Planchet flaw or?
cruisersk1
Posts: 190 ✭✭✭
I was going to see if I could return this puck and then I decided to ask here if this adds or subtracts from value. It looks like it might have been a planchet flaw but It could just be a roundish dent. Whatever it is it was before the Vapor blast. Return or keep?
0
Comments
Minor planchet flaw
Some would say 'struck thru'
@cruisersk1 said: "Whatever it is it was before the Vapor blast. Return or keep?"
Actually Not. Now think about it and tell me why I disagree with you. I could be wrong so convince me.
It looks to me like the spot is vapor blasted. I’m 99.9% positive. Here is is under magnification. I think if it was after vapor blast it would show a hit. Looks too uniform.
This was with my iPhone thru a microscope.
Great reply! You raise a perfect rebuttal.
Now, at what stage of the coin making process is the "vapor blast" applied?
PS If you have a florescent light, image the spot again to get ride of the glare.
If I found that anomaly and with my tendency of needing to have things neat, organized, in it’s place, untouched, perfect, etc. I know what I would do. Regardless of what anyone else told me.
Some may call it OCD tendencies, I call it me.
I was on hold with the mint to return their one and one with a lot of scratches when I wondered if the strike thru would make it more valuable. I buy three each time and don’t have them graded. I haven’t been collecting long enough to know enough so came to the experts. If it is more valuable I’d keep it. If less valuable I’d sell it. I could probably put it on eBay and advertise rare strike thru error and get more. Just looking for knowledge I guess.
>
I’m pretty sure it would be the last step. Maybe they are cleaned afterwards. Wiki agrees.
Very interesting. I have not been on the mint floor while coins were being made for over 15 years. So I am going to also learn something from experts. What you have posted from the Internet implies that the finish of your coin resulted from being "vapor blasted" AFTER THE COIN WAS STRUCK rather than receiving the finish from the surface of the die when it was struck. This is completely new to me. Based on what I see when SE are examined, this does not compute. Perhaps the Pucks are made differently. We'll see.
Yikes! VAPOR BLASTING: Very much like sandblasting, it’s a process in which water vapor and ceramic media mix is applied to the surface of the coin after it has been struck, providing a uniform, protective finish to the coin. This method is currently being used on all America the Beautiful Five Ounce Silver Uncirculated Coins.
Thanks for the education, now I'll need to rethink the blemish on your Puck. That explains why the interior surface of the mark has the same texture as the rest of the surface! However, I still believe it is a strike thru error.
Now to read more about vapor blasting...
@Insider2 Old article on vapor blasting from 2011.
——-
Mint awaits new vapor-blasting equipment
Wants consistent finishes on 5-ounce silver coins
By Paul Gilkes-Coin World Staff
Published : 08/01/11
New equipment the U.S. Mint ordered to produce the post-strike vapor-blast finish applied to Uncirculated America the Beautiful 5-ounce silver coins likely will be able to resolve the inconsistency in the finish being reported for 2010-P coins, U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White said July 27.
White said the U.S. Mint late in 2010 began the procurement process to obtain the new equipment to handle projected increased production for Uncirculated 2011-P and later America the Beautiful 5-ounce silver coins. The new machinery has not yet been received for installation at the Philadelphia Mint, White said.
“While we have ordered new equipment to execute automated vapor blasting on the America the Beautiful 5-ounce silver Uncirculated coins, we are currently using the process originally used for our 3-inch medals,” White said. “That equipment required retro-fitting and readjustment for the process, and has required additional maintenance due to the higher volume and substantially increased wear of this program.
“The new equipment will allow us to move from the manual, batch process to more closely integrate the vapor blasting application into the overall production line for the coin,” White said.
White acknowledged that the existing retrofitted equipment has created some post-strike finish application problems.
More at:
https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2011/08/mint-awaits-new-vapor-blasting-equipment.all.html
>
When I zoom in on the picture I think I can see a crater like appearance rather than a strike thru? , which I equate to a chip smashed into the part. The part being the coin. It looks more like it was a void like porosity in the blank.
I own a machine shop and I am use to seeing things embedded in a material. When you clamp a part in a vise that isn’t perfectly clean you get a scrap hunk of metal fast.
I don't think a particle that size could go through the nozzle, Strike thru's produce crater-like depressions similar to what I see. The fact that it is not sharp and appears to have the same "sandblast" finish indicates it was on the coin when "blasted."
I would agree with Mr. Weinberg. It may have arisen as a tiny
gas inclusion / bubble in the smelting process.
Here's an interesting flaw - clearly after the strike - or - perhaps it
was on the die ?
Strike through (a small piece of detritus was in between the die and the coin)
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled