There is a very real possibility that a number of experts won't reach a consensus. If that happens, the easiest thing for our hosts to do is leave it how it is. It might be impossible to know exactly what happened.
@Nysoto said:
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.
Thanks for all the research you have provided. Unfortunately, I see nothing in your post related to anything we find on the OP's coin. Therefore my opinion has not been changed. It is not off-center, misaligned, broad struck, clashed, damaged, struck on a defective planchet, or a blockage strike. I probably forgot some things too.
@BryceM said:
There is a very real possibility that a number of experts won't reach a consensus. If that happens, the easiest thing for our hosts to do is leave it how it is. It might be impossible to know exactly what happened.
@BryceM said:
There is a very real possibility that a number of experts won't reach a consensus. If that happens, the easiest thing for our hosts to do is leave it how it is. It might be impossible to know exactly what happened.
The question is not that complex........is the OP's coin a mint error or is it PMD? Based upon testimony in this thread I am sure that no one who has posted could be considered to determine the question because none have intimate knowledge of Mint operating procedures in 1899 in the New Orleans Mint. But if this happened in the Mint we now that the incuse letters in the rim of the OP's coin could only have been formed with a Hub or another coin as they have positive features to be able to create an incuse image. To validate this belief we our expert should be at least a Mint production supervisor and not a coin grader or dealer. Dan Carr might be considered an expert as to creating incuse letters in a coinage press.
And for those in the PMD camp, just about anyone on this forum who can replicate these incuse letters formed into the OP's coin, can also verify the amount of force that it took to create the incused letters, assuming that another coin was used for the impression. Expert opinion means nothing to prove PMD. PMD needs to be replicated and the force required to replicate it needs to be verified. Knowing the force required to displace the metal would provide insight into the method of the PMD.
I hope that the OP deserves the benefit of doubt given that coin graders and coin dealers do not have the forensic ability to back their "expert" opinion.
The obverse die was misaligned relative to the reverse die, resulting in a misaligned die coin. Whether a TPG wants to label it as such, we will see. The misalignment may or may not be linked to the incuse letters.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@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?
@BryceM said:
There is a very real possibility that a number of experts won't reach a consensus. If that happens, the easiest thing for our hosts to do is leave it how it is. It might be impossible to know exactly what happened.
The question is not that complex........is the OP's coin a mint error or is it PMD? Based upon testimony in this thread I am sure that no one who has posted could be considered to determine the question because none have intimate knowledge of Mint operating procedures in 1899 in the New Orleans Mint. But if this happened in the Mint we now that the incuse letters in the rim of the OP's coin could only have been formed with a Hub or another coin as they have positive features to be able to create an incuse image. To validate this belief we our expert should be at least a Mint production supervisor and not a coin grader or dealer. Dan Carr might be considered an expert as to creating incuse letters in a coinage press.
And for those in the PMD camp, just about anyone on this forum who can replicate these incuse letters formed into the OP's coin, can also verify the amount of force that it took to create the incused letters, assuming that another coin was used for the impression. Expert opinion means nothing to prove PMD. PMD needs to be replicated and the force required to replicate it needs to be verified. Knowing the force required to displace the metal would provide insight into the method of the PMD.
I hope that the OP deserves the benefit of doubt given that coin graders and coin dealers do not have the forensic ability to back their "expert" opinion.
OINK
Working hubs or dies go through an annealing process to make the metal softer before they receive a stamp from a cold hardened die or hub. A die maker on the line could have simply gathered two dies up into one hand, images facing each other, one hot, one cold and rapped the two dies together on top of a metal table in an effort to gain control of the two dies in his hand as they are moved/handled/packed...….
But I also would think dies are protected with die caps to help prevent any damage that they might receive from accidental or careless handling.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
I have no doubt that once Fred has the coin in hand he will be able to make an authoritative and decisive decision on it. That is why he is the Pro from Dover.
