2009 proof errors found

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Coinomologist on October 6, 2009 at 11:48am

You clearly do not have an interest in mint errors and that is great.I agree with the one statement that the mint still shows lack of quality control.But many people like myself enjoy collecting errors.You obviously are not one of those people.You can call it SH T if you want to.But I call it an error.Trying to get premiums is what error collectors do.Case and point the 2005 D buffalo nickel.It still gets a premium.I searched for many of them myself.I even found a different type in that same year and mint mark.I'll add a picture of it.The only difference in this error is the die gouge is in a different place.Unlike the famed die gouge.It did not have the backing and publicity and I never sent it in for attributing.Because it completely bombed when I tried to sell it.So it only goes to show.If someone famous says it is a good investment and the trends stay high because it has backing.Then it becomes a coin that should be in every registry.This is a proof variety and I think every bit if not more interesting the that 2005 D Buffalo.It isn't a 1922 missing D or a missing S penny.But look at the premiums on those coins.Lower populations play a large roll as well.So please don't call my coins Sh t.I take offense to that.There is already enough pessimism in this world without your crappy comments.

Lee Grant said:

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.

Attachments:

• DSC03480.JPG, 2.8 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Coinomologist on October 6, 2009 at 11:20pm

well my errors can be seen with the naked eye adding more question of how they could have left the mint.I think in that case there is enough weight there to make them significant.And also as I said before.I have a full run of ten of them.Yours on the other hand to me looks like it may have been caused during the planchet punchout process.Which would not have anything to do with the Die at all.Please keep me informed of what PCGS comes up with on yours.I'll be interested to know how your coin is attributed.Thanks again for you input.

Clair Alan Hardesty said:

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).

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page