@CaptHenway said:
You can tell by the way the shadows fall INTO the letters, rather than below or next to them, that the letters are incused. It is obvious to any coin Authenticator that another coin got pressed into this one after the two coins were struck. Anything else is wishful thinking.
I'm starting to believe...
Tilt the "Donor" coin just slightly, and there wouldn't necessarily be any rim-to-rim contact.
Guess what threw ME off was the 1) The quality of the impression, (but I have little experience looking at this type of thing), and 2) the quality of the coin...MS-66!
To me, that quality made an intentional "squeeze job" highly unlikely. (Why ruin a perfectly nice coin?) It also seemed to make a coin-to-coin "hit" unlikely.
But, I guess, one time random, "stroke of lightning" things can happen...
As I wrote, Tom and Fred's explanation has been the status-quo for at least fifty years. The only thing very unusual on this coin is the DEPTH of the letters. The "sharpness" is common when this characteristic is seen.
Therefore, I hope you guys can brainstorm more and come up with a possible way this effect can occur when the coin was struck.
I think the only reason JA raised an eyebrow is because the letters looked struck. We await Fred's opinion in the New Year!
I recommend everyone get a hammer and start banging away until you reproduce the effect.
I would believe that brockard strikes, when known, in 1889 would have commonly just been recycled through the press.
The significance with this coin is that it was an "offstrike brockard" meaning the donor coin was off struck and the image on the OP coin was from an offset donor coin ( not a die). And when re-struct the detail on the perifery of the coin remained, as it was outside of the coin's denticles. The re-struct brocade coin was true to centers and the brockade issue on the rims remained.
A brockard strike would likely seize the press and require operator intervention. And the brockage "planchet" would have just been recycled through the press ( strike 2).
\
\The incused letters in the rim of the OP coin did not just happen with one strike of the press. It was due to re-introducing the offset brockade planchet again into the press. NOT PMD as the striking pressure to incuse the letters would be more significant than I can do with a 9 TR hydraulic press.
Clearly a two strike mint error.
OINK
Nice explanation but if that was the case, the letters on the rim would have been affected. They would look different than they do now.
@TommyType said:
Maybe this will help....concentrate:
The two overlays shown ARE EXACTLY THE SAME ORIENTATION. Look below:
The only thing done in the "cut down" overlay was to remove the rest of the coin.
Both reverses in the overlay are the OP's coin. (Assume that was done to make sizing and camera angle identical). IGNORE the rim lettering at the top of the picture....pretend it isn't there. On the rim of the other coin, the lettering perfectly lays over the other coins rim....what was previously circled in BLUE. The registration is perfect, so you don't even see the rim lettering.
I don't want to spoon feed the answers. It is important to come to these conclusions yourself. Now THINK how the requested image was already provided. NOTICE how the the two images are the same except that the full coin is shown and the transparency increased.
We can use a simple question or two. Let's ask ourselves, what would the image I want look likenow how does the provided image differ Perhaps even think of this as a quiz. Let's break this into a small manageable pieces to figure out one a time.
Davideo,
I like your teaching method! It works.
There are two posted images shown. ALL I WANTED TO SEE is the one on the left with the rest of the coin (the dark overlay) added. I don't want to see the one on the right with THREE RIMS showing. They are::
1.The one at the top (formerly covered by a blue line. The one I was instructed to ignore.
2. & 3. The actual overlay.
@CaptHenway said:
You can tell by the way the shadows fall INTO the letters, rather than below or next to them, that the letters are incused. It is obvious to any coin Authenticator that another coin got pressed into this one after the two coins were struck. Anything else is wishful thinking.
I'm starting to believe...
Tilt the "Donor" coin just slightly, and there wouldn't necessarily be any rim-to-rim contact.
Guess what threw ME off was the 1) The quality of the impression, (but I have little experience looking at this type of thing), and 2) the quality of the coin...MS-66!
To me, that quality made an intentional "squeeze job" highly unlikely. (Why ruin a perfectly nice coin?) It also seemed to make a coin-to-coin "hit" unlikely.
But, I guess, one time random, "stroke of lightning" things can happen...
As I wrote, Tom and Fred's explanation has been the status-quo for at least fifty years. The only thing very unusual on this coin is the DEPTH of the letters. The "sharpness" is common when this characteristic is seen.
Therefore, I hope you guys can brainstorm more and come up with a possible way this effect can occur when the coin was struck.
I think the only reason JA raised an eyebrow is because the letters looked struck. We await Fred's opinion in the New Year!
I recommend everyone get a hammer and start banging away until you reproduce the effect.
We already have Fred's opinion. The only difference is that now somebody is going to throw good money after bad paying for it.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
You can tell by the way the shadows fall INTO the letters, rather than below or next to them, that the letters are incused. It is obvious to any coin Authenticator that another coin got pressed into this one after the two coins were struck. Anything else is wishful thinking.
