Results of Wisconson Quarter Examinations = Die Damage

Hello All,
I've been following the posts on the new 2004-D Wisconsin die damage
error or variety quarters (call them what you want) and agree with Tom
DeLorey's earlier comments 100% (his comments are copied at the end of
this post). I received a set a couple of days ago from Bill Fivaz for
examination and they confirmed my worst fears. The coins represent
nothing but trivial die gouges. They are prominent -- more so than
average -- but they are NOT "extra leaves" by any stretch of the
imagination. They are die gouges (or possibly die dents) with an
estimated value of no more than $10 each by standards usually attached
to such items.
With all due respect to the opinions of those who are convinced these
are intentional die varieties, as far as I'm concerned, the images
provided by both Coin World and later by J.T. Stanton, (to several
specialists), and a look at the actual coins, proves beyond any
reasonable doubt in my mind that these are not intentional die
varieties but are instead some sort of die damage such as die dents or
gouges. I did not need to see the coins to know this as the images
referenced above were excellent but I decided to wait until I saw the
actual coins before commenting publicly.
First, it is my opinion that the States quarters program is one that
must move quickly and without much revision after a design is approved
and a sculpt made so that they can begin work on the next quarter.
These designs are in use today and gone (from the Mint's agenda)
tomorrow.
There is little reason to tinker with designs to constantly improve
their character as might be the case on long-lived designs such as the
Lincoln cent obverse where improved designs can effect die life,
aesthetic appeal, etc, for decades. Once a sculp is approved and an
epoxy made from which a master is created, there is very little
likelihood for the Mint to tinker with the designs. If you break a
master you simply make another from the same epoxy as the first.
Breaking a master has to be fairly rare and breaking two in a row has
to be about as rare as hen's teeth. Still, a second or third master
from an epoxy should be the same as the first.
Further, a look at the so-called extra leaves shows that they fall
short of exhibiting characteristics of an intended design.
On the so-called "high leaf" we see that it's base starts "sprouting"
from a chunk of cheese! It is not connected to the ear of corn at all
until its apex ends abruptly at a leaf from the corn stalk (stalk
unseen below and behind the cheese). Folks, mold grows on cheese but
not corn leaves! Additionally good sculpters (or engravers) do no
cause designs to end abruptly like this. They encourage overlapping of
designs to create depth -- it is one the basics a good
sculpter/engraver works into his/her designs instinctively (or so I am
told by those who have cut dies for me). In this case if that so-called
leaf was intended, it would have had its base start within the corn
(not from a chunk of cheese) and it would have tapered to a point that
overlapped slightly over the larger leaf above or ended earlier. It
would not end abruptly and awkwardly at the leaf unless its tip was
bent over to the side (which would have also been an option available
to the engraver to give it a natural feel -- but we do not see here
either).
On the so-called low leaf what we see is a crescent shaped doubled
curve with its base starting within the central area of the lower corn
which then skips the high points of the larger leaf and reappears
outside to continue its curve until it ends at the cheese. Corn leaves
do not grow right through the center of other leaves (like an arrow
shot through the leaf). If this was a deliberate design the so-called
extra leaf would have been coming out from under that main leaf or
would have been overlapping -- not created as a composite that shows it
piercing through in such an unnatural fashion. Additionally, neither
of the so-called extra leaves has any contoured flatness or texture.
The high variety is simply a tall narrow gouge while the high variety
is two narrow gouges (as if from a piece of jagged tooling)with too
quick of a taper. This one also shows an area of incuse field running
directly below the majority of the "doubled" area of the alleged
doubled leaf suggesting metal displacement due to damage to the die
from impact after the die was made. We often see these types of
depressions in the field around Mint marks from the era of when they
were punched into the individual dies prior to the 1990s (metal
displacement from impact). The fact is, the positions of these
so-called leaves are just too random and awkward to be deliberate
design modifications. They lack the contoured flatness and leafy
texturing of the "ligitimate" leaves. Simply put, they don't look like
they fit into the design because they don't.
They are certainly not the way a U.S. Mint engraver would design a coin
much less even a second-rate engraver of silver rounds just start
starting out.
The reason the low leaf appears to be skipping the high points is
because it is a gouge or dent that did not sink far enough to
obliterate the original design. This is most damaging to the
"deliberate design" theory since we know how these effects occur and we
know that designers do not design coins that way. The effect tells us
all we need to know. Die gouges, scratches, etc., skipping over lower
areas of the die (relief areas of design on the coin) are a well-known
diagnostic associated with die gouges, etc. To illustrate: I pulled a
silver round I had struck from a damaged die a few weeks ago with a
large die gouge running through the field and over some letters. The
die was damaged extensively with many scratches and a scattering of
gouges from being mishandled but I sent it in anyway to be polished in
an attempt to refresh it. On the 25 sample rounds I had struck from
this die it could be seen that most of the scratches and smaller gouges
were removed but the largest gouge remained. It can be seen he
http://koinpro.tripod.com/Error_Coins/DieGouge.jpg. As you can see,
the gouge is large -- as large as those on the Wisconsin quarters --
and it skips over the letters. As gouges often go, it also has a sort
of leafy shape to it too!
As to these (Wisconsin quarters) showing deliberately placed gouges,
(another suggestion that has been advanced), it is my opinion that a
gouge is a gouge is a gouge (or a dent is a dent ...). How it got
there matters little. Minor is minor no matter how it is presented.
Second, there is not a shred of evidence that suggests they got there
through some deliberate action. Die gouges (or dents) are common on
coins and like finding angels in the clouds, you will find them where
you want if you look long enough. Coincidental? Perhaps. But, so
what?
I wonder? Are we now going to catalog every "conveniently" placed
gouge, die break or dent that comes along? If so, it is retroactive?
At what point (and who decides) which dents or gouges are major and
which are minor? If this is where we are heading, the Spadone book
should become a best seller overnight! Or will we segregate the
importance of gouges, dents and breaks by the era in which a coin was
made? I for one do not welcome a return to the days of marketing minor
flaws under fancy names that have nothing to do with what they actually
are -- especially when the fancy names mask a minor flaw and make it
sound far more important than it really is. These are minor flaws with
catchy nicknames -- and nothing more.
We have plenty of RPM, doubled dies, cuds, legitimate design
modifications, etc., still being discovered in quantities large enough
to keep all the attributers and collectors busy without bringing in the
minor flaws don't we?
I'd suggest we do not open the floodgates to the abuses of the past but
it now looks like it is too late!
Ken Potter
www.koinpro.com

