format Date - Mintage - Comment):

Copper:

• 1982 - 10,712,525,000 - Large date
  
• 1982 - N/A - Small date
  
• 1982 D - 6,012,979,368 - Large date
  
• 1982 S - 3,857,479 - Proof
  

Zinc:

• Nothing
  

Is the following what we need?
(http://www.lincolncentresource.com/smalldates/1982.html)

Copper:

• 1982 - 10,712,525,000 - Large date; mintage combined with Zinc
  
• 1982 - N/A - Small date; mintage included in above
  
• 1982 D - 6,012,979,368 - Large date; mintage combined with Zinc
  
• 1982 D - N/A - Small date; 2 examples known
  
• 1982 S - 3,857,479 - Proof (large date)
  

Zinc:

• 1982 - 10,712,525,000 - Large Date; mintage combined with Copper
  
• 1982 - [Included in above] - Small Date; mintage included in above
  
• 1982 D - 6,012,979,368 - Large Date; mintage combined with Copper
  
• 1982 D - [Included in above] - Small Date; mintage included in above
  

That looks right, and that's what The Official Red Book has as well.

Alright, thank you again.

The Copper memorial cents are done:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces42.html

And the 1982 Zinc ones no longer have their own page.

Regarding the 1941-S Mercury dime: it is probably machine doubling.
https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=164137

The issue I am having is that 113 members claim to own that year, and in the year-line comment itself, it does not specify whether it belongs to a Large S or a Small S. So... which one of those varieties is more common, would say?

Also: I have not been updating this thread, but many of the pages are done. The list is getting smaller.

That is weird. Machine doubling can happen on any coin and is a common machining flaw, you can find strong machine doubling on any given year if you looked for it. I don’t see why the catalog should have it as there are no doubled dies known for 1941-S dimes.

Machine doubling is generally believed to be “worthless” due to how common it is. Labeling coins with machine doubling as doubled dies is one of the most common coin scams I see online.

http://doubleddie.com/144822.html

But to answer your question, the small S is more common.

http://varietyvista.com/06%20Mercury%20Dime/San%20Francisco%20Mintmark%20Styles.htm

Yeah, I agree, Machine doubling should not have its own year-line.

Thank you very much. The line is now gone.

Everything in this thread has now been dealt with. If you see any more errors, please do not hesitate to mention them.