2009 proof errors found
Has anyone looked through their 2009 S proof coins for errors? I found a few in the sets I bought.One is a Tyler struck through and frosted. Another is a Taylor Struck through wire or thread.The others are in all ten sets I bought.a Puerto Rico over polished die error.I'm wondering if anyone else has found any of these errors or am I the only one.I hardly believe I could be the only one who has found the Puerto Rico Proof errors because all ten sets were identical.You can check them out by keyword searching (proof errors) on ebay where I have them for sale with a best offer.I'm still trying to get a take on values.So any comments or best offers will help.I attached some pictures so you can see the errors I'm talking about.
Views: 4
- Attachments:
-
-
DSC03440.JPG, 3.1 MB -
DSC03442.JPG, 3 MB
-
DSC03449.JPG, 3 MB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clair Alan Hardesty on -
Are the Puerto Rico quarters clad or silver? It would be interesting if anyone out there knows the approximate lifetime of proof die pairs (in terms of coins struck). The die pairs for the UHR only last for about 500 coins each. Eventually proof die wear to the point where they no longer produce proper cameo coins (see image). One would also assume that a die pair would be retired early (and the coins it produced possibly purged) if a severe enough error was discovered (as in the case of my 2009 Northern Mariana Islands silver proof quarter). In the case of your quarter, the die may have been retired early but they might have let the coins already minted continue.
Clair - Attachments:
-
-
Proof Die States OBV.jpg, 496 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by Coinomologist on -
These particular coins are clads.I just found it rather odd that each coin from each set looked the same.And to see them get out of the mint is a little bit of a surprise because of the number I found.If I had only found one I might understand that the mint screwed up in that case.But to see ten in a row took me by surprise.I'm not sure other then to say that the silver eagles use as many as 6000 per die.So I'm assuming that about the same number maybe more might be the case in the proof quarters.The buffalo golds only used 1500 per die.But I'm not sure what the figures are on the quarter proofs.That's a great question.Maybe someone can answer that one.Thanks for your input.I'm still trying to figure out values on these.I'm thinking if no one else finds any.That's all the better for these.But I can't possibly be the only one who received these errors.That's one of the biggest reason I posted this here.hopefully some others will come forward to let me know I'm not that lucky LOL
Clair Alan Hardesty said:Are the Puerto Rico quarters clad or silver? It would be interesting if anyone out there knows the approximate lifetime of proof die pairs (in terms of coins struck). The die pairs for the UHR only last for about 500 coins each. Eventually proof die wear to the point where they no longer produce proper cameo coins (see image). One would also assume that a die pair would be retired early (and the coins it produced possibly purged) if a severe enough error was discovered (as in the case of my 2009 Northern Mariana Islands silver proof quarter). In the case of your quarter, the die may have been retired early but they might have let the coins already minted continue.
Clair
-
Permalink Reply by Clair Alan Hardesty on
-
The mint may have decided that the quarter error was not significant enough to purge the coins from production (even if they stopped using the die once discovered). I have five uncirculated (W-mint) 2008 silver Eagles that all have the same smooth spot on the obverse (obviously a die issue) that is just probably too small to fail quality controls, like your quarters might be. It is very difficult to place a value on modern error coins until they go to auction and even then it may depend a lot on who is bidding on that particular day. I am hoping that my 2009 Silver Quarter die error coin is at least valuable enough to pay the costs of authentication, grading and auctioning, with a little left over for my efforts. PCGS charges $20 to $36 extra for mint error designated coins ($14 for moderns, $30 for regular, and $50 for mint errors). Being an ANA member, I would normally go with NGC, but with the proof error, I feel that the added prestige of the PCGS holder will help it sell at auction.
Clair
-
Permalink Reply by Coinomologist on
-
I do wish you well on your auction of your proof error.I'm hoping since it was removed that PCGS won't question it's authenticity.I send in errors as well but have just grown tied of all the time and charges for them.That is why I opted to sell mine at auction and give people an opportunity to give me a best offer.every time I have found a proof error.I send in the whole lens.That way there is no question of authenticity.Seems that any more there are to many coins that come back as man made if you do it the way you did.I hope in your case the coin comes back a PR70 and you make a great premium.
Clair Alan Hardesty said:The mint may have decided that the quarter error was not significant enough to purge the coins from production (even if they stopped using the die once discovered). I have five uncirculated (W-mint) 2008 silver Eagles that all have the same smooth spot on the obverse (obviously a die issue) that is just probably too small to fail quality controls, like your quarters might be. It is very difficult to place a value on modern error coins until they go to auction and even then it may depend a lot on who is bidding on that particular day. I am hoping that my 2009 Silver Quarter die error coin is at least valuable enough to pay the costs of authentication, grading and auctioning, with a little left over for my efforts. PCGS charges $20 to $36 extra for mint error designated coins ($14 for moderns, $30 for regular, and $50 for mint errors). Being an ANA member, I would normally go with NGC, but with the proof error, I feel that the added prestige of the PCGS holder will help it sell at auction.
Clair
-
Permalink Reply by True Money on -
Actually Clair, I prefer the later die state variety. The contrast is obviously not as strong. This allows the details in the designs to be seen more clearly. The later die state coin is a much more attractive coin in my opinion!
-True Money!
Clair Alan Hardesty said:Are the Puerto Rico quarters clad or silver? It would be interesting if anyone out there knows the approximate lifetime of proof die pairs (in terms of coins struck). The die pairs for the UHR only last for about 500 coins each. Eventually proof die wear to the point where they no longer produce proper cameo coins (see image). One would also assume that a die pair would be retired early (and the coins it produced possibly purged) if a severe enough error was discovered (as in the case of my 2009 Northern Mariana Islands silver proof quarter). In the case of your quarter, the die may have been retired early but they might have let the coins already minted continue.