Over the years I have seen many examples of random coin damage that I would never have been able to duplicate, that is why we call it random, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS NOT RANDOM DAMAGE! Try to crack two eggs into a frying pan in the exact same shape!
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:
I have no doubt that once Fred has the coin in hand he will be able to make an authoritative and decisive decision on it. That is why he is the Pro from Dover.
Over the years I have seen many examples of random coin damage that I would never have been able to duplicate, that is why we call it random, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS NOT RANDOM DAMAGE! Try to crack two eggs into a frying pan in the exact same shape!
The obverse die was misaligned relative to the reverse die, resulting in a misaligned die coin. Whether a TPG wants to label it as such, we will see. The misalignment may or may not be linked to the incuse letters.
You got me...the rims on the OP's coin look aligned correctly.
@CaptHenway said:
I have no doubt that once Fred has the coin in hand he will be able to make an authoritative and decisive decision on it. That is why he is the Pro from Dover.
Over the years I have seen many examples of random coin damage that I would never have been able to duplicate, that is why we call it random, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS NOT RANDOM DAMAGE! Try to crack two eggs into a frying pan in the exact same shape!
@CaptHenway said:
I have no doubt that once Fred has the coin in hand he will be able to make an authoritative and decisive decision on it. That is why he is the Pro from Dover.
Over the years I have seen many examples of random coin damage that I would never have been able to duplicate, that is why we call it random, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS NOT RANDOM DAMAGE! Try to crack two eggs into a frying pan in the exact same shape!
Easy. Use hard-boiled eggs.
Won't work for several reasons..
pshaw. Next your going to tell me that two square watermelons aren't the same shape...
@leothelyon said: "But I also would think dies are protected with die caps to help prevent any damage that they might receive from accidental or careless handling."
The dies do not have caps now SO they probably did not in 1899 either. IMO, the letters on that rim took some degree of force to make. Furthermore, the hubs are not around the coin presses.
With all the stories posted I'll agree that in theory, this die could have been made on purpose at the Mint on a "lark." It is the kind of thing I would probably be tempted to do. For example, many of our coins would have all kinds of "Insider's dots" on them.
The obverse die was misaligned relative to the reverse die, resulting in a misaligned die coin. Whether a TPG wants to label it as such, we will see. The misalignment may or may not be linked to the incuse letters.
You got me...the rims on the OP's coin look aligned correctly.
Yes, neither die is misaligned, so I have no idea what he is talking about.
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.
I have to say that this is one interesting thread and I’m curious how it will turn out. I don’t know if it is damage or not but I personally wouldn’t mind having a coin like that.
I am still in the random PMD camp. I re-did the pictures to show side by side with the obverse showing what is on the direct other side of the reverse. Opposite of the letters is where the rim is flattened. I can not tell if the dollar is still round or flattened out there. If it is pushed out at all with reeding , it must be PMD.
This is exactly the second thing I did by flipping a Morgan dollar to see if the obverse edge lined up with the letters on the rim.
@BAJJERFAN said: "Why is everyone ignoring the rim damage on the obverse below the 1899? Does that have anything to do with the reverse issue?"
This was posted on page #2
@GoldenEgg said: "The design rim is damaged on the opposite face of the incuse lettering. This is post strike damage."
This was posted on page#4
Rather than walk everyone through a progression of agreements (which was highjacked and criticized) I finally posted this hint: "The image is all that is needed. IMO, the flat rim under the date provides a very important point of interest."
We are finally talking about it. However, this "defect" did not change my opinion of the coin several pages ago or now on Christmas night when I posted:
"I have already posted my thoughts on that coin and I have absolutely no problem with it being straight graded with a green bean! So JA and I are in 100% agreement.
I've seen many examples of coins as this that were not considered to be "token damaged." I always considered this to be NOTHING either positive (mint error) or detrimental (contact with something). All my professional life I considered this characteristic to be incidental contact with another coin. "PMD" is a term that NEVER EXISTED most of my professional life!"