wrote:
You forgot the 1944-D half, where somebody accidentally polished the
designer's monogram off of the reverse die and then hand cut it back
into the die. THAT is a cool variety.
These Wisconsin quarters are just, in my opinion, random die damage
that occurred near the corn by coincidence. Remember the 1890-CC
Morgan
with the die gouge at the tailfeathers? Somebody heavily promoted it
back in the late '60s and early '70s as the "TAILBAR VARIETY! EXTRA
TAIL FEATHER!" at big premiums. The last one I had in stock, I priced
$10 over a regular coin of the same grade, and it took about a month
to
sell.
Tom DeLorey

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello All,
I've been following the posts on the new 2004-D Wisconsin die damage
error or variety quarters (call them what you want) and agree with Tom
DeLorey's earlier comments 100% (his comments are copied at the end of
this post). I received a set a couple of days ago from Bill Fivaz for
examination and they confirmed my worst fears. The coins represent
nothing but trivial die gouges. They are prominent -- more so than
average -- but they are NOT "extra leaves" by any stretch of the
imagination. They are die gouges (or possibly die dents) with an
estimated value of no more than $10 each by standards usually attached
to such items.

Snipps

I wasn't aware that there has been a serious claim that these "gouges" were
intentional creations. They seem to have picked up the "extra leaves" nickname
simply because of where the anomolies happened to appear among the design
elements on the coins. Regardless of what caused them, the two "extra leaves"
varieties appear to be accepted as collectable errors by the people who matter
most, and your estimated value of no more than $10 each doesn't appear to be in
line with the prices those people are willing to pay for them. I would think it
difficult to place a single blanket value limit on any and all errors of this
type. If a similar "gouge" was discovered on several walking liberty halves, I
doubt we would see the frenzied interest that the Wisconsin quarter varieties
have created. Why, this may even put Wisconsin on the map! :)

