Surely there would still be some trace or outline of the CM on this coin (see magnified picture below). Also, if it's a grease filled die error, there must be other examples out there somewhere, as that die must have been used multiple times.
Also, if it's a grease filled die error, there must be other examples out there somewhere, as that die must have been used multiple times.
Yes exactly, but nowhere near the tens of thousands for a die where they didn't (on purpose or not) include the CM. SCWC and Numista lists three varieties of the CM for this coin. In 22 years we know of only one example without CM. If Numista adds a fourth variety (No CM) then Numista becomes the expert reference others will point to for four varieties. That's a dangerous precedent to set without proof that is is a true variety. I think the Italian mint needs to be the one to confirm or deny its existence. Until then, it's only an error coin at best and PMD at worst.
Also, if it's a grease filled die error, there must be other examples out there somewhere, as that die must have been used multiple times.
Yes exactly, but nowhere near the tens of thousands for a die where they didn't (on purpose or not) include the CM. SCWC and Numista lists three varieties of the CM for this coin. In 22 years we know of only one example without CM. If Numista adds a fourth (No CM) then Numista becomes the expert reference others will point to for four varieties. That's a dangerous precedent to set without proof that is is a true variety. I think the Italian mint needs to be the one to confirm or deny its existence. Until then, it's only an error coin at best and PMD at worst.
Also, if it's a grease filled die error, there must be other examples out there somewhere, as that die must have been used multiple times.
Yes exactly, but nowhere near the tens of thousands for a die where they didn't (on purpose or not) include the CM. SCWC and Numista lists three varieties of the CM for this coin. In 22 years we know of only one example without CM. If Numista adds a fourth (No CM) then Numista becomes the expert reference others will point to for four varieties. That's a dangerous precedent to set without proof that is is a true variety. I think the Italian mint needs to be the one to confirm or deny its existence. Until then, it's only an error coin at best and PMD at worst.
I agree too!!!
Coin referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Liberia and Spain
Banknote referee for: Andorra, Equatorial Guinea and Spain
Also, if it's a grease filled die error, there must be other examples out there somewhere, as that die must have been used multiple times.
Yes exactly, but nowhere near the tens of thousands for a die where they didn't (on purpose or not) include the CM. SCWC and Numista lists three varieties of the CM for this coin. In 22 years we know of only one example without CM. If Numista adds a fourth variety (No CM) then Numista becomes the expert reference others will point to for four varieties. That's a dangerous precedent to set without proof that is is a true variety. I think the Italian mint needs to be the one to confirm or deny its existence. Until then, it's only an error coin at best and PMD at worst.
Agreed - Therefore, is it worth including this coin as a listed error on the 10c page until further ‘official’ comment is received? It may encourage fellow collectors to be on the lookout for other examples. Also, I assume someone from Numista's team will contact the Italian mint?
Also, if it's a grease filled die error, there must be other examples out there somewhere, as that die must have been used multiple times.
Yes exactly, but nowhere near the tens of thousands for a die where they didn't (on purpose or not) include the CM. SCWC and Numista lists three varieties of the CM for this coin. In 22 years we know of only one example without CM. If Numista adds a fourth variety (No CM) then Numista becomes the expert reference others will point to for four varieties. That's a dangerous precedent to set without proof that is is a true variety. I think the Italian mint needs to be the one to confirm or deny its existence. Until then, it's only an error coin at best and PMD at worst.
Agreed - Therefore, is it worth including this coin as a listed error on the 10c page until further ‘official’ comment is received? It may encourage fellow collectors to be on the lookout for other examples. Also, I assume someone from Numista's team will contact the Italian mint?
No, it's only worth a comment in the comments section, but you must include rsirian's comment of the missing CM! Nobody from the Numista team will be contacting the Italian mint, it's not the job descriptions, I believe, so we can wait an eternity.
Also, if it's a grease filled die error, there must be other examples out there somewhere, as that die must have been used multiple times.
Yes exactly, but nowhere near the tens of thousands for a die where they didn't (on purpose or not) include the CM. SCWC and Numista lists three varieties of the CM for this coin. In 22 years we know of only one example without CM. If Numista adds a fourth variety (No CM) then Numista becomes the expert reference others will point to for four varieties. That's a dangerous precedent to set without proof that is is a true variety. I think the Italian mint needs to be the one to confirm or deny its existence. Until then, it's only an error coin at best and PMD at worst.
Agreed - Therefore, is it worth including this coin as a listed error on the 10c page until further ‘official’ comment is received? It may encourage fellow collectors to be on the lookout for other examples. Also, I assume someone from Numista's team will contact the Italian mint?
No, it's only worth a comment in the comments section, but you must include rsirian's comment of the missing CM! Nobody from the Numista team will be contacting the Italian mint, it's not the job descriptions, I believe, so we can wait an eternity.
If Numista wishes to assume the role of a hobby wide reference, then surely part of that pseudo official role should be contacting the various mints in cases such as this?
Do I detect some frustration with our Numista team?
Not at all, when I want an information for my collecting purposes, I try to find it by myself, that's all. And if I don't find it, then it's probably because there's NOTHING to find….
…because it's so much easier for a mint to be contacting every Tom, Dick or Harry all over the world about each and every minor query, rather than a catalogue's main point of contact for that country (???). Probably the main reason why it takes so long to get a response.
Maybe time for a review of policy here. Anyone agree?
The numista team is a set-up of volunteers changing quite often (the nature of volunteer work), and I, for one, will not try to impose such a “job/task” on anybody in the team. Specially in this case, where I personally wouldn't even try to find another answer, than the explanation of rsirian, which is likely 99.999% correct.
It took me 2 minutes to write an email to the italian mint (not sure I'll get an answer though)
I believe any numista user, contributor, referree, admin etc should always feel free to write to anyone to get more information, and then share what they learnt on the forum.
Many already do it, for instance for new allowed sources of pictures :-)
No one thought you were imagining it, just questioning if it was intentional by the mint or the result of a filled die. Now that we have another one I'll call your attention to your own comment, “Also, if it's a grease filled die error, there must be other examples out there somewhere, as that die must have been used multiple times.” We have the another example but we still don't have an answer. I still would expect many more examples would surface if it were really left off the die.
Another example from Italy of what appears to be a missing part of a coin's design, and again 2002, but this time a 2 Euro coin (again, lower left hand side)…
