NZ - Decimal Errors

[Fulvio]

I think you may have missed the fact we were looking at both dies here - the positioning of one and minor faults on the other.

Reread what I said.

The reverse, anvil die is locked in place and unable to move. The obverse, hammer die is held in position by a locking pin. Which can, and does, break.

A die which is free to rotate will do so, with every strike. It will complete full revolutions, until the problem is detected and fixed. If you looked at the total production run it struck, you would find the full 360° range of angles.

If a die is inserted and locked in place in the wrong position, IE outside the +/- 5° acceptable tolerance, then it won't move between strikes, and every coin will be the same. For that particular run, anyway. So you might conceivably have a bunch of dies set in the 355° to 5° range, and one set to say 90°. You wouldn't find any other angles in circulation.

Neither of these has anything to do with die damage. If a broken die produces a cud, it will do so on every single strike, regardless of alignment.

So, the question is, is EVERY upset exactly the same angle? If so, then we know that it was misaligned. If the die was also broken, then every coin will indeed have the same angle and cud.

But if there are coins with different rotations, and especially if some have cuds and some not, then there's no definitive correlation.

[translateltd]

Neither of these has anything to do with die damage.

I never said it did - we're going round in circles here.  Reread my posts, maybe?  A reverse die with particular damage features is matched with an obverse die set at a particular angle of rotation.  I don't think I can express it any more clearly than that.  The rotation doesn't depend on the damage, and the damage doesn't depend on the rotation, and no-one has said or implied either notion.

*How* the rotations and the matches with reverse die features occurred is a matter of speculation.  That there *is* a correlation is observable fact based on the sample that was analysed.  We could also argue about whether a circle is round or whether a square has four sides, but it won't change reality :-)

Martin
NZ

[Fulvio]

*How* the rotations and the matches with reverse die features occurred is a matter of speculation.

Not really, no. If you've got a hundred identical coins, then it is not a rotation error caused by a broken pin. The die would rotate between strikes, and they'd be different.

If they are indeed identical, then the die was installed incorrectly, and there IS no other angle out there to be found.

It may appear to be a minor point, but try and make a clockface out of them if its the latter.

[translateltd]

Not really, no. If you've got a hundred identical coins, then it is not a rotation error caused by a broken pin. The die would rotate between strikes, and they'd be different.

We're talking more than one die, and more than one rotation. The entire sample is not identical, but the coins with the individual rotations seem to be, which is what I've been trying to convey, though rather unsuccessfully.

These aren't individual coins caused by loose dies jiggling about at random, but rather runs of coins from separate dies that appear to have been set in place but out of alignment.
Hopefully these paragraphs on the 1999 5c from the December 1999 NZ Numismatic Journal will help clarify the points above a little further:

[attachment=3559]

[attachment=3560]

[Fulvio]

We're talking more than one die, and more than one rotation.

OK, what we clearly have here is a need for some definitions to see if we can reach consensus.

Lets refer to two separate issues: Alignment and Rotation

Alignment errors are where someone has installed a die incorrectly. It may sit at a horizontal angle, so as to produce a partial strike on one side, or it may sit at a rotated angle outside the acceptable 5° either side of correct alignment.

Rotation errors, as we've seen in various coins, notably the 2001 CoA, are the result of a die being free to move, and produce results like this example of Goldy's clockface building efforts which was on display at the RAM:



So, if I'm correctly understanding what you're saying, you have not rotation errors, but rather a number of different but consistent alignment errors.

Which means extremely sloppy workmanship. If out of say a hundred dies, twenty of them are installed at random alignments as much as 45° out of spec, AND NOBODY NOTICED, what does that say about quality control?

Further, it could be argued that these would represent Varieties, not Errors. If every example struck from a given die is identical, but different to those struck from other dies, well, that seems to me to fall within the definition for a variety, wouldn't you agree?

If this is in fact the case, then there would exist a finite number of identifiably different coins, and it would be possible to catalogue them. Something you cannot do with 'normal' upsets, as they're all different.