Bruce

Certainly an excellent argument has been made that the designer did not
intentionally create either of these varieties or errors. But when you
consider that so far both have shown up in tandem and that they both
closely resemble an actual design feature it becomes extremely
difficult to attribute to mere chance. It seems most likely that it
was a mint employee engaging in play either alone or with others. It
would seem that when gouges are deliberate and appear to be part of the
design to the naked eye that they cross the gulf between error and
variety. In any case they are more interesting than many very popular
"varieties" such as the three legged buffalo or the 22-Plain cent.

cladk (Cladking?) writes:


Certainly an excellent argument has been made that the designer did not
intentionally create either of these varieties or errors. But when you
consider that so far both have shown up in tandem and that they both
closely resemble an actual design feature it becomes extremely
difficult to attribute to mere chance. It seems most likely that it
was a mint employee engaging in play either alone or with others. It
would seem that when gouges are deliberate and appear to be part of the
design to the naked eye that they cross the gulf between error and
variety. In any case they are more interesting than many very popular
"varieties" such as the three legged buffalo or the 22-Plain cent.



Interesting, I too don't buy that these are random die gouges. In fact,
the outline of the more prominent example shows the outlining of the
"leaf" extending into the original design on the die.

This would indicate a rather hurried engraving on the softened die.
That then points to a little tomfoolery by a mint employee who then
hardened the die and struck off a few thousand.Then he did it again
with a leaf added in the upper position. I've sen die gouges on
countless coins in my long career, but nothing like this.

Learned numismatists often disagree on issues in their field, but call
in what you will, this appears to be a significant variety, regardless
of the value. $10...??

Whatsa' matter, miss out on this one, Ken?

Ira

I certainly must agree with Ken, since he agrees with me that these are
random die gouges.

May I point out, again, that the 2004-D dime that made such a splash
last spring had a short, curved die gouge near a design element, in
that case Roosevelt's ear, that fooled many error and variety experts,
myself included, into thinking it was a doubled die error. Eventually I
was convinced that it was just die damage. It's proximity to a
similar-shaped part of the design fooled me into thinking it was
related to that design. It was not, and these lines on the Wisconsin
quarters are not related to the adjacent design. They are a
coincidence. The simplese answer is usually the correct one.

Obviously some technician at the Denver Mint is doing something wrong
that is leaving short, curved die gouges in dies. He is not making
design changes.

Tom DeLorey

"Ira Stein" wrote in message
ups.com...

Interesting, I too don't buy that these are random die gouges. In fact,
the outline of the more prominent example shows the outlining of the
"leaf" extending into the original design on the die.

This would indicate a rather hurried engraving on the softened die.
That then points to a little tomfoolery by a mint employee who then
hardened the die and struck off a few thousand.Then he did it again
with a leaf added in the upper position. I've sen die gouges on
countless coins in my long career, but nothing like this.

Learned numismatists often disagree on issues in their field, but call
in what you will, this appears to be a significant variety, regardless
of the value. $10...??

Whatsa' matter, miss out on this one, Ken?

Ira

This reminds me of that delightful explanation of the 1794 Starred Reverse
large cent: the result of "an idle hour at the mint."

