So, I was Writing the Description for This Coin and the Label did not make sense to me.

ctf_error_coins

NGC calls this coin a struck thru but that doesn't make sense to me.

I believe that the die itself was scratched by a finger feeder and that is what I am seeing.

Do you concur?

Coinstartled

I trust your expert opinion EOC.

Have found that about a third of the errors I have posted here have had the error description challenged. Often it is a strike thru vs lamination debate.

jmlanzaf

Can't be struck through or the void would not stop at the raised parts of the design. It is some kind of planchet flaw. If the die was scratched, wouldn't the defect be raised rather than incuse? Or is it raised and just looks incuse in the photo.

ChrisH821

Is a feeder finger hard enough to scrape a die like that? And if that was the case wouldn't this be a known die variety, similar to the "speared bison" and others?

1630Boston

It's hard for me to see but why would the die be scratched on both sides of the arm but not the arm itself ?
Same logic for a struck through.

In the end, I do not know and will wait for the experts.
Further, based on your @ErrorsOnCoins extensive knowledge in this field , I would trust your interpretation of the error.

jmlanzaf

@1630Boston said:
It's hard for me to see but why would the die be scratched on both sides of the arm but not the arm itself ?
Same logic for a struck through.

In the end, I do not know and will wait for the experts.
Further, based on your @ErrorsOnCoins , I would trust your interpretation of the error.

A die scratch would skip the arm because the die is the reverse image: the fields are the high points and the design is sunken. So when you run something across the top of the die, it often just contacts the high points and skips the incuse area.

Your logic is, however, correct for the struck through because the struck-through requires there to be an object between the die and planchet so there is no reason for it not to contact even on the incuse parts of the die.

1630Boston

Thanks for the education @jmlanzaf , great to have you around here.

ctf_error_coins

@jmlanzaf said:
Can't be struck through or the void would not stop at the raised parts of the design. It is some kind of planchet flaw. If the die was scratched, wouldn't the defect be raised rather than incuse? Or is it raised and just looks incuse in the photo.

Ya, it is not raised so it is not in the die, you are correct. Not thinking clearly this AM, as havest is near

So it seems planchet flaw might be the answer.

Any other ideas?

jmlanzaf

h> @1630Boston said:

Thanks for the education @jmlanzaf , great to have you around here.

You know the old saying: if you have enough chimps with enough keyboards, they eventually write Shakespeare.

Broadstruck

That's what happens when you buy underarm deodorant at Dollar Tree.

Oldhoopster

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Can't be struck through or the void would not stop at the raised parts of the design. It is some kind of planchet flaw. If the die was scratched, wouldn't the defect be raised rather than incuse? Or is it raised and just looks incuse in the photo.

Ya, it is not raised so it is not in the die, you are correct. Not thinking clearly this AM, as havest is near

So it seems planchet flaw might be the answer.

Any other ideas?

But if it's a planchet flaw, why doesn't it extend through the arm?

Unfortunately, I don't have a reasonable explanation to add

jmlanzaf

@Oldhoopster said:

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Can't be struck through or the void would not stop at the raised parts of the design. It is some kind of planchet flaw. If the die was scratched, wouldn't the defect be raised rather than incuse? Or is it raised and just looks incuse in the photo.

Ya, it is not raised so it is not in the die, you are correct. Not thinking clearly this AM, as havest is near

So it seems planchet flaw might be the answer.

Any other ideas?

But if it's a planchet flaw, why doesn't it extend through the arm?

Unfortunately, I don't have a reasonable explanation to add

To strike up the design, the most metal has to be moved into the incuse die (raised portions), so you basically "strike out" the flaw.

I suppose the other possibility is that it is a strike through where the object struck through was only on the raised portions of the die. Like maybe machine oil or putty or wax or something like that.

mannie gray

Looks like a planchet flaw to me.
When struck, the arm detail obliterated the remnants there.
(Pretty much what was posted above .)

jmlanzaf

Here's an expanded thought: It's a strike through where the previous coin has the remnant of the missing piece of the object and it came off at some point leaving just remnants on the field portion of the die.

FredWeinberg

Feeder Finger scrapes across the die, imo

Oldhoopster

I don’t believe it's a defective planchet. If you look at the coin, there is no transition in the arm or neck area. The defect goes from being prominent in the field to non-existent in the raised devices even in the low relief areas of the neck. I don’t see how metal flow on a defective planchet would leave a sharp transition

1630Boston

@FredWeinberg said:
Feeder Finger scrapes across the die, imo

But the 'defect' is not "raised" on the coin?