I'm starting to believe...
Tilt the "Donor" coin just slightly, and there wouldn't necessarily be any rim-to-rim contact.
Guess what threw ME off was the 1) The quality of the impression, (but I have little experience looking at this type of thing), and 2) the quality of the coin...MS-66!
To me, that quality made an intentional "squeeze job" highly unlikely. (Why ruin a perfectly nice coin?) It also seemed to make a coin-to-coin "hit" unlikely.
But, I guess, one time random, "stroke of lightning" things can happen...
As I wrote, Tom and Fred's explanation has been the status-quo for at least fifty years. The only thing very unusual on this coin is the DEPTH of the letters. The "sharpness" is common when this characteristic is seen.
Therefore, I hope you guys can brainstorm more and come up with a possible way this effect can occur when the coin was struck.
I think the only reason JA raised an eyebrow is because the letters looked struck. We await Fred's opinion in the New Year!
I recommend everyone get a hammer and start banging away until you reproduce the effect.
We already have Fred's opinion. The only difference is that now somebody is going to throw good money after bad paying for it.
It's only the price of shipping. They are looking for free. And Fred hasn't seen it in hand. It looked unusual enough to JA that he reached out to discuss it with the owner.
Therefore, I hope you guys can brainstorm more and come up with a possible way this effect can occur when the coin was struck.
I wanted to believe the backwards image was on the die from day one. I just couldn't make it work....until I just realized...
If a coin-on-coin hit leaves a reverse image, then a completed die-on-die hit would do the same.
So, imagine if you will a die maker hard at work completing some dies. He drops one die onto another, leaving the impression of the lettering on the rim area of another die. If that "receiver" die is used to strike coins, you would get something like we see here.
Problems:
Looking at a picture of a die posted earlier, there doesn't really seem to be an extended rim on the die itself....
This would NOT explain the rim damage on the obverse of our coin, so we'd be forced to assume TWO different unrelated errors...or events.
Just thinkin'-thinkin'....
Added: (But hopefully not bumping the thread....)
Other problem:
Hitting die-on-die would require RAISING the letters on the die in order to create incuse letters on a coin. Seems to me that would be MUCH more difficult, and require much more force, than just striking incuse letters via coin-on-coin...
at the end of my day, I still believe it to be PMD, just like those Sacagawea mules of our modern era. No damage at all , except to the integrity of coin makers. Premeditated Mint Design. Oh, it's some kind of damage, but it's the stuff I like. CAC or not. PCGS or not. It's good to see them escape and not be confiscated. What I believe is that a mint employee had some time to play.
Much of the time, none of these are even close to this one. For example, two star impressions on the rim of a Saint.
Hang in and I'll fine several micrographs of these on different coin types. IMO, the ONLY possibility of this being man made at the mint when the coin was struck is the dept of the letters and I cannot think of how it could be done - even if I were given the "run" of the Mint.
This coin reminds me of one of Shakespeare's plays.
@CaptHenway said:
You can tell by the way the shadows fall INTO the letters, rather than below or next to them, that the letters are incused. It is obvious to any coin Authenticator that another coin got pressed into this one after the two coins were struck. Anything else is wishful thinking.
If so, then why do we only see a small amount of the pressing coin impressed onto the coin in question? I would want to see more evidence in different locations away from the limited impression made. Also, as JA told the OP, all of the surface evidence is inconsistent with PMD. So...........
Nice explanation but if that was the case, the letters on the rim would have been affected. They would look different than they do now.
Where metallurgical and numismatic knowledge seem to clash........
The letters on the rim would look different ........if the restrike were on a work hardened brockage planchet. But a mint employee would know to ****anneal**** the brockage planchet before recycling it.
Nice explanation but if that was the case, the letters on the rim would have been affected. They would look different than they do now.
Where metallurgical and numismatic knowledge seem to clash........
The letters on the rim would look different ........if the restrike were on a work hardened brockage planchet. But a mint employee would know to ****anneal**** the brockage planchet before recycling it.
OINK
ROTF HOWLING! This post gets my nomination for "BEST OF" the day. The ONLY posts that might have a chance to beat it are my several requests in this thread to see the overlay without the outline of the extra coin.
If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace.
@Insider2 "If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace."
I am not sure that you are qualified to say "back then" when back then was 1899. The Mint has always had to maintain high accounting standards regarding the high value material that they process into coinage. For them it is way easier for them to re-process a defective planchet than to "scrap it" and have to account for the very small amount of scrap generated by defective strikes. I would think this to be Standard Operating Procedure then, and I suspect it that way today.
BTW: please explain ROTF HOWLING........ this seems to be a language not known by baby Boomers (or pre).