James

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello All,
I've been following the posts on the new 2004-D Wisconsin die damage
error or variety quarters (call them what you want) and agree with Tom
DeLorey's earlier comments 100% (his comments are copied at the end of
this post). I received a set a couple of days ago from Bill Fivaz for
examination and they confirmed my worst fears. The coins represent
nothing but trivial die gouges. They are prominent -- more so than
average -- but they are NOT "extra leaves" by any stretch of the
imagination. They are die gouges (or possibly die dents) with an
estimated value of no more than $10 each by standards usually attached
to such items.
With all due respect to the opinions of those who are convinced these
are intentional die varieties, as far as I'm concerned, the images
provided by both Coin World and later by J.T. Stanton, (to several
specialists), and a look at the actual coins, proves beyond any
reasonable doubt in my mind that these are not intentional die
varieties but are instead some sort of die damage such as die dents or
gouges. I did not need to see the coins to know this as the images
referenced above were excellent but I decided to wait until I saw the
actual coins before commenting publicly.
First, it is my opinion that the States quarters program is one that
must move quickly and without much revision after a design is approved
and a sculpt made so that they can begin work on the next quarter.
These designs are in use today and gone (from the Mint's agenda)
tomorrow.
There is little reason to tinker with designs to constantly improve
their character as might be the case on long-lived designs such as the
Lincoln cent obverse where improved designs can effect die life,
aesthetic appeal, etc, for decades. Once a sculp is approved and an
epoxy made from which a master is created, there is very little
likelihood for the Mint to tinker with the designs. If you break a
master you simply make another from the same epoxy as the first.
Breaking a master has to be fairly rare and breaking two in a row has
to be about as rare as hen's teeth. Still, a second or third master
from an epoxy should be the same as the first.
Further, a look at the so-called extra leaves shows that they fall
short of exhibiting characteristics of an intended design.
On the so-called "high leaf" we see that it's base starts "sprouting"
from a chunk of cheese! It is not connected to the ear of corn at all
until its apex ends abruptly at a leaf from the corn stalk (stalk
unseen below and behind the cheese). Folks, mold grows on cheese but
not corn leaves! Additionally good sculpters (or engravers) do no
cause designs to end abruptly like this. They encourage overlapping of
designs to create depth -- it is one the basics a good
sculpter/engraver works into his/her designs instinctively (or so I am
told by those who have cut dies for me). In this case if that so-called
leaf was intended, it would have had its base start within the corn
(not from a chunk of cheese) and it would have tapered to a point that
overlapped slightly over the larger leaf above or ended earlier. It
would not end abruptly and awkwardly at the leaf unless its tip was
bent over to the side (which would have also been an option available
to the engraver to give it a natural feel -- but we do not see here
either).
On the so-called low leaf what we see is a crescent shaped doubled
curve with its base starting within the central area of the lower corn
which then skips the high points of the larger leaf and reappears
outside to continue its curve until it ends at the cheese. Corn leaves
do not grow right through the center of other leaves (like an arrow
shot through the leaf). If this was a deliberate design the so-called
extra leaf would have been coming out from under that main leaf or
would have been overlapping -- not created as a composite that shows it
piercing through in such an unnatural fashion. Additionally, neither
of the so-called extra leaves has any contoured flatness or texture.
The high variety is simply a tall narrow gouge while the high variety
is two narrow gouges (as if from a piece of jagged tooling)with too
quick of a taper. This one also shows an area of incuse field running
directly below the majority of the "doubled" area of the alleged
doubled leaf suggesting metal displacement due to damage to the die
from impact after the die was made. We often see these types of
depressions in the field around Mint marks from the era of when they
were punched into the individual dies prior to the 1990s (metal
displacement from impact). The fact is, the positions of these
so-called leaves are just too random and awkward to be deliberate
design modifications. They lack the contoured flatness and leafy
texturing of the "ligitimate" leaves. Simply put, they don't look like
they fit into the design because they don't.
They are certainly not the way a U.S. Mint engraver would design a coin
much less even a second-rate engraver of silver rounds just start
starting out.
The reason the low leaf appears to be skipping the high points is
because it is a gouge or dent that did not sink far enough to
obliterate the original design. This is most damaging to the
"deliberate design" theory since we know how these effects occur and we
know that designers do not design coins that way. The effect tells us
all we need to know. Die gouges, scratches, etc., skipping over lower
areas of the die (relief areas of design on the coin) are a well-known
diagnostic associated with die gouges, etc. To illustrate: I pulled a
silver round I had struck from a damaged die a few weeks ago with a
large die gouge running through the field and over some letters. The
die was damaged extensively with many scratches and a scattering of
gouges from being mishandled but I sent it in anyway to be polished in
an attempt to refresh it. On the 25 sample rounds I had struck from
this die it could be seen that most of the scratches and smaller gouges
were removed but the largest gouge remained. It can be seen he
http://koinpro.tripod.com/Error_Coins/DieGouge.jpg. As you can see,
the gouge is large -- as large as those on the Wisconsin quarters --
and it skips over the letters. As gouges often go, it also has a sort
of leafy shape to it too!
As to these (Wisconsin quarters) showing deliberately placed gouges,
(another suggestion that has been advanced), it is my opinion that a
gouge is a gouge is a gouge (or a dent is a dent ...). How it got
there matters little. Minor is minor no matter how it is presented.
Second, there is not a shred of evidence that suggests they got there
through some deliberate action. Die gouges (or dents) are common on
coins and like finding angels in the clouds, you will find them where
you want if you look long enough. Coincidental? Perhaps. But, so
what?
I wonder? Are we now going to catalog every "conveniently" placed
gouge, die break or dent that comes along? If so, it is retroactive?
At what point (and who decides) which dents or gouges are major and
which are minor? If this is where we are heading, the Spadone book
should become a best seller overnight! Or will we segregate the
importance of gouges, dents and breaks by the era in which a coin was
made? I for one do not welcome a return to the days of marketing minor
flaws under fancy names that have nothing to do with what they actually
are -- especially when the fancy names mask a minor flaw and make it
sound far more important than it really is. These are minor flaws with
catchy nicknames -- and nothing more.
We have plenty of RPM, doubled dies, cuds, legitimate design
modifications, etc., still being discovered in quantities large enough
to keep all the attributers and collectors busy without bringing in the
minor flaws don't we?
I'd suggest we do not open the floodgates to the abuses of the past but
it now looks like it is too late!
Ken Potter
www.koinpro.com