My mind is open. So far, nothing has been posted that is even close to convincing me this is a minting error. However, nothing has convinced me that this did not happen at the mint either. Perhaps a new category should exist to describe coins such as damaged broadstrikes and off-centers (mint errors). We could call the new category "Mint Caused Damage (MCD)"
This coin would make a very unusual and uncommon specimen of that characteristic!
FYI.... This coin was received by PCGS on 12/30, so it may be a bit. It was sent to the attn of Steven Feltner and I have not been in contact with him yet. I let him know it was within the walls. good news is they won't be busy dealing with increased submissions from the quarterly special.
@davids5104 said:
FYI.... This coin was received by PCGS on 12/30, so it may be a bit. It was sent to the attn of Steven Feltner and I have not been in contact with him yet. I let him know it was within the walls. good news is they won't be busy dealing with increased submissions from the quarterly special.
Those letters didn’t happen in a bag while sitting for 100 years
OriginalDan and I have kicked around a chop marked trade dollar that has evidence of multiple understikes.
Even though it is a genuine coin from a known die pair, in UNC preservation so limited funny stuff is possible and the chops are classic and mostly know chops that appear period and over some of the secondary Details.
The so called expert claimed “over struck with false dies” for the under strikes and claimed it not legit. When asked how that is possible he responded, I don’t have to know how they did it I just know I don’t like it.
If you proclaim to be an expert, one should not accept intellectually (and actually) lazy answers. No should have as much understanding as Yes.
@Crypto said:
Those letters didn’t happen in a bag while sitting for 100 years
OriginalDan and I have kicked around a chop marked trade dollar that has evidence of multiple understikes.
Even though it is a genuine coin from a known die pair, in UNC preservation so limited funny stuff is possible and the chops are classic and mostly know chops that appear period and over some of the secondary Details.
The so called expert claimed “over struck with false dies” for the under strikes and claimed it not legit. When asked how that is possible he responded, I don’t have to know how they did it I just know I don’t like it.
If you proclaim to be an expert, one should not accept intellectually (and actually) lazy answers. No should have as much understanding as Yes.
There are other coins as this one "floating around." A $20 Liberty comes to mind.
As for this comment: "If you proclaim to be an expert, one should not accept intellectually (and actually) lazy answers."
I have little faith in anyone who claims to be an expert in anything UNTIL they prove it to me over time. I've been severely disappointed by over a dozen "Ex-Perts" in my lifetime.
Now to your "lazy" comment. NUTS! When someone renders an opinion they can tell you why they reached it (if they choose) or sometimes they cannot. I'm not an expert but within two years of becoming a professional authenticator, I made the conscious decision not to stress out over How a counterfeit was made. It was not important to me at all. **What WAS important to me was to be able to tell a coin was a counterfeit!
@Crypto said:
Those letters didn’t happen in a bag while sitting for 100 years
OriginalDan and I have kicked around a chop marked trade dollar that has evidence of multiple understikes.
There are other coins as this one "floating around." A $20 Liberty comes to mind.
As for this comment: "If you proclaim to be an expert, one should not accept intellectually (and actually) lazy answers."
I have little faith in anyone who claims to be an expert in anything UNTIL they prove it to me over time. I've been severely disappointed by over a dozen "Ex-Perts" in my lifetime.
Now to your "lazy" comment. NUTS! When someone renders an opinion they can tell you why they reached it (if they choose) or sometimes they cannot. I'm not an expert but within two years of becoming a professional authenticator, I made the conscious decision not to stress out over How a counterfeit was made. It was not important to me at all. **What WAS important to me was to be able to tell a coin was a counterfeit!
I'm not sure he was referring to you specifically.
That said, your answer is a non sequitur. You don't need to know how a counterfeit is made to know it's a counterfeit, BUT you can't make the affirmative claim that an error COULD NOT HAPPEN at the Mint without explaining why not.
Geez I don’t like the looks of that Trade Dollar either.
