Review: Cherrypickers Guide to Rare Die Varieties of United States Coins (Digital Editions)

If you want this, you need Volumes 1 and 2 to cover all denominations. Unfortunately, there is a somewhat limited market, so these are pricey: even the digital editions will cost you $40 for both.  I do not NOT recommend these - if you are going to buy them, buy the physical books unless you want these so that you can conveniently carry them to shows or wherever.  Those are the only circumstances where I would recommend the digital version.

I'm a fan of digital and try to buy all my books that way now, but when a digital book is done this badly, I just can't recommend it. It's a shame that such expensive titles are so poorly done!

By the way, these are Kindle format. You do not need to own a Kindle; Amazon has free Kindle Reader software for almost anything.

Problems:

First, it's obvious that they didn't make any effort to reformat the text for digital.

That 1855 heading should have started on the next screen. Leaving hangers like this is not just ugly, it can also be confusing and there's no reason for it. Kindle books have been around long enough that there are now people who specialize in offering reformatting services to get it right. Turning out junk like this is inexcusable for a major publishing company - especially at these prices.


Second, one of the obvious advantages of digital is that good photos can be included. These are not good photos - they are all black and white and when you zoom into them, the poor resolution is quite evident.

The books are also poorly indexed. It's difficult to find things (that fault also exists in the print edition). Digital search could overcome that, but the problem is inconsistency in text descriptions, making some searches fail when they should not. Authors need to be consistent for digital search to work well!


The next fault is that "low interest" varieties have been removed. That's fine, but look at this:

Only one of the 11-D Repunched Mint Marks is still listed in the book itself. They are shown only in these tables. Suppose you found one that wasn't the one described? Is it one of the low interest varieties (502 and 503)? Or maybe it's something yet unknown, but this won't help you, will it? An accompanying website listing all varieties could fix that and the content is obviously available from the older editions - do they expect us to buy all those also?  There is really no excuse for this with digital - you don't have weight or size constraints, so data like that should be included.

Finally, listings stop at different dates in different series. Are there no dime die varieties after 2004? You can't be sure if this is all you have to go by: dimes stop in 2004, but other series go on later. These issues would be true for the print editions also, of course.

All in all, an expensive and very poorly executed book. There are online resources that are much easier to use.

However, at least it is digital - most numismatic authors are  afraid of theft and won't consider it.

I've sold ebooks and made good money from it. Yes, I assume there was some theft, but as there were no production costs other than my typing, I'm also sure that I made out far, far better than I would have otherwise. With a very esoteric subject (Unix Troubleshooting, anyone?) and being an unknown author completely dependent on my own website, I cleared around $5,000 with zero outlay.

Then I discovered Amazon and put it up there.  I picked up a few hundred dollars more at $19.95 and then as sales dwindled off, reduced it to $2.99.  I STILL get sales years later even though the book is totally out of date and I am still an unknown name.  It's not much - $10 or so dribbling in now and then, but it adds up.

There are so many advantages: easy revisions, good pictures, high profit - I think numismatic authors who won't do this are really being short sighted.   You can serialize ebooks so that if there is theft you can find the source but in my experience, it's too little to fret over.

For existing books, you do have to consider reformatting for ebooks. If you just leave the same pagination, it can come out ugly - these e-versions of thee Cherry Pickers Guides are a good example of laziness producing a crappy result.  Done right, however, you get something far better than a print book and as mentioned earlier there are now people who specialize in that kind of reformatting for fairly short money.

I won't buy a print book now unless I HAVE to have it.  For many numismatic books, I'd buy an ebook version, but I don't need it enough to buy the print. It's not a matter of price; it's the convenience of having it on my iPad or phone wherever I am.

But most numismatic authors are opposed and it will probably stay like that until the next generation.

Buy this book at Amazon and help me support this site!

Note: All my coins are in a safe deposit box. I keep nothing in my home.

Contests and giveaways: http://coins.aplawrence.com/2014/05/contests-and-giveaways.html

Why is MD (Machine doubling) worthless?

A recent thread at Collectors Universe asked "Is Machine Doubling ever worth a premium?"

Most of the answers were a resounding "No!" but there was at least one person who asked 

whatever happened to "buy what you like"?

That's a fair question, I think, but let's look at why variety and error collectors are so disdainful of machine doubling.   One response was

No premium applies to this type of error as it is strictly caused by the machine itself and not through true human error as it were. 