Therefore, I hope you guys can brainstorm more and come up with a possible way this effect can occur when the coin was struck.
I wanted to believe the backwards image was on the die from day one. I just couldn't make it work....until I just realized...
If a coin-on-coin hit leaves a reverse image, then a completed die-on-die hit would do the same.
So, imagine if you will a die maker hard at work completing some dies. He drops one die onto another, leaving the impression of the lettering on the rim area of another die. If that "receiver" die is used to strike coins, you would get something like we see here.
Problems:
Looking at a picture of a die posted earlier, there doesn't really seem to be an extended rim on the die itself....
This would NOT explain the rim damage on the obverse of our coin, so we'd be forced to assume TWO different unrelated errors...or events.
Just thinkin'-thinkin'....
Added: (But hopefully not bumping the thread....)
Other problem:
Hitting die-on-die would require RAISING the letters on the die in order to create incuse letters on a coin. Seems to me that would be MUCH more difficult, and require much more force, than just striking incuse letters via coin-on-coin...
It would need to be a heated working die hitting another cooler working die to create the raised letters which would ultimately stamp incused letters on the rim of the coin.
The scenario how this could occur, if the dies are stacked 2-3-4 high in a crate and the crate was accidently dropped onto a concrete floor causing the dies to clash a bit due to a hard impact. Or perhaps a separator/spacer/die cap to protect the dies were omitted/not in place between the dies properly.
And I imagine the very first coins stamped with new dies are inspected and this flaw was spotted right away preventing mass production of an error.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@OldIndianNutKase said: @Insider2 "If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace."
I am not sure that you are qualified to say "back then" when back then was 1899. The Mint has always had to maintain high accounting standards regarding the high value material that they process into coinage. For them it is way easier for them to re-process a defective planchet than to "scrap it" and have to account for the very small amount of scrap generated by defective strikes. I would think this to be Standard Operating Procedure then, and I suspect it that way today.
BTW: please explain ROTF HOWLING........ this seems to be a language not known by baby Boomers (or pre).
Nice explanation but if that was the case, the letters on the rim would have been affected. They would look different than they do now.
Where metallurgical and numismatic knowledge seem to clash........
The letters on the rim would look different ........if the restrike were on a work hardened brockage planchet. But a mint employee would know to ****anneal**** the brockage planchet before recycling it.
OINK
ROTF HOWLING! This post gets my nomination for "BEST OF" the day. The ONLY posts that might have a chance to beat it are my several requests in this thread to see the overlay without the outline of the extra coin.
If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace.
To be fair, even though I don't agree with OINK's thesis, what happened to a single planchet 120 years ago can't be known so definitively. Even if standard practice was to melt down mistakes, you can't know that one press operator didn't recycle a single planchet 120 years ago.
This is a very interesting discussion. It got better when I discovered there is an "Ignore" button. Now, could y'all please stop quoting one another so the Ignore functionality is more effective?
@OldIndianNutKase said: @Insider2 "If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace."
I am not sure that you are qualified to say "back then" when back then was 1899. The Mint has always had to maintain high accounting standards regarding the high value material that they process into coinage. For them it is way easier for them to re-process a defective planchet than to "scrap it" and have to account for the very small amount of scrap generated by defective strikes. I would think this to be Standard Operating Procedure then, and I suspect it that way today.
BTW: please explain ROTF HOWLING........ this seems to be a language not known by baby Boomers (or pre).
OINK
You are 100% correct about ONE thing - I was not there.
However, I have been there several times in my lifetime - before the horizontal pressed and the machinery was incased.
Now the place looks like you can eat off the floor. Anyway, from what I've seen in buckets, and on the floor around the old presses, I'd put a gun to my head and say conditions were much worse in 1899. That mythical planchet did not go back into the press!
I'm learning the new shorthand also. ROTF = Roll on the floor.
PS You know what a riddler is and what it was used for. Do you actually think someone accounts for all the scrap dimes and quarters EXCEPT POSSIBLY by weight (o make your argument) - I don't believe it. ROTFH.
@OldIndianNutKase said: @Insider2 "If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace."
I am not sure that you are qualified to say "back then" when back then was 1899. The Mint has always had to maintain high accounting standards regarding the high value material that they process into coinage. For them it is way easier for them to re-process a defective planchet than to "scrap it" and have to account for the very small amount of scrap generated by defective strikes. I would think this to be Standard Operating Procedure then, and I suspect it that way today.
BTW: please explain ROTF HOWLING........ this seems to be a language not known by baby Boomers (or pre).
OINK
You are 100% correct about ONE thing - I was not there.
However, I have been there several times in my lifetime - before the horizontal pressed and the machinery was incased.
Now the place looks like you can eat off the floor. Anyway, from what I've seen in buckets, and on the floor around the old presses, I'd put a gun to my head and say conditions were much worse in 1899.
