Variety or Error

[Benny who]

I posted a George IV sixpence yesterday in 'Coin acquisition of the week'.The coin itself is NGC encapsulated,however the first I of IIII is missing with the second barely visible,My question would be,what makes a coin an Error,rather than a variety?

My thoughts are that if only one example can be found it would be an error,however if more than one example is found then it would be classed as a variety.

This second picture is from a Halfcrown I had,that had grease on it when minted,quite nice as all the details were still there,however they were in a inverted dome.In my opinion this would be an error as you couldn't have the same pattern or shape on the next coin.

Really looking for opinions or if there are any set rules one should go by.

[Peckris]

I posted a George IV sixpence yesterday in 'Coin acquisition of the week'.The coin itself is NGC encapsulated,however the first I of IIII is missing with the second barely visible,My question would be,what makes a coin an Error,rather than a variety?

My thoughts are that if only one example can be found it would be an error,however if more than one example is found then it would be classed as a variety.

This is a point I've made time and time again. It's a fact that "a few" beats "one" whenever there's an error - we don't go huge on misstrikes in the UK but we do on varieties, and to find something which can be quantified in some way attracts completists who go all out to find another example. You can't do that with a 'mere' misstrike, for all its uniqueness, which is a bit of an irony.

I had an unknown 1887 wreath reverse sixpence but no-one had heard of it even though the characteristics were fairly evident (I put a thread about it in the Varieties subforum). Fortunately, this forum has a member who is expert on 1887JH coinage, and now has it 'in custody' for research and a place in a book, as a probable pattern (of which there are very many in 1887, apparently).

[pies]

Surely a variety was intended by the manufacture where as an error is not

[declanwmagee]

Surely a variety was intended by the manufacture where as an error is not

On the nail, Pies. Although the differences between the two 1896 halfpennies that Scott highlighted in another thread are VERY slight, they are deliberate. Whereas the 1881 xi/ri florin, although recognised in all the literature as a variety, is technically an error.

I'll keep asking the Why question though, particularly with micros like the 1896. Why did they make those tiny changes?

[Nick]

Surely a variety was intended by the manufacture where as an error is not

On the nail, Pies. Although the differences between the two 1896 halfpennies that Scott highlighted in another thread are VERY slight, they are deliberate. Whereas the 1881 xi/ri florin, although recognised in all the literature as a variety, is technically an error.

I'll keep asking the Why question though, particularly with micros like the 1896. Why did they make those tiny changes?

Where do mules fit in then? Variety or error?

Edited February 6, 2013 by Nick

[Benny who]

This is a point I've made time and time again. It's a fact that "a few" beats "one" whenever there's an error - we don't go huge on misstrikes in the UK but we do on varieties, and to find something which can be quantified in some way attracts completists who go all out to find another example. You can't do that with a 'mere' misstrike, for all its uniqueness, which is a bit of an irony.

I had an unknown 1887 wreath reverse sixpence but no-one had heard of it even though the characteristics were fairly evident (I put a thread about it in the Varieties subforum). Fortunately, this forum has a member who is expert on 1887JH coinage, and now has it 'in custody' for research and a place in a book, as a probable pattern (of which there are very many in 1887, apparently).

[Benny who]

This is a point I've made time and time again. It's a fact that "a few" beats "one" whenever there's an error - we don't go huge on misstrikes in the UK but we do on varieties, and to find something which can be quantified in some way attracts completists who go all out to find another example. You can't do that with a 'mere' misstrike, for all its uniqueness, which is a bit of an irony.

I had an unknown 1887 wreath reverse sixpence but no-one had heard of it even though the characteristics were fairly evident (I put a thread about it in the Varieties subforum). Fortunately, this forum has a member who is expert on 1887JH coinage, and now has it 'in custody' for research and a place in a book, as a probable pattern (of which there are very many in 1887, apparently).

I would definitely try to find at least two examples,to class something as a variety,however as you mentioned you have now found what is a probable pattern,so were would you stop collecting that date?

[Benny who]

Surely a variety was intended by the manufacture where as an error is not

On the nail, Pies. Although the differences between the two 1896 halfpennies that Scott highlighted in another thread are VERY slight, they are deliberate. Whereas the 1881 xi/ri florin, although recognised in all the literature as a variety, is technically an error.

I'll keep asking the Why question though, particularly with micros like the 1896. Why did they make those tiny changes?

Where do mules fit in then? Variety or error?

I would say that a mule would be a variety as the reverse or obverse is completely different to the intended design.

Now if a serif gets blocked it turns a I into a 1,or the crossbar of an A gets blocked it will turn it into an inverted V,these aren't intended however are still listed as a variety.

[pies]

I would class a mule as an error,it wasn't intended,but as quite a few got minted before anybody noticed or cared to repair the die numismatics have decided this counts as a variety as there are a few to collect

[declanwmagee]

Where do mules fit in then? Variety or error?

ooh - good question!

Error.

[Paulus]

Where do mules fit in then? Variety or error?

ooh - good question!

Error.

The 1787 sixpences and shillings without hearts??

[declanwmagee]

Where do mules fit in then? Variety or error?

ooh - good question!

Error.

The 1787 sixpences and shillings without hearts??

Do you think someone decided not to put the hearts on? Or forgot?

[Paulus]

Where do mules fit in then? Variety or error?

ooh - good question!