Experts can only render their best opinion and that opinion does not have to be “it must be real because I can’t explain how it could have been faked”
If you proclaim to be an expert, one should not accept intellectually (and actually) lazy answers. No should have as much understanding as Yes.
Insider2 said:
Now, to your "lazy" comment. NUTS! When someone renders an opinion they can tell you why they reached it (if they choose) or sometimes they cannot. I'm not an expert but within two years of becoming a professional authenticator, I made the conscious decision not to stress out over How a counterfeit was made. It was not important to me at all. **What WAS important to me was to be able to tell a coin was a counterfeit!
It dawned on me this morning that my post defending an unknown coin authenticator indicates that I am that person. AFAIK, I am not; however, If I was the "lazy" person who made that comment, I hope you would understand it is not out of laziness!
Furthermore, I stand behind my opinion on any coin I examine. I can count the times my opinion has been proven to be wrong less than eight times. In that number, three were due to inattention - one of those corrected quickly when shown the coin a minute later for a closer look. I can also count more than twenty times when I was the only one to correctly identify a counterfeit coin (including two ancients) in spite of the strong resistance of others. So, If my name was attached to this TD please let us all know. I don't claim to be an expert.
PS Grading services have more than one coin authenticator on staff to keep all of us vigilant. I'll bet the best fun for an authenticator is to detect a fake that others have missed - either before it leaves the office or when it is being traded in the marketplace as a genuine coin! That's one reason getting a counterfeit coin past a group of authenticators is rare and when it happens the error is usually discovered quickly by other knowledgeable folks.
I’m just curious to find out the next stage in the saga. Heck, if the OP wants to sell the coin all they have to do is point to this thread to prove it is an interesting one.
@scubafuel said:
Geez I don’t like the looks of that Trade Dollar either.
Experts can only render their best opinion and that opinion does not have to be “it must be real because I can’t explain how it could have been faked”
I've spent many hours studying the Trade Dollar that Crypto posted above. The most interesting area is the "understrike" STA that runs up against UNITED on the reverse. Enlarged photo here:
The question here, similar to the OP coin, is how does one letter run right up to another with no damage to the top/last strike? In this case, how does half of an A land next to the U, without damaging the U. The decision rendered was "struck with false dies", so I'd really love to understand how that happens with false dies.
Another interesting tidbit...there's a die scratch that exists just below the U of UNITED on this reverse die. Since the picture above is rotated, the die scratch is seen to the left of the U. The die scratch remains, OVER the faint T understrike. I don't understand how possibly the T gets laid down with false dies, without mashing that die scratch. These details have been communicated to the expert(s), but have not yet been directly or specifically addressed.
I'd be happy to move this to it's own thread, but hey it gives us something to talk about while we wait on the OP coin.
How does something like this get graded with no note on the slab? As in some type of error? When you submit do you have to check an error type or do they just magically do it for you?
Did the price of the coin help it get slabbed? I guess I am confused how it got stabbed and no one can really explain what happened. 3 graders could not possibly miss the rim and letters.
My comment had nothing to do with you insider and sorry if it came off that way, I have no problem with people having dissenting technical opinions and engaging in debate if both sides are open to the other persons point. I think there are too many Morgan’s like that out there so either it was a storage and logistics issue or it was common as the ramped up production to throw errors back in the hopper. The previous seems more likely but the look says error. I see both sides on this one.
About the trade, nobody thinks it fake. They think the details are fake. Fair enough, but sure looks like the real details and chops are over the “fake details” and that logic circle blows my mind. No expert or otherwise has cared to (or could) respond or counter that question to me or any of the other advanced hobbiest that have studied it.
Note it came out of a PCGS MS62 Chop holder before study. That has proven to be a costly mistake
The Trade Dollar is a genuine coin with a false die overstrike.
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:
The Trade Dollar is a genuine coin with a false die overstrike.
Fair enough heard that before. But considering the top details are a known die pair with die scratches and what not that never make it to transfer dies. How can one overstrike details 3-4 times with up to 210 degrees of rotation without affecting the coin or chops?