I'm learning the new shorthand also. ROTF = Roll on the floor.
PS You know what a riddler is and what it was used for. Do you actually think someone accounts for all the scrap dimes and quarters EXCEPT POSSIBLY by weight (o make your argument) - I don't believe it. ROTFH.
In answer to the first part of your PS - Yes, a foe of Batman’s.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@OldIndianNutKase said: @Insider2 "If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace."
I am not sure that you are qualified to say "back then" when back then was 1899. The Mint has always had to maintain high accounting standards regarding the high value material that they process into coinage. For them it is way easier for them to re-process a defective planchet than to "scrap it" and have to account for the very small amount of scrap generated by defective strikes. I would think this to be Standard Operating Procedure then, and I suspect it that way today.
BTW: please explain ROTF HOWLING........ this seems to be a language not known by baby Boomers (or pre).
OINK
You are 100% correct about ONE thing - I was not there.
However, I have been there several times in my lifetime - before the horizontal pressed and the machinery was incased.
Now the place looks like you can eat off the floor. Anyway, from what I've seen in buckets, and on the floor around the old presses, I'd put a gun to my head and say conditions were much worse in 1899. That mythical planchet did not go back into the press!
I'm learning the new shorthand also. ROTF = Roll on the floor.
PS You know what a riddler is and what it was used for. Do you actually think someone accounts for all the scrap dimes and quarters EXCEPT POSSIBLY by weight (o make your argument) - I don't believe it. ROTFH.
But aren't we still stuck in the same purgatory?
It can't have been made that way in the press.
It can't have been made that way in a vice.
That leads to only one reasonable conclusion: THE COIN DOES NOT EXIST!
@OldIndianNutKase said: @Insider2 "If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace."
I am not sure that you are qualified to say "back then" when back then was 1899. The Mint has always had to maintain high accounting standards regarding the high value material that they process into coinage. For them it is way easier for them to re-process a defective planchet than to "scrap it" and have to account for the very small amount of scrap generated by defective strikes. I would think this to be Standard Operating Procedure then, and I suspect it that way today.
BTW: please explain ROTF HOWLING........ this seems to be a language not known by baby Boomers (or pre).
OINK
You are 100% correct about ONE thing - I was not there.
However, I have been there several times in my lifetime - before the horizontal pressed and the machinery was incased.
Now the place looks like you can eat off the floor. Anyway, from what I've seen in buckets, and on the floor around the old presses, I'd put a gun to my head and say conditions were much worse in 1899.
I'm learning the new shorthand also. ROTF = Roll on the floor.
PS You know what a riddler is and what it was used for. Do you actually think someone accounts for all the scrap dimes and quarters EXCEPT POSSIBLY by weight (o make your argument) - I don't believe it. ROTFH.
In answer to the first part of your PS - Yes, a foe of Batman’s.
Riddle me this, CoinMan. What is double-struck yet not double-struck? What has post-mint damage but is undamaged?
@OldIndianNutKase said: @Insider2 "If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace."
I am not sure that you are qualified to say "back then" when back then was 1899. The Mint has always had to maintain high accounting standards regarding the high value material that they process into coinage. For them it is way easier for them to re-process a defective planchet than to "scrap it" and have to account for the very small amount of scrap generated by defective strikes. I would think this to be Standard Operating Procedure then, and I suspect it that way today.
BTW: please explain ROTF HOWLING........ this seems to be a language not known by baby Boomers (or pre).
OINK
You are 100% correct about ONE thing - I was not there.
However, I have been there several times in my lifetime - before the horizontal pressed and the machinery was incased.
Now the place looks like you can eat off the floor. Anyway, from what I've seen in buckets, and on the floor around the old presses, I'd put a gun to my head and say conditions were much worse in 1899.
I'm learning the new shorthand also. ROTF = Roll on the floor.
PS You know what a riddler is and what it was used for. Do you actually think someone accounts for all the scrap dimes and quarters EXCEPT POSSIBLY by weight (o make your argument) - I don't believe it. ROTFH.
In answer to the first part of your PS - Yes, a foe of Batman’s.
Riddle me this, CoinMan. What is double-struck yet not double-struck? What has post-mint damage but is undamaged?
Probably no coins. Which is why I’m perfectly content not to opine and to wait to hear what others think, upon examining the coin in hand.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@OldIndianNutKase said: @Insider2 "If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace."
I am not sure that you are qualified to say "back then" when back then was 1899. The Mint has always had to maintain high accounting standards regarding the high value material that they process into coinage. For them it is way easier for them to re-process a defective planchet than to "scrap it" and have to account for the very small amount of scrap generated by defective strikes. I would think this to be Standard Operating Procedure then, and I suspect it that way today.
BTW: please explain ROTF HOWLING........ this seems to be a language not known by baby Boomers (or pre).
