Hub trial strike -- will PCGS authenticate this?

koincollect · October 4, 2018 3:20PM

I have what seems like a hub strike and have no reason to believe it is spurious. I would love other member's views of it. Would anybody know if PCGS authenticates these? I could have asked PCGS CS but I have never got any answers to my questions posted to them. Maybe @MrEureka or @Insider2 know....

asheland · October 4, 2018 4:03PM

No idea but it’s very cool!

WorldCoinsDmitry · October 4, 2018 10:39PM

That's a first for me, but your reasoning makes complete sense and details appear "regal"

MrEureka · October 4, 2018 10:51PM

Is it exceptionally thin?

syl · October 5, 2018 1:52AM

I have never heard the term "hub trail strike" .. do you mean "hub trial strike". Never seen anything like it. Is that the real coin? Maybe something in the "brockage" category of definitions? Is it possible to put a hub in the press where the working die should be? The side on the left photo looks like what the working die would be.... but my eyes are seeing the left as being "impressed", not in relief.

koincollect · October 5, 2018 6:56AM

@MrEureka said:
Is it exceptionally thin?

Yes, it is.

koincollect · October 5, 2018 7:03AM

@syl said:
I have never heard the term "hub trail strike" .. do you mean "hub trial strike". Never seen anything like it. Is that the real coin? Maybe something in the "brockage" category of definitions? Is it possible to put a hub in the press where the working die should be? The side on the left photo looks like what the working die would be.... but my eyes are seeing the left as being "impressed", not in relief.

Good spot. I have edited it now. It might be the autocorrect-- never allows me to type brockage but always autocorrects it to blockage!

I think striking of this would have been done similar to how medal cliches were struck. This piece seems to be struck on copper but it is thin. This is definitely not a brockage.

Some information on cliches through Google search-->
"Numismatic clichés are uniface impressions made from engraved dies. One sort is made by the engraver when he is carving a die. Since he is working on a negative image, he may want to see how the positive image will look. To do this he makes a puddle of molten tin or lead on his workbench and presses the unfinished die into it. In order to properly proportion human bodies, the die engravers customarily engraved nude figures into the die, then dug deeper to dress them."

Insider2 · October 5, 2018 7:50AM

You have poster two images. Neither makes sense to me. Especially the one on the right which is not even close to the design on the left. Plus it is very granular.

"Numismatic clichés are uniface impressions made from engraved dies."

What does this have to do with your piece/pieces? one is supposedly struck from a hub. I don't believe it.

But since anything is possible...right image X. left image ? Until we can magnify the image.

brg5658 · October 5, 2018 8:34AM

@Insider2 said:
You have poster two images. Neither makes sense to me. Especially the one on the right which is not even close to the design on the left. Plus it is very granular.

The right image matches the left image perfectly if the left piece is flipped around the (vertical) y-axis. Not sure what your confusion is there.

koincollect · October 5, 2018 9:07AM

I used Google search and found some of the US hub trials on PCGS Coinfacts.

The right side of image seems "granular" since it is the ghosting of the impression on the other side. I might just send it to PCGS to see if they authenticate it.

Andy, do you think this is a genuine example? Thanks!

Insider2 · October 5, 2018 10:22AM

@brg5658 said:

@Insider2 said:
You have poster two images. Neither makes sense to me. Especially the one on the right which is not even close to the design on the left. Plus it is very granular.

The right image matches the left image perfectly if the left piece is flipped around the (vertical) y-axis. Not sure what your confusion is there.

I don't call the LARGE, FAT, TAIL the one piece "perfect anything!"

I'm also very confused. Sorry Please help. I thought the design on a hub was raised? if it was used to make a trial strike, wouldn't the design on the trial be incuse?

syl · October 5, 2018 10:25AM

OK ... now it makes more sense. I think that everyone thought that you posted the 2 sides of a single coin. Is your initial "left" image impressed or in normal relief? Is the "right" coin just one with the right date taken out of circulation? Is the opposite side of the "left" coin blank and/or concave or convex?

brg5658 · October 5, 2018 1:37PM

@Insider2 said:

@brg5658 said:

@Insider2 said:
You have poster two images. Neither makes sense to me. Especially the one on the right which is not even close to the design on the left. Plus it is very granular.