No one would think the false dies came first right? If all that is true all one would need to do if prove that some of the good details were over/came after the “under detail” correct?
Comments
Heather's grandkids will be the ones responsible for banning them.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Ignored this thread for a few days and bang....
...341 unread posts.
Time to go... ☃️
I don't think Occam's razor helps here. I don't see an easy way to get this either with PMD or with a simple 2nd strike.
There is a very real possibility that a number of experts won't reach a consensus. If that happens, the easiest thing for our hosts to do is leave it how it is. It might be impossible to know exactly what happened.
Thanks for all the research you have provided. Unfortunately, I see nothing in your post related to anything we find on the OP's coin. Therefore my opinion has not been changed. It is not off-center, misaligned, broad struck, clashed, damaged, struck on a defective planchet, or a blockage strike. I probably forgot some things too.
I agree.
The question is not that complex........is the OP's coin a mint error or is it PMD? Based upon testimony in this thread I am sure that no one who has posted could be considered to determine the question because none have intimate knowledge of Mint operating procedures in 1899 in the New Orleans Mint. But if this happened in the Mint we now that the incuse letters in the rim of the OP's coin could only have been formed with a Hub or another coin as they have positive features to be able to create an incuse image. To validate this belief we our expert should be at least a Mint production supervisor and not a coin grader or dealer. Dan Carr might be considered an expert as to creating incuse letters in a coinage press.
And for those in the PMD camp, just about anyone on this forum who can replicate these incuse letters formed into the OP's coin, can also verify the amount of force that it took to create the incused letters, assuming that another coin was used for the impression. Expert opinion means nothing to prove PMD. PMD needs to be replicated and the force required to replicate it needs to be verified. Knowing the force required to displace the metal would provide insight into the method of the PMD.
I hope that the OP deserves the benefit of doubt given that coin graders and coin dealers do not have the forensic ability to back their "expert" opinion.
OINK
@Insider2 said:
The obverse die was misaligned relative to the reverse die, resulting in a misaligned die coin. Whether a TPG wants to label it as such, we will see. The misalignment may or may not be linked to the incuse letters.
Working hubs or dies go through an annealing process to make the metal softer before they receive a stamp from a cold hardened die or hub. A die maker on the line could have simply gathered two dies up into one hand, images facing each other, one hot, one cold and rapped the two dies together on top of a metal table in an effort to gain control of the two dies in his hand as they are moved/handled/packed...….
But I also would think dies are protected with die caps to help prevent any damage that they might receive from accidental or careless handling.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I have no doubt that once Fred has the coin in hand he will be able to make an authoritative and decisive decision on it. That is why he is the Pro from Dover.
Over the years I have seen many examples of random coin damage that I would never have been able to duplicate, that is why we call it random, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS NOT RANDOM DAMAGE! Try to crack two eggs into a frying pan in the exact same shape!
Easy. Use hard-boiled eggs.
very entertaining and enlightening thread
You got me...the rims on the OP's coin look aligned correctly.
Won't work for several reasons..
pshaw. Next your going to tell me that two square watermelons aren't the same shape...
@leothelyon said: "But I also would think dies are protected with die caps to help prevent any damage that they might receive from accidental or careless handling."
The dies do not have caps now SO they probably did not in 1899 either. IMO, the letters on that rim took some degree of force to make. Furthermore, the hubs are not around the coin presses.
With all the stories posted I'll agree that in theory, this die could have been made on purpose at the Mint on a "lark." It is the kind of thing I would probably be tempted to do. For example, many of our coins would have all kinds of "Insider's dots" on them.
Yes, neither die is misaligned, so I have no idea what he is talking about.
I have to say that this is one interesting thread and I’m curious how it will turn out. I don’t know if it is damage or not but I personally wouldn’t mind having a coin like that.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
This may help.
I am still in the random PMD camp. I re-did the pictures to show side by side with the obverse showing what is on the direct other side of the reverse. Opposite of the letters is where the rim is flattened. I can not tell if the dollar is still round or flattened out there. If it is pushed out at all with reeding , it must be PMD.
