What’s what THERE have been two related debates in the COIN NEWS offices this month, both based on letters from readers—one regarding what he considered to be an error, the other on the subject of rarities. The first gentleman has a gold proof £2 coin with a poorly executed edge inscription. There’s no doubt that the coin should not have got through the usually excellent quality control but also little doubt that it is a one-off, a mistake in production caused, probably, by human error. The gentleman in question felt that this was a “numismatic error” that should be recorded. We felt that as it was a manufacturing process oversight, it didn’t class as an “error” in the true sense. Our definition of such an anomaly would include wrong dates, incorrect edge inscriptions for the type, mules, etc. We didn’t feel that a poorly struck inscription qualified, and even if it was classed as an error by some, it was likely to be a one-off and thus there was no real reason to record it formally or note it in the magazine. After all, these things do happen from time to time. The second correspondent was questioning the use of the term “rarest 50p” when used in connection with the recently issued King Charles III “salmon” coin. His argument was that the rarest 50ps are actually those found in the 2009 proof sets, a large number of which ended up being sold to a marketing company and gold plated. Our counterpoint was that if you start including proofs when you talk about rarities then you’d have to include the silver and gold strikes, many of which come in issues of only a few hundred or, in the case of gold, even less. His response was to state that base metal proofs are different as if they are to be broken out of a set, and subsequently spent, they simply become the same as other circulating coins (whereas gold and silver ones would still be gold and silver) and thus the 2009 ones must be considered the rarest. In the end, in both cases, we had to agree to disagree and have, in effect, set ourselves an editorial policy for the future. When we at COIN NEWS talk about “errors” we won’t be including something that is poorly struck or the result of die imperfections/cracks, etc (we aren’t saying they aren’t interesting or collected, just that, as far as we are concerned, they aren’t “errors” per se). And when we talk about the rarest x, y or z, we will, unless otherwise stated, be referring to standard strike coins (whether in circulation or not) and not proofs. Those are the lines we have drawn for ourselves; we aren’t saying others have to adhere to them, but they are our definitions. But are they the correct ones? Both readers had valid points, the first said that an error is an error no matter how caused, the second’s assertion that gold and silver proofs need to be treated differently, as a base metal proof becomes just like any other coin if spent, isn’t strictly true (you can still see that it’s a proof) but it has merits. So what, we wonder, do you think? Would you include proof strikes in your list of “rarest” coins? If so, would you only include base metal versions or are the precious metal issues to be included too? On this subject, we think we’re probably going to find agreement with most of our readers; we really feel that when people talk about numismatic rarities they’re talking about those coins struck for circulation in small numbers—the King Charles definitive 50p, the 2019 “lower end of the alphabet” 10ps, etc. When you start to include special strikes, then that’s a whole different conversation. But what, we wonder, is your definition of a numismatic error? And at what point do errors need cataloguing/recording? Here at COIN NEWS we are thinking the 2008 20p mule without the date, the 1983 New Pence 2p, that sort of thing, and if we were to find a coin with a badly inscribed edge, we’d probably simply set it aside in the hope of getting a perfect one; but let’s be honest if we came across a badly mis-struck coin where only half the design is visible, or a coin struck on an incorrect blank, we’d call them errors and find them far more interesting (although we still might not formally catalogue them unless a number came to light). But aren’t they too simply the product of human error? This is a problematic area, and for now we’ll stick to our definition in the pages of the magazine, but we really would be delighted to know your thoughts. Nothing is set in stone, and we are happy to change our definitions of both a “rarity” and an “error” if you feel we should.