[NZCoinerrors]

I have to agree with Translateltd on this one

all dies with the same rotation have the same fault / cuds I have taken some of my worst photos in a while (due to not having time to do it properly tonight but each row shows a different die fault / cud etc and each have the same rotation.  Only had the time to do 3 error types and 3 coins of each but the trend continues

[translateltd]

Quality control for the 1999 5c was abominable, to say the least.  I said so in print in 1999 and got a very grumpy fax back from the South African Mint which failed to address any of the points made.

Btw, I don't believe I have used the word 'error' anywhere in this thread to describe these particular alignment/rotation variations, though by my own preferred nomenclature that's what I would call them:

Variety: the result of deliberate action by a human (recut dies, etc.)
Error: the result of accidental action - in this case there was no deliberate plan to set the dies at odd angles prior to striking, but someone must have done it nonetheless, through lack of care or attention.

[attachment=3561]

[NZCoinerrors]

Which means extremely sloppy workmanship. If out of say a hundred dies, twenty of them are installed at random alignments as much as 45° out of spec, AND NOBODY NOTICED, what does that say about quality control?

Quality control for NZ coins has never been that great regardless of mint in my opinion.  The Canadian mint was great until they produced the 2014 date variety without mentioning this to the Reserve Bank (currently being investigated)

Love that Fax from the S/A mint.  

Dont think I have ever owned a fax machine haha

[translateltd]

Love that Fax from the S/A mint.  

Dont think I have ever owned a fax machine haha

Just for amusement, here's the follow-up from the SA Mint, exactly as written.  I suspect they examined a sample of precisely one coin before replying, and didn't look at just which part of the date was at the bottom:

[attachment=3562]

[NZCoinerrors]

Just for amusement, here's the follow-up from the SA Mint, exactly as written.  I suspect they examined a sample of precisely one coin before replying, and didn't look at just which part of the date was at the bottom:

They did not do much right did they.  After the stuff up with the 1997 $2 coin they needed to try and make themselves look better and avoid another control issue

[Mister T]

Just for amusement, here's the follow-up from the SA Mint, exactly as written.  I suspect they examined a sample of precisely one coin before replying, and didn't look at just which part of the date was at the bottom:

Where was that published?

[translateltd]

Just for amusement, here's the follow-up from the SA Mint, exactly as written.  I suspect they examined a sample of precisely one coin before replying, and didn't look at just which part of the date was at the bottom:

Where was that published?

Newsletter of the Royal Numismatic Soc of NZ, July 2000.  They insisted we publish their rebuttal, and of course we complied.

[markn]

That's hilarious.

[purplepennyhunter]

Just for amusement, here's the follow-up from the SA Mint, exactly as written.  I suspect they examined a sample of precisely one coin before replying, and didn't look at just which part of the date was at the bottom:

They did not do much right did they.  After the stuff up with the 1997 $2 coin they needed to try and make themselves look better and avoid another control issue

What's the story with the 1997 $2?

[translateltd]

They did not do much right did they.  After the stuff up with the 1997 $2 coin they needed to try and make themselves look better and avoid another control issue
[/quote]

What's the story with the 1997 $2?
[/quote]

We had a gap of a few years (1992-96) with no new circulating $2 coins, and when the 1997 coins arrived, vending machines started rejecting them.  It turned out that "something" (what?) was different about the spec of the coins compared to the 1990-91 coins that the machines had originally been calibrated against.  The SA Mint claimed that its 1997 coins were perfectly on-spec, and that the 1990-91 coins made by the Royal Mint in the UK must have been wrong (i.e. that our machines had been calibrated to the wrong spec in the first place).  Anyway, there was an informal withdrawal of sorts - they weren't actually recalled but I believe efforts were made not to re-release them from the banks if possible.  The 1998 and later coins supposedly matched the 1990-91 spec again so there were no further problems or complaints with this denomination.