@fc said:
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?
I suspect that it would be treated as varieties are. You have to request variety attribution and pay extra to have that notation on the slab.
@fc said:
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.
It is NOT yet clear that this is some kind of error. That said, errors are only slabbed as such if you choose that tier for grading.
As for the current slab, IF the graders view it as an error, the error gets ignored unless you choose to have it slabbed as an error. IF the graders view it as contact transfer, which is likely the case here, it gets treated as a bag mark. In either case, it would simply straight grade, as it did.
I have a Booker T. with a minor strike through error. It is in a straight MS65 holder because it was not designated for error attribution and the error did not lower the overall grade below MS65.
@CaptHenway said:
The Trade Dollar is a genuine coin with a false die overstrike.
Heh. Two simple questions:
Why?
If so - why not more?
Have seen many false die overstrikes over the years. One of the more common forms of it is when a strip of metal is folded over, a coin is inserted into the wedge of the fold and then squeezed via whatever mechanical means, and the edge of the coin closest to the fold is impressed into the two sides of the folded strip. That coin, or a different coin, is then put between the impressions in the strip of metal and squeezed again, weakly embossing part of the coin up into those impressions.
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.
@fc said:
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?
The grading room remarks from it's previous grading session would've been interesting to hear.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@CaptHenway said:
The Trade Dollar is a genuine coin with a false die overstrike.
Heh. Two simple questions:
Why?
If so - why not more?
Have seen many false die overstrikes over the years. One of the more common forms of it is when a strip of metal is folded over, a coin is inserted into the wedge of the fold and then squeezed via whatever mechanical means, and the edge of the coin closest to the fold is impressed into the two sides of the folded strip. That coin, or a different coin, is then put between the impressions in the strip of metal and squeezed again, weakly embossing part of the coin up into those impressions.
But due to the location and arc of the area in question, would that have been difficult to pull off in this case?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@CaptHenway said:
The Trade Dollar is a genuine coin with a false die overstrike.
Heh. Two simple questions:
Why?
If so - why not more?
Have seen many false die overstrikes over the years. One of the more common forms of it is when a strip of metal is folded over, a coin is inserted into the wedge of the fold and then squeezed via whatever mechanical means, and the edge of the coin closest to the fold is impressed into the two sides of the folded strip. That coin, or a different coin, is then put between the impressions in the strip of metal and squeezed again, weakly embossing part of the coin up into those impressions.
Look at the weak 'T'. How does the metal make the impression of the T in the outer reverse field, without flattening the die scratch? The die scratch must have come later, not before.
How does the partial 'A' go all the way up to the 'U' without impacting it, but then the E Pluribus Unum banner continues under 'UNI'?
Look at the first O of DOLLAR, there's a faint 2 (from 420) that extends down "under" the O. Same question as above.
I get that people make fake errors, but let's actually give this some thought and not just jump to the quickest/easiest conclusion.
False dies are relatively soft metal, such as brass or aluminum. They can overlap a feature such as the die scratch without flattening 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:
False dies are relatively soft metal, such as brass or aluminum. They can overlap a feature such as the die scratch without flattening it.
So soft enough to impress the wider letters into the fields, but not hard enough to disturb the die scratch? The physics of this doesn't add up, with equal force applied in the same location, there would be more pressure on the smaller surface area (die scratch).
Edit: I guess the die scratch could make in impression back into the soft metal vs. being deformed.
I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around how you can make the imprint on the soft metal using one coin, then use that same soft metal that deformed using a silver coin to then deform another silver coin. In the former, the silver coin deforms the soft metal, then the soft metal deforms the silver coin.
Who said that the die scratch was not disturbed? It was not obliterated, as would happen if you hit it with something really hard, like die steel.
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:
Who said that the die scratch was not disturbed? It was not obliterated, as would happen if you hit it with something really hard, like die steel.
@CaptHenway said:
False dies are relatively soft metal, such as brass or aluminum. They can overlap a feature such as the die scratch without flattening it.
Do you have examples (pictures) of coins pressed with false dies? It would be helpful to compare.
@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.
First of all, no one said this was about me. HOWEVER, I posted a defense for the "lazy" authenticator and realized the next day that my post and comments made me look like the guilty party.
Second. You are correct. When authenticating a mint error you need to explain how it can occur without the "hand-of-man" involved in a fraudulent way. Decades ago, if a mint error could not occur naturally, they were not certified as genuine. It appears to be different today. All sorts of "things" are around.
IMO, whether the letters are incuse or raised doesn't really matter - what matters is that it's not possible to mash 2 coins on top of each other and the only contact point is the outside edge. The fact that half of the lettering is present and the other half is missing instead of destroying the denticles confirms that the lettering was present before the final strike.
I haven't seen a single user postulate how this would have been accomplished post-mint without damaging the denticles. Try it yourself.