Insider2

@FredWeinberg said:
Feeder Finger scrapes across the die, imo

I don't understand this for this reason:

I have been dragged kicking and screaming to believe the common knowledge that the shiny, PL patches on "modern vintage" coins such as Mercury dimes, Morgan dollars, etc. are caused by feed fingers scraping the die, IN NO CASE are the PL surfaces of these coins "rough." The marks on the OP's coin are rough. Therefore IMO, not from feed fingers.

Next, The rough patch on the coin cannot be on the die itself for the reasons given by other posters. Damage to a die produces raised marks on the coin. This was not on a hub either for obvious reasons. Therefore, this mark had to be from a defect on the planchet, strike thru, or something that happened to the struck coin. We can rule out PMD because the defect is under the design of the arm.

The easiest explanation is to call it a strike thru as a damaged planchet would not look like this after it was struck.

ctf_error_coins

So I guess I won't be writing a description for this coin anytime soon

Catbert

@ErrorsOnCoins said:
So I guess I won't be writing a description for this coin anytime soon

Just call it a lightning strike and be done with it.

CaptHenway

@ErrorsOnCoins … are you sure that those marks are incused on the coin and not raised? Please double check.
TD

ctf_error_coins

The marks are not raised. The marks look more like a scratched planchet rather than stamped into the planchet.

CaptHenway

Well then, all other things being equal, scratches on the planchet should have survived across that upraised arm, since the pressure is less where the design goes deep.

scubafuel

Looks like a scraped planchet to me. Metal flow likely got rid of the marks where the arm was struck. If you take a close look at the arm there may be some really light remnants of the scrape still visible.

MedalCollector

My opinion: struck through. The feeder finger may have dragged debris across the die. That would explain why it wasnt struck through the design portion of the coin.

I will assume that the experts suggesting that it is feeder finger damage, just took a very quick glance and didn't think before responding. I will admit, it does look like feeder finger damage at first glance. Of course, maybe i am wrong!

savitale

I'm not an error expert, but struck-through seems plausible to me. If there were grease or some kind of yuck on the face of the die, but not in the recessed (arm) area, I think you could get this effect.

Another explanation is that someone just scratched this coin intentionally for some reason.

2ltdjorn

I hope you included exceptional eye appeal

thebeav

PMD.......

jmlanzaf

@thebeav said:
PMD.......

Pre-mint damage?

ctf_error_coins

I was thinking damaged hub, but that would be so repa> @2ltdjorn said:

I hope you included exceptional eye appeal

I would not use that phrase for this coin.

I use that phrase and similar phrases to Accurately describe many of my coins.

ricko

Well now, this is interesting...if it was die damage (i.e. feeder finger), the mark should be raised...EOC says it is not. If it were a strike through, there should be evidence on the arm... There is not. If a planchet flaw, then perhaps the metal flow into the devices, obscured that portion of the flaw. PMD would also had damaged the arm. Out of those possibilities, I would select planchet flaw. ICBW Cheers, RickO

CaptHenway

Long shot here. Long ago I owned an 1880/79-S dollar that was struck through a piece of wire that ran through the date. You could see places where the wire snapped as it was forced down into the recesses in the die.

What is something that was long and stringy (a scrap of wood or plastic or?) got on this die before a previous strike, that previous strike pressed the foreign object that was bridging the gap that formed the arm down into the arm, snapping it off where the field met the arm, and the foreign object that was struck into the arm got carried away by that previous coin. Then this coin got struck through the remnants of the debris on the field, but the arm was clean on the die so the arm came out normal.

Not saying that happened, just positing theory.

TD

1630Boston

@CaptHenway said:
Long shot here. Long ago I owned an 1880/79-S dollar that was struck through a piece of wire that ran through the date. You could see places where the wire snapped as it was forced down into the recesses in the die.

What is something that was long and stringy (a scrap of wood or plastic or?) got on this die before a previous strike, that previous strike pressed the foreign object that was bridging the gap that formed the arm down into the arm, snapping it off where the field met the arm, and the foreign object that was struck into the arm got carried away by that previous coin. Then this coin got struck through the remnants of the debris on the field, but the arm was clean on the die so the arm came out normal.

Not saying that happened, just positing theory.

TD

I like your thought process

ctf_error_coins

@CaptHenway said:
Long shot here. Long ago I owned an 1880/79-S dollar that was struck through a piece of wire that ran through the date. You could see places where the wire snapped as it was forced down into the recesses in the die.

What is something that was long and stringy (a scrap of wood or plastic or?) got on this die before a previous strike, that previous strike pressed the foreign object that was bridging the gap that formed the arm down into the arm, snapping it off where the field met the arm, and the foreign object that was struck into the arm got carried away by that previous coin. Then this coin got struck through the remnants of the debris on the field, but the arm was clean on the die so the arm came out normal.

Not saying that happened, just positing theory.

TD

Actually, I thought about that possibility