@davewesen posted:
This is exactly the second thing I did by flipping a Morgan dollar to see if the obverse edge lined up with the letters on the rim.
@BAJJERFAN said: "Why is everyone ignoring the rim damage on the obverse below the 1899? Does that have anything to do with the reverse issue?"
This was posted on page #2
@GoldenEgg said: "The design rim is damaged on the opposite face of the incuse lettering. This is post strike damage."
This was posted on page#4
Rather than walk everyone through a progression of agreements (which was highjacked and criticized) I finally posted this hint: "The image is all that is needed. IMO, the flat rim under the date provides a very important point of interest."
We are finally talking about it. However, this "defect" did not change my opinion of the coin several pages ago or now on Christmas night when I posted:
"I have already posted my thoughts on that coin and I have absolutely no problem with it being straight graded with a green bean! So JA and I are in 100% agreement.
I've seen many examples of coins as this that were not considered to be "token damaged." I always considered this to be NOTHING either positive (mint error) or detrimental (contact with something). All my professional life I considered this characteristic to be incidental contact with another coin. "PMD" is a term that NEVER EXISTED most of my professional life!"
My mind is open. So far, nothing has been posted that is even close to convincing me this is a minting error. However, nothing has convinced me that this did not happen at the mint either. Perhaps a new category should exist to describe coins such as damaged broadstrikes and off-centers (mint errors). We could call the new category "Mint Caused Damage (MCD)"
This coin would make a very unusual and uncommon specimen of that characteristic!
Guess we should have this thread on standby for a decision.
If "post mint damage" occurs within the walls of the mint...... is it really post mint damage?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Maybe we need to separate PPD (post-Press) from PMD (post-Mint).
It's post-mint in the context of the coining being minted, not the institution where it happened.
We need this thread stickied to the top.
What's one more?
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
Seems like I have awoken the sleeping giant.
Then I would call it "post strike damage" if it hadn't left the mint before the damage and have PMD start outside the door.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Well it certainly didn't occur prior to the coin being struck.
I didn't say before the coin is struck. I'm simply saying before it leaves the building. Like Elvis.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
That would then be after minting. PMD But moot point because it occurred well after leaving the building.
I'm just talking in general. Not necessarily this coin.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
FYI.... This coin was received by PCGS on 12/30, so it may be a bit. It was sent to the attn of Steven Feltner and I have not been in contact with him yet. I let him know it was within the walls. good news is they won't be busy dealing with increased submissions from the quarterly special.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Hope they can get this hammered out quick.
Those letters didn’t happen in a bag while sitting for 100 years
OriginalDan and I have kicked around a chop marked trade dollar that has evidence of multiple understikes.
Even though it is a genuine coin from a known die pair, in UNC preservation so limited funny stuff is possible and the chops are classic and mostly know chops that appear period and over some of the secondary Details.
The so called expert claimed “over struck with false dies” for the under strikes and claimed it not legit. When asked how that is possible he responded, I don’t have to know how they did it I just know I don’t like it.
If you proclaim to be an expert, one should not accept intellectually (and actually) lazy answers. No should have as much understanding as Yes.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
There are other coins as this one "floating around." A $20 Liberty comes to mind.
As for this comment: "If you proclaim to be an expert, one should not accept intellectually (and actually) lazy answers."
I have little faith in anyone who claims to be an expert in anything UNTIL they prove it to me over time. I've been severely disappointed by over a dozen "Ex-Perts" in my lifetime.
Now to your "lazy" comment. NUTS! When someone renders an opinion they can tell you why they reached it (if they choose) or sometimes they cannot. I'm not an expert but within two years of becoming a professional authenticator, I made the conscious decision not to stress out over How a counterfeit was made. It was not important to me at all. **What WAS important to me was to be able to tell a coin was a counterfeit!
I'm not sure he was referring to you specifically.