Error.

The 1787 sixpences and shillings without hearts??

Do you think someone decided not to put the hearts on? Or forgot?

I believe the thinking is that someone forgot, and around half of them had been minted before someone noticed the error ... so error or variety?

[declanwmagee]

The 1787 sixpences and shillings without hearts??

Do you think someone decided not to put the hearts on? Or forgot?

I believe the thinking is that someone forgot, and around half of them had been minted before someone noticed the error ... so error or variety?

I suppose it would have to be an error then! A common-ish one, perhaps, but an error all the same. Imagine if half the 20ps in whatever year it was had been undated. Would it have then become a variety, or remained as an error?

Are the numbers involved important, or just the intention?

[TomGoodheart]

Interesting question! For myself, I've always followed the idea that first of all you have major changes in design such as swapping from bun head to Jubilee head on Viccy coins. Those are different types.

Then there are coins that differ in small aspects of design, such as a ribbon being placed differently or a different style of Irish harp. These are differences in variety.

Then there are the differing orientations when a trident or letter points to or between beads or teeth, those are micro-varieties.

Then the missing letter or stop due to a clogged die that is confined to a handful of coins .. errors.

However I believe those divisions need to be flexible, depending on the series we're talking about. With hammered coins, since each die is unique I personally don't consider one coin reading BRI;FR.ET.HIB to be a different variety from one that reads BR;FRA.ET.HI and wouldn't seek out a coin of differing legend if I already had a good example of the design.

Similarly different harp or Scottish lion design, I think are minor changes depending on the punches available rather than a deliberate change. Though I know some collectors, such as Brooker or Osborne do/did like such things and seek them out.

'Errors' however, such as where 'AVSPICE' is mis-punched as 'AVSSPCE' I do find interesting. Mules too, though often these must be assumed to be unique or nearly so. As others have said, the irony is that a unique error (unless that particular coin has been owned by a significant collector in the past and so has provenance) is less interesting to me than one for which a handful of examples are known! That said, the Briot coins are so commonly found with the CHISTO (for CHRISTO) error they don't generally excite collectors much.

And of course if those same differences were present on milled coins, which are made to much more specific specifications, they would be glaring errors worthy of note and probably very sought after!

[Peckris]

This is a point I've made time and time again. It's a fact that "a few" beats "one" whenever there's an error - we don't go huge on misstrikes in the UK but we do on varieties, and to find something which can be quantified in some way attracts completists who go all out to find another example. You can't do that with a 'mere' misstrike, for all its uniqueness, which is a bit of an irony.

I had an unknown 1887 wreath reverse sixpence but no-one had heard of it even though the characteristics were fairly evident (I put a thread about it in the Varieties subforum). Fortunately, this forum has a member who is expert on 1887JH coinage, and now has it 'in custody' for research and a place in a book, as a probable pattern (of which there are very many in 1887, apparently).

I would definitely try to find at least two examples,to class something as a variety,however as you mentioned you have now found what is a probable pattern,so were would you stop collecting that date?

I personally wouldn't - but our friend 1887Jubilee is something of an expert on that date, and it isn't at all surprising that there are so many 'patterns' as this was the first major change in the silver coinage (excluding florins) since the beginning of Victoria's reign. That's one hell of a long time, 50 years in fact.

I would say that a mule would be a variety as the reverse or obverse is completely different to the intended design.

Now if a serif gets blocked it turns a I into a 1,or the crossbar of an A gets blocked it will turn it into an inverted V,these aren't intended however are still listed as a variety.

I'd agree with this. A mule may not have been intended, but it's a result of human action (someone placed those two dies together) rather than a clogged, broken, or flawed die. Therefore it's a human error, several examples got minted, and it's of great interest to collectors. In fact, you could say that mules - e.g. beaded/toothed 1860 bronze, 1926ME pennies, etc - are among the most collectable varieties.

The 1787 sixpences and shillings without hearts??

Do you think someone decided not to put the hearts on? Or forgot?

I believe the thinking is that someone forgot, and around half of them had been minted before someone noticed the error ... so error or variety?

I suppose it would have to be an error then! A common-ish one, perhaps, but an error all the same. Imagine if half the 20ps in whatever year it was had been undated. Would it have then become a variety, or remained as an error?

Are the numbers involved important, or just the intention?

The respective values - i.e. identical whether 'with hearts' or 'without' - I think shows that numbers are indeed important. If one of the varieties was much scarcer it would command a premium.

.........................

Then the missing letter or stop due to a clogged die that is confined to a handful of coins .. errors.

.........................

'Errors' however, such as where 'AVSPICE' is mis-punched as 'AVSSPCE' I do find interesting. Mules too, though often these must be assumed to be unique or nearly so. As others have said, the irony is that a unique error (unless that particular coin has been owned by a significant collector in the past and so has provenance) is less interesting to me than one for which a handful of examples are known! That said, the Briot coins are so commonly found with the CHISTO (for CHRISTO) error they don't generally excite collectors much.

And of course if those same differences were present on milled coins, which are made to much more specific specifications, they would be glaring errors worthy of note and probably very sought after!

I think it depends on the error? I have a 1964 sixpence where the I of GRATIA is missing due to a clogged die. You'd think that would make it very collectable, but as the OP said, you need more than one to make it so!