IMO, whether the letters are incuse or raised doesn't really matter - what matters is that it's not possible to mash 2 coins on top of each other and the only contact point is the outside edge. The fact that half of the lettering is present and the other half is missing instead of destroying the denticles confirms that the lettering was present before the final strike.
I haven't seen a single user postulate how this would have been accomplished post-mint without damaging the denticles. Try it yourself.
Well, it's much easier to do post-mint. You could shave the coin down.
It also could happen accidentally if there is a third object involved. There's a diagram up above. I'll try and copy it here.
As for the denticles - it kind of depends on what the relative depths are. If the letters are shallow, the strike might not have penetrated as low as the denticles are lying.
IMO, whether the letters are incuse or raised doesn't really matter - what matters is that it's not possible to mash 2 coins on top of each other and the only contact point is the outside edge. The fact that half of the lettering is present and the other half is missing instead of destroying the denticles confirms that the lettering was present before the final strike.
I haven't seen a single user postulate how this would have been accomplished post-mint without damaging the denticles. Try it yourself.
Well, it's much easier to do post-mint. You could shave the coin down.
It also could happen accidentally if there is a third object involved. There's a diagram up above. I'll try and copy it here.
As for the denticles - it kind of depends on what the relative depths are. If the letters are shallow, the strike might not have penetrated as low as the denticles are lying.
Your graph above would leave the blue letters upside down on the red coin. The blue needs to be stacked almost directly on top of the red.
There is 0% chance of this occurring accidentally. There is enormous amount of force required (think tens of tons of force) and is not possible to occur from dropping.
IMO, whether the letters are incuse or raised doesn't really matter - what matters is that it's not possible to mash 2 coins on top of each other and the only contact point is the outside edge. The fact that half of the lettering is present and the other half is missing instead of destroying the denticles confirms that the lettering was present before the final strike.
I haven't seen a single user postulate how this would have been accomplished post-mint without damaging the denticles. Try it yourself.
Well, it's much easier to do post-mint. You could shave the coin down.
It also could happen accidentally if there is a third object involved. There's a diagram up above. I'll try and copy it here.
As for the denticles - it kind of depends on what the relative depths are. If the letters are shallow, the strike might not have penetrated as low as the denticles are lying.
Your graph above would leave the blue letters upside down on the red coin. The blue needs to be stacked almost directly on top of the red.
There is 0% chance of this occurring accidentally. There is enormous amount of force required (think tens of tons of force) and is not possible to occur from dropping.
It's a very rough diagram. And I would say two things: the odds aren't zero and no one has yet said whether the OP's coin was created accidentally or on purpose.
As for the "upside down", you are looking at the wrong two coins. It is blue transferring to blue, not to red.
If it was intentionally caused by a false die or smashed in a press, etc. the question to me is “to what end?” It’s a neat piece but would it be worth an enormous premium? And if it was done by an individual, why would they stop at just one piece? What would be their motivation? I don’t know how the effect was achieved/created but when I think of the specific look plus motivation it strikes me as falling a bit short of someone intentionally creating the effect.
IMO, whether the letters are incuse or raised doesn't really matter - what matters is that it's not possible to mash 2 coins on top of each other and the only contact point is the outside edge. The fact that half of the lettering is present and the other half is missing instead of destroying the denticles confirms that the lettering was present before the final strike.
I haven't seen a single user postulate how this would have been accomplished post-mint without damaging the denticles. Try it yourself.
Well, it's much easier to do post-mint. You could shave the coin down.
It also could happen accidentally if there is a third object involved. There's a diagram up above. I'll try and copy it here.
As for the denticles - it kind of depends on what the relative depths are. If the letters are shallow, the strike might not have penetrated as low as the denticles are lying.
Your graph above would leave the blue letters upside down on the red coin. The blue needs to be stacked almost directly on top of the red.
There is 0% chance of this occurring accidentally. There is enormous amount of force required (think tens of tons of force) and is not possible to occur from dropping.
It's a very rough diagram. And I would say two things: the odds aren't zero and no one has yet said whether the OP's coin was created accidentally or on purpose.
As for the "upside down", you are looking at the wrong two coins. It is blue transferring to blue, not to red.
Same difference. The lettering would be upside down.
IMO, whether the letters are incuse or raised doesn't really matter - what matters is that it's not possible to mash 2 coins on top of each other and the only contact point is the outside edge. The fact that half of the lettering is present and the other half is missing instead of destroying the denticles confirms that the lettering was present before the final strike.
I haven't seen a single user postulate how this would have been accomplished post-mint without damaging the denticles. Try it yourself.
Well, it's much easier to do post-mint. You could shave the coin down.
It also could happen accidentally if there is a third object involved. There's a diagram up above. I'll try and copy it here.