OINK
You are 100% correct about ONE thing - I was not there.
However, I have been there several times in my lifetime - before the horizontal pressed and the machinery was incased.
Now the place looks like you can eat off the floor. Anyway, from what I've seen in buckets, and on the floor around the old presses, I'd put a gun to my head and say conditions were much worse in 1899.
I'm learning the new shorthand also. ROTF = Roll on the floor.
PS You know what a riddler is and what it was used for. Do you actually think someone accounts for all the scrap dimes and quarters EXCEPT POSSIBLY by weight (o make your argument) - I don't believe it. ROTFH.
In answer to the first part of your PS - Yes, a foe of Batman’s.
Riddle me this, CoinMan. What is double-struck yet not double-struck? What has post-mint damage but is undamaged?
Probably no coins. Which is why I’m perfectly content not to opine and to wait to hear what others think, upon examining the coin in hand.
What fun is that? The day is almost over and neither @Insider2 not @ColonelJessup have called me a moron. I feel oddly unfulfilled.
@OldIndianNutKase said: @Insider2 "If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace."
I am not sure that you are qualified to say "back then" when back then was 1899. The Mint has always had to maintain high accounting standards regarding the high value material that they process into coinage. For them it is way easier for them to re-process a defective planchet than to "scrap it" and have to account for the very small amount of scrap generated by defective strikes. I would think this to be Standard Operating Procedure then, and I suspect it that way today.
BTW: please explain ROTF HOWLING........ this seems to be a language not known by baby Boomers (or pre).
OINK
You are 100% correct about ONE thing - I was not there.
However, I have been there several times in my lifetime - before the horizontal pressed and the machinery was incased.
Now the place looks like you can eat off the floor. Anyway, from what I've seen in buckets, and on the floor around the old presses, I'd put a gun to my head and say conditions were much worse in 1899.
I'm learning the new shorthand also. ROTF = Roll on the floor.
PS You know what a riddler is and what it was used for. Do you actually think someone accounts for all the scrap dimes and quarters EXCEPT POSSIBLY by weight (o make your argument) - I don't believe it. ROTFH.
In answer to the first part of your PS - Yes, a foe of Batman’s.
Riddle me this, CoinMan. What is double-struck yet not double-struck? What has post-mint damage but is undamaged?
Probably no coins. Which is why I’m perfectly content not to opine and to wait to hear what others think, upon examining the coin in hand.
What fun is that? The day is almost over and neither @Insider2 not @ColonelJessup have called me a moron. I feel oddly unfulfilled.
Do PM’s sent by the two of them to hundreds of forum members count?
Just kidding, of course.😈
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@OldIndianNutKase said: @Insider2 "If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace."
I am not sure that you are qualified to say "back then" when back then was 1899. The Mint has always had to maintain high accounting standards regarding the high value material that they process into coinage. For them it is way easier for them to re-process a defective planchet than to "scrap it" and have to account for the very small amount of scrap generated by defective strikes. I would think this to be Standard Operating Procedure then, and I suspect it that way today.
BTW: please explain ROTF HOWLING........ this seems to be a language not known by baby Boomers (or pre).
OINK
You are 100% correct about ONE thing - I was not there.
However, I have been there several times in my lifetime - before the horizontal pressed and the machinery was incased.
Now the place looks like you can eat off the floor. Anyway, from what I've seen in buckets, and on the floor around the old presses, I'd put a gun to my head and say conditions were much worse in 1899.
I'm learning the new shorthand also. ROTF = Roll on the floor.
PS You know what a riddler is and what it was used for. Do you actually think someone accounts for all the scrap dimes and quarters EXCEPT POSSIBLY by weight (o make your argument) - I don't believe it. ROTFH.
In answer to the first part of your PS - Yes, a foe of Batman’s.
Riddle me this, CoinMan. What is double-struck yet not double-struck? What has post-mint damage but is undamaged?
Probably no coins. Which is why I’m perfectly content not to opine and to wait to hear what others think, upon examining the coin in hand.
What fun is that? The day is almost over and neither @Insider2 not @ColonelJessup have called me a moron. I feel oddly unfulfilled.
Do PM’s sent by the two of them to hundreds of forum members count?
Just kidding, of course.😈
LOL! That explains it. I've been secretly disrespected today. I feel better. Now I can sleep!
@leothelyon said:
I have another theory......perhaps it happened when they were making the working dies...……..
Leo
How? The lettering is reversed, remember.
On a working die, the image is backwards and incused. After stamping a coin blank, the image is forward and correct with raised devices. If one die makes an impression on another die, in this instance, raised letters on the edge/rim will appear in forward position on the second die.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Do PM’s sent by the two of them to hundreds of forum members count?
Just kidding, of course.😈
I wish I could kid about that
With a maximum of 50 recipients of any PM, that was a lot of work.