Clair
-
Permalink Reply by Coinomologist on
-
Significant or not to the mint is much different then significant to the error world.I think showing that I have a full run of ten of these coins still sealed in there lenses shows a significant screw up by the mint to let these out.But that is just my opinion.
Clair Alan Hardesty said:The mint may have decided that the quarter error was not significant enough to purge the coins from production (even if they stopped using the die once discovered). I have five uncirculated (W-mint) 2008 silver Eagles that all have the same smooth spot on the obverse (obviously a die issue) that is just probably too small to fail quality controls, like your quarters might be. It is very difficult to place a value on modern error coins until they go to auction and even then it may depend a lot on who is bidding on that particular day. I am hoping that my 2009 Silver Quarter die error coin is at least valuable enough to pay the costs of authentication, grading and auctioning, with a little left over for my efforts. PCGS charges $20 to $36 extra for mint error designated coins ($14 for moderns, $30 for regular, and $50 for mint errors). Being an ANA member, I would normally go with NGC, but with the proof error, I feel that the added prestige of the PCGS holder will help it sell at auction.
Clair
-
Permalink Reply by Clair Alan Hardesty on
-
I have to admit that I too prefer the late die state coin. I feel that the ultra cameo look of most modern silver coins it just too much contrast for my tastes. I also like the brilliant proofs of the 50s and early 60s as well as the cameo and deep cameo coins from those times.
Clearly what the mint considers an error and what the numismatic community considers an error have diverged somewhat over time. The mint seems to be letting a lot more coins of questionable quality out, expecially in its collectable offerings.
Clair
-
Permalink Reply by Lee Grant on -
How can we find value in proofs that are just crap that the Mint has the audacity to feed us?
To put a premium on junk (I really mean s--t) is just crazy. Instead we should be raising hell about the total lack of quality control at the Mint, which has become so greedy for profits from us that they no longer have any integrity at all.
-
Permalink Reply by Clair Alan Hardesty on
-
I, for one, do not believe that the quality of production has fallen much at the mint, except for a small amount caused by management's refusal to update and upgrade the aging equipment being used to produce numismatic products. I do believe that the quality of products being allowed to reach consumers has fallen significantly. I believe that the people designing our coins are doing the best they can under the constraints placed on them and that the people sitting at the proof presses care as much about the coins they produce as they ever did. I totally blame mint management for what I see as a massive decline in the quality of delivered product. What used to be a reject is now passed and sent to fulfillment. Mint management also seems to have an absolute aversion for telling the truth. When repeatedly asked why the mint was having problems delivering product at the start of the year, the mint stalled and stalled and then began answering the queation "why?" with the non-answer "that problem has been solved" (see MINT FAQ #218). The mint ought to use the profit provided by numismatic sales to keep equipment up to date and to hire and keep the skilled craftspeople that we all know are capable of giving us the kind of coins we desire. The top quality coins are still there, they are just a smaller percentage of the whole because the mint has lowered its standards.
Clair
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Ecker on
-
It looks like just bad quality control.Errors like these probably won't generate much interest, and probably few bids. I would think that they just decrease the value of the set. Is is too late to return them for exchange for less-impaired sets?
Claire's proof seems to be the type to get more interest- especially if someone comes up with a reason why that problem occured during production.
Please keep us informed as to what happens in the future with these varieties!
-
Permalink Reply by Coinomologist on
-
I guess time will tell.I can't say I have ever seen anything like these.I'll be interested to find out how Clair's coin attributes.Ten in a row like this shows more then one which clearly shows a pattern.I'm wondering if someone else finds one like clairs which would also disprove any notion of a coin that was altered.The Tyler is the stranger one of all I think because it has frosting in center of the circle that was clearly struck through with a thin outer ring on the circle.And the taylor is also a clear strike through wire or thread.Either way.I'm going to keep them because I love errors and if they don't sell I will just put them away in my error collection.I think if they were properly attributed they would get more interest.But right now they have created a lot of watchers.So that in it self tells me the interest is there.Maybe I'll send a set to potter to see what he says about them.Surely they should be worth more then the 2009 formative DDRs LOL
Tom Ecker said:It looks like just bad quality control.Errors like these probably won't generate much interest, and probably few bids. I would think that they just decrease the value of the set. Is is too late to return them for exchange for less-impaired sets?
Claire's proof seems to be the type to get more interest- especially if someone comes up with a reason why that problem occured during production.
Please keep us informed as to what happens in the future with these varieties!
-
Permalink Reply by Clair Alan Hardesty on
-
Your run of quarters prove that the die is to blame for the anomally, but small issues like this don't carry the weight of ones like mine (if it is ultimately judged to be a die error as I believe) in the marketplace. There are definitely people out there that are interested in the various kinds of struck through errors, but again, values are unknown until they go to auction and even then can vary significantly over time, sometimes gaining value and sometimes losing it. Prices in the error market are far more volatile than those in the "standard" marketplace.
As to the cause of my silver proof quarter error, I am convinced that the hammer die (the obverse) struck the reeding collar a glancing blow at some point, then went on to produce some number of coins before the damage was discovered. I would expect coins with an error of this magnitude to be purged from production (but maybe not his year) and that only a few were missed in that process. The error is not easy to see with the naked eye so non-magnified visual inspections could easily miss it once such a coin was in the packaging flow. It is virtually unnoticable in the lens since this hides the minor reeding damage that also exists (the reeding was "squished" along the same arc as the one on the obverse field).
© 2012 Created by coinnetwork.