But that's not entirely true.  As explained at the "Mechanical Doubling" article at the Wexler Double Die site:

The loose coining press parts result from the continuous pounding of the presses as they strike coin after coin, and from wear on the coining press parts. The coining press operators have reported that when they see this doubling on the coins, all they have to do is grab their tools and tighten up all of the loose parts in the coining press. As soon as those loose parts are tightened, the doubling no longer occurs.

I'd say loose parts are human error - or neglect, perhaps, but that's close enough for me.

More likely the disrespect comes from how common this type of error is. Modern presses are very fast and strike very hard: keeping things tight is probably very difficult.  That thought raised another question in my mind, though: is MD more common in modern coins than in older?

I did not get a good answer from the experts, but I would guess that it is.  More speed and force would seem to be a good reason for parts to shake lose more often.  Not that it never happens on older coins: this picture of an 1873 MD nickel is rather dramatic:

But that picture reminded me of a Two Cent piece that is in my collection. It too has a doubled date:

Doesn't that look like Machine Doubling to you?  It certainly does to me, but apparently it's a repunched date (see the "1871/1871 2C VP-002" link under References).  I asked how I could tell the difference if I were not aware of the VP-002 and was told

If you go look at the photo of the 1871 2 center at the [VP-002] link posted above, the notch at the lower right of the second 1 is very evident. If this coin were machine doubled, that notch would be filled in.

I don't see the "notch".  I know what he's talking about because Wexler says the same thing at the link I already mentioned.

genuine doubled dies are characterized by a splitting of the serifs on letters with serifs, or a “notching” of the corners of the letters which are doubled.  This splitting of the serifs or notching of the letter corners will not be found on coins with mechanical doubling.

I did some Googling on split serifs and found "Determining Die Doubling from Other Forms of Doubling" by J.T. Stanton, but that also failed to clear my confusion.

However, the the person who posted the picture of the 1873 nickel explained:

Think of machine doubling as a drawer sliding out from the device of the coin. The drawer must be full-width, because the slide is the same along the entire edge of the device. The notch shows us that this is not machine doubling, but (in the case of a 2-center) an RPD. 

THAT helps a lot!

I also found "Collecting my Thoughts: Understanding Machine Doubling Damage" by Alan Herbert, which mentioned something that had bothered me about the "twisting" die theory:

From the very first, attempts were made to claim that doubling was caused by the die twisting at the moment of impact. A little thought will discount that theory, because you are dealing with a die which is meshing with the forming design on the coin under 25 or more tons per square inch of pressure. The amount of force needed to rotate the die under those conditions would run into the thousands of tons. If such a force were available, it would shove the entire design out of position. MDD always affects only part of the design, so this cannot be the cause. To prove my point, hold your hands together, with your fingers interlaced. Now, try and move one hand sideways without moving the other.

But wouldn't the same argument apply to "bouncing dies"? Well, it would unless the die had tipped slightly so that only one part hit the coin again. But Alan Herbert confused me more:

The strike ends with the "final impact of the die pair." Die bounce or chatter involves only one die. While you can find MDD on both sides of a coin, the cause is different on each side as there are at least three forms of MDD, each with a different cause. 

He unfortunately neglected to explain the three causes.   Fortunately I was able to find a page that does describe them - it's in the references. However, the "slide doubling" described there seems just as unlikely as "twist doubling", for the same reasons.

I remain somewhat confused by this whole subject.

References:

Is Machine Doubling ever worth a premium? It sure does look really cool!!!

Wexler's Double Die Site "Mechanical Doubling"

1871/1871 2C VP-002

Determining Die Doubling from Other Forms of Doubling

Collecting my Thoughts: Understanding Machine Doubling Damage

Three basic forms of machine doubling

Clue for the second 2014 Silver Eagle Giveaway:  A joker and a numismatist
LAST CHANCE TO ENTER IS TODAY!

Note: All my coins are in a safe deposit box. I keep nothing in my home.

Contests and giveaways: http://coins.aplawrence.com/2014/05/contests-and-giveaways.html

Coin mules are very rare - could you find one in change?

A mule is a coin produced from two dies that do not belong together.  A famous example is a 1959 Lincoln cent with a wheat ear reverse. The reverse design was changed to the Lincoln Memorial in 1959, and no 1959 wheat ears were produced. Yet one may exist - or it may not.

The problem with many of the known mules is that there may be only one in existence, like that 1959-D wheat reverse.  That smells like fraud, either from outside the Mint or from within. The shadow of suspicion over that particular coin hasn't stopped it from selling for tens of thousands of dollars, though.

A more populous example is the Sacagawea/Quarter Dollar Mule.