One (actually the only) response suggested I might look elsewhere unless if I wanted to crowd-source a message saying "Here's a quarter. Call someone who cares"
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@leothelyon said:
I have another theory......perhaps it happened when they were making the working dies...……..
Leo
How? The lettering is reversed, remember.
On a working die, the image is backwards and incused. After stamping a coin blank, the image is forward and correct with raised devices. If one die makes an impression on another die, in this instance, raised letters on the edge/rim will appear in forward position on the second die.
So you think that accidental passive transfer on a hardened die is easier than on a coin itself?
@leothelyon said:
I have another theory......perhaps it happened when they were making the working dies...……..
Leo
How? The lettering is reversed, remember.
On a working die, the image is backwards and incused. After stamping a coin blank, the image is forward and correct with raised devices. If one die makes an impression on another die, in this instance, raised letters on the edge/rim will appear in forward position on the second die.
So you think that accidental passive transfer on a hardened die is easier than on a coin itself?
I should think that the only way to put those partial letters on a die would be when it was still soft and a hub was used. Ah, it's best not to use the word "never" BUT....
Incuse letters rim;
Who can account for this thing?
Wise men do not try.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The die alignment set-up for this 1899-O dollar was well out of seen tolerances, and resulted in a misaligned die strike. There are other Morgan dollars attributed as misaligned die errors by TPG's, with out of tolerance alignment no more severe than the OP coin. Misaligned die errors occur when the anvil die (usually) is centered, and the hammer die is off-center, and causes issues with collar dies. I have collected these in other series.
Other 1899-O dollar errors include a struck through debris error in GC archives, and other off-center and misaligned errors. Clearly, the New Orleans Mint had dollar die set-up and striking issues in 1899, which did result in out of collar and off-center strikes, misaligned die strikes, and possibly brockages.
The OP 1899-O dollar also has a very large obverse rim void at 5:00 to 6:00, that happens to be in the apex of the obverse die misalignment, and may or may not be linked to the opposite side incuse letters. Metallurgy 101 explains that because metals have a dense lattice structure of atoms, there is very little, nearly immeasurable, compression. Therefore any deformation of metal will displace other metal within a structure by the path of least resistance. With a large rim dent, the path the metal takes is to deform the denticles, and raise the level of the adjacent field - none of this is seen on the coin.
The only thing very unusual about this coin is the DEPTH of the letters.
With just a plan view available, it is also difficult to discern how high the rim is above the dentilcles. If the rim is higher, PMD could cause the incuse letters, but the pressure from the depth of the letters would cause deformation somewhere else on the coin, which is mostly free of bag marks. If the rim is equal or lower than the denticles, PMD would be less believable, and the second strike after an off-center brockage is a possibility, considering the problems the New Orleans Mint had in striking dollars during 1899.
The 1899-O dollar is technically a misaligned die strike. What PCGS determines about the cause of the incuse letters will be interesting.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Just noticed this thread as unread, Have no patience to read thru 10 pages, can someone please tell me in a nutshell what the issue is here with CAC, just reading last 2 comments I get we dealing with Serengeti animals here right?
@marcmoish said:
Just noticed this thread as unread, Have no patience to read thru 10 pages, can someone please tell me in a nutshell what the issue is here with CAC, just reading last 2 comments I get we dealing with Serengeti animals here right?
The thread is less about CAC and more about how the incuse lettering on the rim of the OP's coin came into existence. It was either a mint error or PMD, and the coin is on its way back to PCGS for further assessment.
Comments
I think the only reason JA raised an eyebrow is because the letters looked struck. We await Fred's opinion in the New Year!
I recommend everyone get a hammer and start banging away until you reproduce the effect.
Absolutely not! > @OldIndianNutKase said:
Nice explanation but if that was the case, the letters on the rim would have been affected. They would look different than they do now.
Davideo,
I like your
teaching method! 
It works.
There are two posted images shown.
ALL I 
WANTED TO SEE is the one on the left with the rest of the coin (the dark overlay) added. I don't want to see the one on the right with THREE RIMS showing. They are::
1.The one at the top (formerly covered by a blue line. The one I was instructed to ignore.
2. & 3. The actual overlay.
We already have Fred's opinion. The only difference is that now somebody is going to throw good money after bad paying for it.
It's only the price of shipping. They are looking for free. And Fred hasn't seen it in hand. It looked unusual enough to JA that he reached out to discuss it with the owner.
I wanted to believe the backwards image was on the die from day one. I just couldn't make it work....until I just realized...
If a coin-on-coin hit leaves a reverse image, then a completed die-on-die hit would do the same.
So, imagine if you will a die maker hard at work completing some dies. He drops one die onto another, leaving the impression of the lettering on the rim area of another die. If that "receiver" die is used to strike coins, you would get something like we see here.