The right image matches the left image perfectly if the left piece is flipped around the (vertical) y-axis. Not sure what your confusion is there.

I don't call the LARGE, FAT, TAIL the one piece "perfect anything!"

I'm also very confused. Sorry Please help. I thought the design on a hub was raised? if it was used to make a trial strike, wouldn't the design on the trial be incuse?

The design on the trial IS incuse (left view of image)!! Are you looking at the same pictures I am? This is a picture of the same piece, front side and back side. I don't know what you're confused about.

The right view in the image is the back of the piece. Of course the details will be mushy, they are the punch through from the other side.

Insider2 · October 5, 2018 2:33PM

Thanks, but not helpful. I'm writing about the OP's coin. I don't see what you see.

I've been accused of being blind before. You are asking me to believe that a smooth, round, piece of copper was struck with a HUB that impressed an incuse image (left image) and somehow also transferred a mushy, granular, squashed and "flipped" image (right image) to the reverse.

It sure looks like an incuse little strike thru (squiggle at bottom right quadrant of shield). Very confusing.

koincollect · October 5, 2018 3:11PM

@Insider2 said:
Thanks, but not helpful. I don't see it. You are asking me to believe that a smooth, round, piece of copper was struck with a HUB that impressed an incuse image (left image) and somehow also transferred a mushy, granular, squashed and "flipped" image (right image) to the reverse.

It sure looks like an incuse little strike thru (squiggle at bottom right quadrant of shield). Very confusing.

Please take a look at this image on PCGS coinfacts which shows a similar ghosting on the other side. My specimen is struck on a very thin piece of metal and I think that is the reason for the mushy image

Please also check the US coinage images I have posted from PCGS coinfacts for hub trials. They are all authenticated and graded by PCGS and I wanted to check what you think of my example.

Rexford · October 5, 2018 3:18PM

@Insider2 said:
Thanks, but not helpful. I don't see it. You are asking me to believe that a smooth, round, piece of copper was struck with a HUB that impressed an incuse image (left image) and somehow also transferred a mushy, granular, squashed and "flipped" image (right image) to the reverse.

It sure looks like an incuse little strike thru (squiggle at bottom right quadrant of shield). Very confusing.

Think about it this way. If the design on the obverse is facing left, and is imprinted hard enough on a piece of metal thin enough that the punch pushes out through the other side, the metal will be pushed out in a similar but much mushier pattern, and the mushy image will be facing right. Think about if you were able to look through any coin to the pattern on the other side. From that view, the pattern on the other side would be reversed.

Insider2 · October 5, 2018 3:49PM

@koincollect said: "I have what seems like a hub strike..."

**This is NOT even close in appearance to the example below:

@koincollect said: "Please take a look at this image on PCGS coinfacts which shows a similar ghosting on the other side. My specimen is struck on a very thin piece of metal and I think that is the reason for the mushy image."

This coin looks like a coin with all of its design correct. The reverse is smooth with the "ghosting" you mention. On your piece the date is backwards and the reverse is complete, granular, mushy, and fake looking. We can argue that the US Mint just did a better job but I don't buy that either.

Your piece (left image) looks like the design is raised to me but one member insisted it is incuse. You have the piece. Which is it?

@Rexford please explain the cast appearance on the OP's reverse.

koincollect · October 5, 2018 4:38PM

@Insider2 please check the other pictures I have posted of the US coinage on coinfacts which are mirror images. I had posted this picture to illustrate how the design will look in reverse if struck on a thinner piece of metal. The above $5 piece is probably struck on a slightly thick piece of metal than mine.

The design in incuse on my example and it looks raised in the pictures-- optical illusion. I am not claiming this to be genuine and might very well be a fake. I will check with PCGS.