Photo courtesy Heritage Auctions, used by permission

There are 11 of these known and the U.S. Mint apparently knew that it accidentally created several thousand, but thought that it had recovered and destroyed all of them. Yet, in 2000, one turned up in a 25-coin roll  wrapped in a U.S. Mint  paper wrapper.

There could be more. Sacagawea's don't circulate much. Most are still sitting in rolls and may never have been touched by human hands. If you were able to find one, it might sell for a lot of money: one sold for $155,250.00 in 2012!

More about the Sacagawea/Quarter Dollar Mule.

Some unique (and possibly fraudulent) mules:

1859 Two Headed Indian Cent
1995 Cent on dime planchet with dime reverse
1999 cent on cent planchet with dime reverse
Two tailed Washington Quarter


Clue for the second 2014 Silver Eagle Giveaway: He was a musical prodigy also!

Note:  All my coins are in a safe deposit box.  I keep nothing in my home. 

Contests and giveaways: http://coins.aplawrence.com/2014/05/contests-and-giveaways.html

Errors and die varieties - new 2014 DDO in your change?

Collecting die varieties and errors is a wide ranging field. Although it includes spectacular coins like the 1955/55 DDO Lincoln Cent, it also encompasses small distinctions like the size of berries on the reverse of a half cent, die clashes and more.

Image Copyright Heritage Auctions, used by permission

Some varieties are so minor that only the most dedicated collectors are interested. You might need a microscope and a lot of experience to even realize that a particular coin was a variety like that. It's also easy for inexperienced collectors to be fooled by PMD (post mint damage) and worthless MD (machine doubling).

There's a fairly easy to spot variety of 2014 cents that you might very well find in your change today. It's not as spectacular as the famous 1955 double die, but it is recognizable. The date and some other lettering are "fat".  You probably could see it with your naked eye at least well enough to sense that something is wrong, but a low powered magnifier would help.

An example of that recently sold on eBay for $60. but as it's too early to say how many of these exist or what the market will ultimately bear, we don't know if that's a high price or a low price.

Resources and Books:

The Combined Organizations of Numismatic Error Collectors of America
Variety Vista

Wexfer's Die Varieties

CopperCoins.com
Wexler's Die Varieties
Mad Die Clashes
The F.ind.ers report: A comprehensive guide to selected rare Flying Eagle and Indian cent die varieties
Cherrypickers' Guide to Rare Die Varieties of United States Coins, Volume I
Cherrypickers' Guide to Rare die Varieties of United States Coins, Volume II
The Authoritative Reference On Lincoln Cents
The Authoritative Reference on Lincoln Cents, Second Edition
The Lincoln Cent Resource

Note:  All my coins are in a safe deposit box.  I keep nothing in my home. 

Contests and giveaways: http://coins.aplawrence.com/2014/05/contests-and-giveaways.html

Roll Searchers - what to do with the leftovers?

If you search coin rolls, you will obviously have the problem of returning your left over, unwanted coins.  It's possible that you may have a good relationship with your bank and that they don't mind your trading your searched rolls for unsearched, but many people don't have that as an option.  Your bank may not appreciate your coin dumps and if they do allow it, you may find yourself getting the same coins back a week from now.

My bank has a coin counting machine at a branch we are near when food shopping.  There's no fee for customers and I obtain new rolls at my regular branch.  However, I don't do large volumes of rolls and I did notice that the manager seemed a bit put off when I dumped a measly $60.00 worth last week.

Building the next dump

It's problems like this that cause people to go to kiosks like CoinStar.  CoinStar kiosks are easy to find - many supermarkets have them and they certainly are easier to use. However, they charge a hefty 10.8% fee and it can be more at some locations.

Truly, that's not such a terrible price to pay for the convenience. You could also look at it as your acquisition cost over and above face for whatever you pulled from the rolls. If you found anything of value at all, that fee might look fairly insignificant.

You can exchange your coins for giftcards with no fee.  If you were planning to buy something at Amazon or at one of the other stores offering cards through CoinStar, that's great, but you may have other plans for the money. If my bank starts giving me grief, I will go the gift card route because we do buy enough at Amazon to consume my small dumps.

Some CoinStar machines now offer a PayPal option - you dump the coins and the money goes to your PayPal account. I expected that to be free, but it isn't: you get nicked 9.8%.  That's better than the cash option, though.

To use the PayPal option (assuming there's a CoinStar nearby that can do that) you have to enroll first  and PayPal will request more positive identification like a driver's license and a utility bill before they will sign you up.

When they first started this, you could withdraw cash from your PayPal account at equipped CoinStar. That's no longer possible as I write this (May 2014). PayPal says it is "suspended", probably because they got ripped off a few times and are trying to figure out how to increase security.