That said, your answer is a non sequitur. You don't need to know how a counterfeit is made to know it's a counterfeit, BUT you can't make the affirmative claim that an error COULD NOT HAPPEN at the Mint without explaining why not.
Geez I don’t like the looks of that Trade Dollar either.
Experts can only render their best opinion and that opinion does not have to be “it must be real because I can’t explain how it could have been faked”
It dawned on me this morning that my post defending an unknown coin authenticator indicates that I am that person. AFAIK, I am not; however, If I was the "lazy" person who made that comment, I hope you would understand it is not out of laziness!
Furthermore, I stand behind my opinion on any coin I examine. I can count the times my opinion has been proven to be wrong less than eight times. In that number, three were due to inattention - one of those corrected quickly when shown the coin a minute later for a closer look. I can also count more than twenty times when I was the only one to correctly identify a counterfeit coin (including two ancients) in spite of the strong resistance of others.
So, If my name was attached to this TD please let us all know. I don't claim to be an expert.
PS Grading services have more than one coin authenticator on staff to keep all of us vigilant. I'll bet the best fun for an authenticator is to detect a fake that others have missed - either before it leaves the office or when it is being traded in the marketplace as a genuine coin! That's one reason getting a counterfeit coin past a group of authenticators is rare and when it happens the error is usually discovered quickly by other knowledgeable folks.
I’m just curious to find out the next stage in the saga. Heck, if the OP wants to sell the coin all they have to do is point to this thread to prove it is an interesting one.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
What’s wrong with it?
I've spent many hours studying the Trade Dollar that Crypto posted above. The most interesting area is the "understrike" STA that runs up against UNITED on the reverse. Enlarged photo here:
The question here, similar to the OP coin, is how does one letter run right up to another with no damage to the top/last strike? In this case, how does half of an A land next to the U, without damaging the U. The decision rendered was "struck with false dies", so I'd really love to understand how that happens with false dies.
Another interesting tidbit...there's a die scratch that exists just below the U of UNITED on this reverse die. Since the picture above is rotated, the die scratch is seen to the left of the U. The die scratch remains, OVER the faint T understrike. I don't understand how possibly the T gets laid down with false dies, without mashing that die scratch. These details have been communicated to the expert(s), but have not yet been directly or specifically addressed.
I'd be happy to move this to it's own thread, but hey it gives us something to talk about while we wait on the OP coin.
I can't bring myself to read it either. So did the guy call JA? if not he should so we can put the thread to bed.
The things I don’t always agree with are always worth considering.
How does something like this get graded with no note on the slab? As in some type of error? When you submit do you have to check an error type or do they just magically do it for you?
Did the price of the coin help it get slabbed? I guess I am confused how it got stabbed and no one can really explain what happened. 3 graders could not possibly miss the rim and letters.
insider2
My comment had nothing to do with you insider and sorry if it came off that way, I have no problem with people having dissenting technical opinions and engaging in debate if both sides are open to the other persons point. I think there are too many Morgan’s like that out there so either it was a storage and logistics issue or it was common as the ramped up production to throw errors back in the hopper. The previous seems more likely but the look says error. I see both sides on this one.
About the trade, nobody thinks it fake. They think the details are fake. Fair enough, but sure looks like the real details and chops are over the “fake details” and that logic circle blows my mind. No expert or otherwise has cared to (or could) respond or counter that question to me or any of the other advanced hobbiest that have studied it.
Note it came out of a PCGS MS62 Chop holder before study. That has proven to be a costly mistake
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
The Trade Dollar is a genuine coin with a false die overstrike.
Fair enough heard that before. But considering the top details are a known die pair with die scratches and what not that never make it to transfer dies. How can one overstrike details 3-4 times with up to 210 degrees of rotation without affecting the coin or chops?
No one would think the false dies came first right? If all that is true all one would need to do if prove that some of the good details were over/came after the “under detail” correct?
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Heh. Two simple questions:
Why?
If so - why not more?
Yes he did