As for the denticles - it kind of depends on what the relative depths are. If the letters are shallow, the strike might not have penetrated as low as the denticles are lying.
Your graph above would leave the blue letters upside down on the red coin. The blue needs to be stacked almost directly on top of the red.
There is 0% chance of this occurring accidentally. There is enormous amount of force required (think tens of tons of force) and is not possible to occur from dropping.
It's a very rough diagram. And I would say two things: the odds aren't zero and no one has yet said whether the OP's coin was created accidentally or on purpose.
As for the "upside down", you are looking at the wrong two coins. It is blue transferring to blue, not to red.
Same difference. The lettering would be upside down.
No, it wouldn't. It would be incuse and backwards, as the OP's coin. That is why many people think this is a sandwich job.
@TurtleCat said:
If it was intentionally caused by a false die or smashed in a press, etc. the question to me is “to what end?” It’s a neat piece but would it be worth an enormous premium? And if it was done by an individual, why would they stop at just one piece? What would be their motivation? I don’t know how the effect was achieved/created but when I think of the specific look plus motivation it strikes me as falling a bit short of someone intentionally creating the effect.
A) Bored people do all kinds of things. Do you know there aren't a dozen of them out there?
C) We've seen numerous sandwich jobs before, though not as elegant as this one - if that is what this is.
I think this is the image you're looking for if you think it was a mash job, which you can see isn't possible. (the orange mark is where the motto is)
• The amount of pressure required would make this end thinner and move the metal to the other side of the coin - where this extra metal or distortion is absent.
• The transferring coin would be required to be sandwiched at an angle - how do you sandwich a coin at an angle? And this would mean the depth of the incused lettering would be deepest on the outer edge and shallowest near the denticles
• The transferring coin would have to be curved (read: bent perfectly without distortion) to accomplish this
@mach1ne said:
I think this is the image you're looking for if you think it was a mash job, which you can see isn't possible. (the orange mark is where the motto is)
• The amount of pressure required would make this end thinner and move the metal to the other side of the coin - where this extra metal or distortion is absent.
• The transferring coin would be required to be sandwiched at an angle - how do you sandwich a coin at an angle? And this would mean the depth of the incused lettering would be deepest on the outer edge and shallowest near the denticles
• The transferring coin would have to be curved (read: bent perfectly without distortion) to accomplish this
@mach1ne said:
I think this is the image you're looking for if you think it was a mash job, which you can see isn't possible. (the orange mark is where the motto is)
• The amount of pressure required would make this end thinner and move the metal to the other side of the coin - where this extra metal or distortion is absent.
• The transferring coin would be required to be sandwiched at an angle - how do you sandwich a coin at an angle? And this would mean the depth of the incused lettering would be deepest on the outer edge and shallowest near the denticles
• The transferring coin would have to be curved (read: bent perfectly without distortion) to accomplish this
Again, why are you changing the drawing? In my drawing, the bottom coin would be transferring the legend to the upper coin.
I agree about the depth being slightly off, but the angle doesn't need to even be as large as in my drawing. We have no way of knowing how deep or how shallow the letering is.
You really don't need to bend the coin at all to do this - well, maybe in your drawing. In my drawing, the rim of the top coin is resting right on the letters on the bottom coin. They will be slightly angled, but they don't need to have much of an angle at all, just enough to get the rim at rough 3:00 and 9:00 off the surface of the bottom, transferring coin to prevent rim damage at the intersection. [Scroll up, there are some coin overlays which show where the intersection points are.]
The best way to see this is to take 2 cull Morgans and line them up. You’ll see that the rims intersect quite far away from the imprint. The whole cartoon drawing thing is too limited for people to communicate clearly.
@BryceM said:
The best way to see this is to take 2 cull Morgans and line them up. You’ll see that the rims intersect quite far away from the imprint. The whole cartoon drawing thing is too limited for people to communicate clearly.
True. And then tip it up at a 1 or 2 degree angle and you'll see that the rims don't touch but the letters do still cross the rim...though at a 1 or 2 degree angle.
[You could also use any pocket change you have. Same geometry, different coin/legend.]
One other thought....... prior to striking, planchets aren’t flat. They’re given an “upset” or raised rim. Why is this done? If not, there isn’t enough metal to strike up the rims fully and you end up with mushy or incomplete rims.
To me, the apparent obverse rim bump is key to understanding how this happened. If you take a silver dollar and give it a good solid rim bump there will be metal “piled up” somewhere. It will sometimes distort the adjacent dentils too. The OPs coin doesn’t look like this to me, but it’s hard to tell from the photo. If metal is just “missing” then I find a rim hit/transfer method harder to accept.
Whatever it was, it took an impressive whack to transfer the reverse image - those letters are well formed and reasonably deep. That doesn’t happen from dropping a coin or stacking them up.