WorldCoinsDmitry · October 5, 2018 5:13PM

@Insider2 this piece makes sense for what it is claimed to be. Here is an example of a die trial strike from Venezuela that CCF member OLCoins posted in 2013... note the roughness on the reverse. This was also a thin planchet. Had this been a hub rather than die trial piece you would see a similar effect of the reverse.

syl · October 5, 2018 5:45PM

If the hub struck the thin planchet, as the OP states, then there had to be a piece of leather or something similar for ANY image to show through to the other side, mushy or not. The pressure on the press had to be greatly reduced for striking through thin copper of the OP's coin rather than thick steel for a working die. The US "trial hub strike" of the $5 was struck on a large cent planchet, so it certainly wasn't thin.

WorldCoinsDmitry · October 5, 2018 6:12PM

We can't reliably guess the preparation methods, such as the strike pressure or backstop material. What we can deduce is that the impressed details appear regal and that only one side of the test planchet was smoothed (as would be most practical). I agree with the OP that there is no reason to believe it to be spurious.

Insider2 · October 5, 2018 6:33PM

Incuse is a plus. Thanks, and please let us know what the PCGS experts say.

brg5658 · October 5, 2018 8:33PM

@Insider2 said:
Thanks, but not helpful. I'm writing about the OP's coin. I don't see what you see.

I've been accused of being blind before. You are asking me to believe that a smooth, round, piece of copper was struck with a HUB that impressed an incuse image (left image) and somehow also transferred a mushy, granular, squashed and "flipped" image (right image) to the reverse.

It sure looks like an incuse little strike thru (squiggle at bottom right quadrant of shield). Very confusing.

I give up. I can't see it for you. Eye exams are relatively inexpensive.

🙄

Insider2 · October 5, 2018 8:36PM

@brg5658 said: "I give up. I can't see it for you. Eye exams are relatively inexpensive."

New gold bi-focal glasses aren't.

MrEureka · October 5, 2018 9:12PM

It might help to post a picture of a struck coin of the same design.

WorldCoinsDmitry · October 5, 2018 9:23PM

Good idea https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/items/66953

syl · October 6, 2018 3:24AM

Regardless how it was made, now that we know exactly what the OP posted (what's incuse, what's in relief, and that both original images are both sides of one article) I think it's real and one of the neatest things I've seen in numismatics. I still don't understand why the mintmaster would want a "trial strike" through a thin planchet of copper. Why wouldn't he do it through steel, to both get a look at what the working die would look like, but also a heads up on the pressure required to successfully transfer the image.

oldlinecoins · October 6, 2018 11:50AM

@WorldCoinsDmitry said:
Here is an example of a die trial strike from Venezuela that CCF member OLCoins posted in 2013... note the roughness on the reverse. This was also a thin planchet. Had this been a hub rather than die trial piece you would see a similar effect of the reverse.

Dang, it's already been 5 years since that post (and a different board/handle to boot). Time flies
Cool find @WorldCoinsDmitry

pruebas · October 6, 2018 4:13PM

PCGS has encapsulated a hub trial for me recently.

BUT I don’t believe this is a hub trial. Looks to me more like an electrotype, not a struck piece. Note the blobs of metal on the reverse (non-design side).

syl · October 7, 2018 12:38AM

Another hub strike on a different site .. like the other mentioned ones that are thin and, essentially, uniface:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/austria-20-kreuzer-hub-test-strike.324683/

7Jaguars · October 7, 2018 7:59AM

And to answer: I doubt this as they have declined to grade or authenticate a 1937 shilling die matrix for me (as did ATS).

koincollect · October 7, 2018 8:07AM

Thanks for your comments everybody. @pruebas this might be a possibility or someone might have pressed a real coin into a thin metal leaving an incuse design and the force not sufficiently strong to leave a strong impression on the other side. I will try to send this to PCGS though I see @7Jaguars did not have much luck.

WorldCoinsDmitry · October 7, 2018 8:18AM

@oldlinecoins said:

@WorldCoinsDmitry said:
Here is an example of a die trial strike from Venezuela that CCF member OLCoins posted in 2013... note the roughness on the reverse. This was also a thin planchet. Had this been a hub rather than die trial piece you would see a similar effect of the reverse.

Dang, it's already been 5 years since that post (and a different board/handle to boot). Time flies
Cool find @WorldCoinsDmitry

Thanks for posting that back then, great point of reference

Hub trial strike -- will PCGS authenticate this?

Comments