Problems:
Just thinkin'-thinkin'....
Added: (But hopefully not bumping the thread....)
Other problem:
at the end of my day, I still believe it to be PMD, just like those Sacagawea mules of our modern era. No damage at all , except to the integrity of coin makers. Premeditated Mint Design. Oh, it's some kind of damage, but it's the stuff I like. CAC or not. PCGS or not. It's good to see them escape and not be confiscated. What I believe is that a mint employee had some time to play.
wouldn't there be thousands made then? shouldn't more be found by now?
I could believe that EXCEPT...
Much of the time, none of these are even close to this one. For example, two star impressions on the rim of a Saint.
Hang in and I'll fine several micrographs of these on different coin types. IMO, the ONLY possibility of this being man made at the mint when the coin was struck is the dept of the letters and I cannot think of how it could be done - even if I were given the "run" of the Mint.
This coin reminds me of one of Shakespeare's plays.
I want to know Dann Carr's opinion, as well as Colonel Jessup and Mr Eureka, too.
Give me an SEM and a 500x image of the surface texture(s) inside those Nazco anomalies and I'll have a better-based numismatic opinion.
I, old and blind,
and JA,
not far behind,
are eagerly inclined
towards WTF !! and cool.
Also Sprach faux Colonel asking
and, perhaps,
false
Deity
"Pray, what rhymes with
NEVERMORE?"
BURMA-SHAVE
NON-SEQUITOR
But Fred's mama
didn't raise no fool
edited to add: I miss Bear
In terms of market acceptability, it's likely more interesting and valuable than a cockroach to but a few
If so, then why do we only see a small amount of the pressing coin impressed onto the coin in question? I would want to see more evidence in different locations away from the limited impression made. Also, as JA told the OP, all of the surface evidence is inconsistent with PMD. So...........
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
I'm actually surprised @dcarr hasn't chimed in here!
Where metallurgical and numismatic knowledge seem to clash........
The letters on the rim would look different ........if the restrike were on a work hardened brockage planchet. But a mint employee would know to ****anneal**** the brockage planchet before recycling it.
OINK
ROTF HOWLING! This post gets my nomination for "BEST OF" the day. The ONLY posts that might have a chance to beat it are my several requests in this thread to see the overlay without the outline of the extra coin.
If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace.
Maybe we can call in an NFL replay official.
There was less drama authenticating the Walton 1913 nickel
@Insider2 "If anyone else thinks a press operator is going to.... LOL. That "mythical planchet" would be considered just WASTE JUNK. Back then, they had a place to throw this scrap into and it was not the annealing furnace."
I am not sure that you are qualified to say "back then" when back then was 1899. The Mint has always had to maintain high accounting standards regarding the high value material that they process into coinage. For them it is way easier for them to re-process a defective planchet than to "scrap it" and have to account for the very small amount of scrap generated by defective strikes. I would think this to be Standard Operating Procedure then, and I suspect it that way today.
BTW: please explain ROTF HOWLING........ this seems to be a language not known by baby Boomers (or pre).
OINK
It would need to be a heated working die hitting another cooler working die to create the raised letters which would ultimately stamp incused letters on the rim of the coin.
The scenario how this could occur, if the dies are stacked 2-3-4 high in a crate and the crate was accidently dropped onto a concrete floor causing the dies to clash a bit due to a hard impact. Or perhaps a separator/spacer/die cap to protect the dies were omitted/not in place between the dies properly.
And I imagine the very first coins stamped with new dies are inspected and this flaw was spotted right away preventing mass production of an error.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Yes, but it took 40 years
ROTF = Rolling on the floor
To be fair, even though I don't agree with OINK's thesis, what happened to a single planchet 120 years ago can't be known so definitively. Even if standard practice was to melt down mistakes, you can't know that one press operator didn't recycle a single planchet 120 years ago.
We are on pace...
Well, at this rate, it will take longer than that for some participants to finish making their points.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm not sure my psyche will survive being laughed at and called ignorant for 15,000 consecutive days.
It WILL happen and you WILL survive.😈
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Best option here is that the OP cracks out the Morgan and drops it in a Salvation Army kettle.
It is probably worth 5 turkey dinners.
Some folding money is a good idea too.
This is a very interesting discussion. It got better when I discovered there is an "Ignore" button. Now, could y'all please stop quoting one another so the Ignore functionality is more effective?
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
You are 100% correct about ONE thing - I was not there.
However, I have been there several times in my lifetime - before the horizontal pressed and the machinery was incased.
Now the place looks like you can eat off the floor. Anyway, from what I've seen in buckets, and on the floor around the old presses, I'd put a gun to my head and say conditions were much worse in 1899. That mythical planchet did not go back into the press!
I'm learning the new shorthand also. ROTF = Roll on the floor.