wrote:
You forgot the 1944-D half, where somebody accidentally polished the
designer's monogram off of the reverse die and then hand cut it back
into the die. THAT is a cool variety.
These Wisconsin quarters are just, in my opinion, random die damage
that occurred near the corn by coincidence. Remember the 1890-CC
Morgan
with the die gouge at the tailfeathers? Somebody heavily promoted it
back in the late '60s and early '70s as the "TAILBAR VARIETY! EXTRA
TAIL FEATHER!" at big premiums. The last one I had in stock, I priced
$10 over a regular coin of the same grade, and it took about a month
to
sell.
Tom DeLorey

My question is how can you tell when something like this is intentional or
not? Could that high stick thingy be a planchet blister?
I have a friend I just talked to who has worked with die presses for many
years stamping out many different things including coins at one time. He
says that on rare occasions they will try to fix a damaged die if it's not
too badly damaged. Time is money. He says they'll sometimes take welders,
grinders and cutting torches to them to fix them. What they won't have lying
around in the shop is fine engraving tools that could make very fine and
small, detailed designs on hardened steel dies. And it would take some real
bashing with a heavy hammer to cut into hardened steel working dies or some
very sharp and much harder really expensive engraving tools.
Then after that some workers at the Mint would have had to sneak in the
tools they would have needed if this was done intentionally by someone. I
seriously doubt the US Mint has those kinds of tools at production
facilites. So the idea that some workers fiddled secretly at night with some
dies is pretty far fetched I'd say.

Ira Stein wrote:
cladk (Cladking?) writes:


Certainly an excellent argument has been made that the designer did not
intentionally create either of these varieties or errors. But when you
consider that so far both have shown up in tandem and that they both
closely resemble an actual design feature it becomes extremely
difficult to attribute to mere chance. It seems most likely that it
was a mint employee engaging in play either alone or with others. It
would seem that when gouges are deliberate and appear to be part of the
design to the naked eye that they cross the gulf between error and
variety. In any case they are more interesting than many very popular
"varieties" such as the three legged buffalo or the 22-Plain cent.



Interesting, I too don't buy that these are random die gouges. In fact,
the outline of the more prominent example shows the outlining of the
"leaf" extending into the original design on the die.

This would indicate a rather hurried engraving on the softened die.
That then points to a little tomfoolery by a mint employee who then
hardened the die and struck off a few thousand.Then he did it again
with a leaf added in the upper position. I've sen die gouges on
countless coins in my long career, but nothing like this.

Learned numismatists often disagree on issues in their field, but call
in what you will, this appears to be a significant variety, regardless
of the value. $10...??

Whatsa' matter, miss out on this one, Ken?

Ira


It seems to me that Ken Potter is saying that whether or not the gouges
were intentional, they are of little value in the grand scheme of things.
However, if they were intentional, I would speculate that the CIA had
something to do with it. I say this due to previous CIA involvement with
US postal stamps errors from previous years -- sometimes in the creation
of those very errors, or other times as convenient possessors of those
errors in large quantities. This is entirely speculation at this point
on my part, but it's also to encourage folks to do some research on CIA
involvement in such things. (Just for kicks.)
Cheers!

I also had a chance to inspect two "low leaf", two "high leaf", and 2
normal quarters. I agree with Ken and Tom that this is die damage that
occurred after hubbing was completed. I do not know if it was
accidental or intentional. Here is the result of my analysis:

http://forums.collectors.com/message...hreadid=364966

-- Mike Diamond

Ed, have you noticed any black helicopters in your neighborhood
recently?