After I dumped that last $60, I picked up a few penny rolls the next day. As I said, I don't search much, but I do enjoy it even though I have found nothing of value so far.

Note:  All my coins are in a safe deposit box.  I keep nothing in my home. 

Contests and giveaways: http://coins.aplawrence.com/2014/05/contests-and-giveaways.html

2009 Lincoln cents

2009 marked the 100th anniversary of the Lincoln cent and was marked by one year reverse die change encompassing several different varieties.   This is the special Lincoln Proof set of 2009.

PCGS has a special "Legacy Set" holder for those proofs that shows off all of the designs:

In addition to showcasing all four proofs, there's something else special: the coins in those sets have the same metallic content as contained in the 1909 one-cent coin - that is, they are 95% copper, 5% tin and zinc as opposed to the current composition of .975 zinc, .025 copper  (a core of .992 zinc, .008 copper, with a plating of pure copper).

A Mint Set was also issued with the same composition as well as a "Lincoln Coin and Chronicles Set"that also contained a 2009 Abraham Lincoln Commemorative Proof Silver Dollar.

http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=15003&langId=-1

http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=15955&langId=-1

Note that 2009 cents struck for circulation have the normal composition of a zinc core coated with copper.

Errors

The complexity of the reverse design caused die breaks that resulted in a number of interesting errors such as the "Skeleton finger" varieties:

Note:  All my coins are in a safe deposit box.  I keep nothing in my home. 

Contests and giveaways: http://coins.aplawrence.com/2014/05/contests-and-giveaways.html

1995 Double Die Lincoln Cent

Although not as spectacular as the famous 1955 Double Die Lincoln, the 1995 DDO can be seen with the naked eye by most people and a small amount of magnification will make it extremely obvious to anyone.

Very obvious doubling like this was caused during die production - the die hubs had to be impressed at least twice to bring up the necessary detail and heated between pressing.  Sometimes the operators wouldn't get things perfectly lined up on the second (or third) pass and doubling like this results. As the operators are usually quite accurate, most such doubling is quite small and difficult to discern without magnification, but now and then something like this slipped by.

I said "slipped" rather than "slips" because shortly after this the Mint went to "single squeeze" hubbing and this particular type of doubling is now not possible.  With single squeeze, it's still possible to get doubling, but it will be minor and confined to the center of the coin.  See "Doubled Dies" for an explanation of what happens.

Note:  All my coins are in a safe deposit box.  I keep nothing in my home. 

Contests and giveaways: http://coins.aplawrence.com/2014/05/contests-and-giveaways.html

1982 No Mint Mark Dime

While it is certainly possible that you might find one of these in your pocket change, I suspect the chances are slim.  The estimated mintage was less than 150,000 and they were discovered early, so many rolls were snatched up from banks immediately.

Still, only a few thousand have been submitted to PCGS and only a few hundred to NGC, so there are many more of these somewhere.  That's probably why prices have stayed relatively low (under $200 for MS64's like this).

Note the "Strong" designation.  There are examples with less sharp dates and rims; these sell for a little less (though they may be more rare - it's impossible to know right now).

Although the chances of finding one now would be slim, it can't hurt to take a peek at your change, right?  Note that no dimes prior to 1980 will have the P mintmark even though they were minted in Philadelphia.

Note:  All my coins are in a safe deposit box.  I keep nothing in my home. 

This week's Coinweek Giveaway: http://www.coinweek.com/~cd53675ce0bee42

Also multiple contests going on at http://www.moderncoinmart.com/forum/forums/contests/

Lamination Errors

Sigh.

When I was a young boy, "war time" nickels were still in circulation.  I don't mean you'd find one once in a while, I mean that you could find as many as you wanted.  At one time I had rolls and rolls of them, and "errors" like the one shown below were very common.

I put "errors" in quotes because I never thought of them as errors - I thought of them as defects, and wouldn't even think of putting those in a holder to be kept.  I'm sure there were plenty of these in the rolls I saved, but I sold all those for their silver content somewhere along the line.

I'm surprised to see that ANACS and NGC certify lamination errors and even more surprised by the prices!  Eighty nine dollars?  Are you kidding me?

Oh, well.  I missed the boat on those, for sure!

Note:  All my coins are in a safe deposit box.  I keep nothing in my home. 

This week's Coinweek Giveaway: http://www.coinweek.com/~cd53675ce0bee42

Also multiple contests going on at http://www.moderncoinmart.com/forum/forums/contests/