PS You know what a riddler is and what it was used for. Do you actually think someone accounts for all the scrap dimes and quarters EXCEPT POSSIBLY by weight (o make your argument) - I don't believe it. ROTFH.
In answer to the first part of your PS - Yes, a foe of Batman’s.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But aren't we still stuck in the same purgatory?
That leads to only one reasonable conclusion: THE COIN DOES NOT EXIST!
Riddle me this, CoinMan. What is double-struck yet not double-struck? What has post-mint damage but is undamaged?
@jmlanzaf said: "It can't have been made that way in the press. It can't have been made that way in a vice."
Finally, someone has distilled it all down and we may be getting somewhere.
Probably no coins. Which is why I’m perfectly content not to opine and to wait to hear what others think, upon examining the coin in hand.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What fun is that? The day is almost over and neither @Insider2 not @ColonelJessup have called me a moron. I feel oddly unfulfilled.
Do PM’s sent by the two of them to hundreds of forum members count?
Just kidding, of course.😈
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
LOL! That explains it. I've been secretly disrespected today. I feel better. Now I can sleep!
The world waits hushed..
With a sugar plum vision..
No, not for Santa..
But a grading decision.
Burma Shave!
On a working die, the image is backwards and incused. After stamping a coin blank, the image is forward and correct with raised devices. If one die makes an impression on another die, in this instance, raised letters on the edge/rim will appear in forward position on the second die.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I wish I could kid about that
With a maximum of 50 recipients of any PM, that was a lot of work.
One (actually the only) response suggested I might look elsewhere unless if I wanted to crowd-source a message saying "Here's a quarter. Call someone who cares"
So you think that accidental passive transfer on a hardened die is easier than on a coin itself?
I should think that the only way to put those partial letters on a die would be when it was still soft and a hub was used. Ah, it's best not to use the word "never" BUT....
Incuse letters rim;
Who can account for this thing?
Wise men do not try.
The die alignment set-up for this 1899-O dollar was well out of seen tolerances, and resulted in a misaligned die strike. There are other Morgan dollars attributed as misaligned die errors by TPG's, with out of tolerance alignment no more severe than the OP coin. Misaligned die errors occur when the anvil die (usually) is centered, and the hammer die is off-center, and causes issues with collar dies. I have collected these in other series.
I searched for other misaligned dies in the Morgan dollar series, the first to come up was another 1899-O dollar, with the same orientation as this coin, on a CoinTalk Forum thread: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1899-o-morgan-misaligned-obv-die.339520/
There is currently a broadstruck out of collar 1899-O on eBay, which is also off-center: https://www.ebay.com/itm/1899-O-MORGAN-SILVER-DOLLAR-BROADSTRUCK-OUT-OF-COLLAR-MINT-ERROR-AU-UNC/382359609588?hash=item590668a0f4:g:LeUAAOSw-rxb~q~m
Other 1899-O dollar errors include a struck through debris error in GC archives, and other off-center and misaligned errors. Clearly, the New Orleans Mint had dollar die set-up and striking issues in 1899, which did result in out of collar and off-center strikes, misaligned die strikes, and possibly brockages.
The OP 1899-O dollar also has a very large obverse rim void at 5:00 to 6:00, that happens to be in the apex of the obverse die misalignment, and may or may not be linked to the opposite side incuse letters. Metallurgy 101 explains that because metals have a dense lattice structure of atoms, there is very little, nearly immeasurable, compression. Therefore any deformation of metal will displace other metal within a structure by the path of least resistance. With a large rim dent, the path the metal takes is to deform the denticles, and raise the level of the adjacent field - none of this is seen on the coin.
@Insider2 said:
With just a plan view available, it is also difficult to discern how high the rim is above the dentilcles. If the rim is higher, PMD could cause the incuse letters, but the pressure from the depth of the letters would cause deformation somewhere else on the coin, which is mostly free of bag marks. If the rim is equal or lower than the denticles, PMD would be less believable, and the second strike after an off-center brockage is a possibility, considering the problems the New Orleans Mint had in striking dollars during 1899.
The 1899-O dollar is technically a misaligned die strike. What PCGS determines about the cause of the incuse letters will be interesting.
Here is wisdom: "When you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras!"
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
It depends where you are. If in Africa, I’d think zebras, not horses.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I have pursued zebra, on horseback, in Africa, and it was an interesting experience. I don't recall the sounds though......
Just noticed this thread as unread, Have no patience to read thru 10 pages, can someone please tell me in a nutshell what the issue is here with CAC, just reading last 2 comments I get we dealing with Serengeti animals here right?
The thread is less about CAC and more about how the incuse lettering on the rim of the OP's coin came into existence. It was either a mint error or PMD, and the coin is on its way back to PCGS for further assessment.
Thank you!!
500!!!!