@BryceM said:
One other thought....... prior to striking, planchets aren’t flat. They’re given an “upset” or raised rim. Why is this done? If not, there isn’t enough metal to strike up the rims fully and you end up with mushy or incomplete rims.
To me, the apparent obverse rim bump is key to understanding how this happened. If you take a silver dollar and give it a good solid rim bump there will be metal “piled up” somewhere. It will sometimes distort the adjacent dentils too. The OPs coin doesn’t look like this to me, but it’s hard to tell from the photo. If metal is just “missing” then I find a rim hit/transfer method harder to accept.
Whatever it was, it took an impressive whack to transfer the reverse image - those letters are well formed and reasonably deep. That doesn’t happen from dropping a coin or stacking them up.
It is not a rim "bump" IMO. There is a flat area of missing metal opposite the incuse impression we are discussing on the rim.
Interesting Mint letters regarding striking issues on 1899-O dollars have been posted by a couple of researchers on another forum. These letters are available on the Newman Numismatic Portal, Record Group 104 (Mint Records) "Letters Sent by Headquarters to Mints..." and "Letters Received...", placed on the NNP courtesy of numismatist Roger W. Burdette.
On 1/5/1900, the New Orleans Mint Superintendent sent a pair of cracked dollar dies that failed prematurely to Philadelphia, requesting "that necessary steps be taken in the future to remedy similar defects." A request was made to change the die positioning.
In response, Barber recommended Mint coining foreman A. W, Downing investigate. In a letter dated 2/7/1900, Downing was "fully convinced that the cracking of the coinage dies and the defective appearance of the coin was caused by the rapid and imperfect manner in which the planchets were treated in the annealing furnace." and he recommended an annealing process change "to make it soft enough to stamp without injury to the dies." Regarding the metal flow of properly annealed (softened) planchets of the revised process, Downing stated "the metal flowing into the design of the die much more completely, the reading [reeding] filling the collar and making the edge more perfect."
For the OP 1899-O dollar, a large obverse edge void is at the apex of a slightly misaligned dies strike. An improperly annealed (too hard) planchet as Downing described with the 1899 New Orleans annealing process, combined with the slight off-centering, could have caused the void at the rim. A hard planchet would also retain any possible striking anomoly or pre-strike planchet damage as previously speculated in this thread.
I had previously stated in this thread "Clearly, the New Orleans Mint had dollar die set-up and striking issues in 1899" from the many errors I found on 1899-O dollars, some of which I gave links to. The Mint letter correspondence proves that New Orleans had serious coining issues in 1899.
It will be interesting to read the results of the in-hand inspection of the 1899-O dollar.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Spoke to Mr. Feltner at PCGS. He said it looked to him to be a genuine error, but they were having a tough time coming up with the mechanism of it happening. They sent the coin to @FredWeinberg , I do not know if that is happened yet, although they used past tense....
@davids5104 said:
Spoke to Mr. Feltner at PCGS. He said it looked to him to be a genuine error, but they were having a tough time coming up with the mechanism of it happening. They sent the coin to @FredWeinberg , I do not know if that is happened yet, although they used past tense....
@davids5104 said:
Spoke to Mr. Feltner at PCGS. He said it looked to him to be a genuine error, but they were having a tough time coming up with the mechanism of it happening. They sent the coin to @FredWeinberg , I do not know if that is happened yet, although they used past tense....
It will be interesting to get Fred's opinion after examining the coin in hand.
I haven't rec'd any Errors from PCGS since I got back from
my two-weeks out of the office - I'll assume I'll see it at the
end of this week maybe, or next week for sure.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Comments
I suspect that it would be treated as varieties are. You have to request variety attribution and pay extra to have that notation on the slab.
OINK
It is NOT yet clear that this is some kind of error. That said, errors are only slabbed as such if you choose that tier for grading.
As for the current slab, IF the graders view it as an error, the error gets ignored unless you choose to have it slabbed as an error. IF the graders view it as contact transfer, which is likely the case here, it gets treated as a bag mark. In either case, it would simply straight grade, as it did.
I have a Booker T. with a minor strike through error. It is in a straight MS65 holder because it was not designated for error attribution and the error did not lower the overall grade below MS65.
Have seen many false die overstrikes over the years. One of the more common forms of it is when a strip of metal is folded over, a coin is inserted into the wedge of the fold and then squeezed via whatever mechanical means, and the edge of the coin closest to the fold is impressed into the two sides of the folded strip. That coin, or a different coin, is then put between the impressions in the strip of metal and squeezed again, weakly embossing part of the coin up into those impressions.
The grading room remarks from it's previous grading session would've been interesting to hear.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
But due to the location and arc of the area in question, would that have been difficult to pull off in this case?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Look at the weak 'T'. How does the metal make the impression of the T in the outer reverse field, without flattening the die scratch? The die scratch must have come later, not before.
How does the partial 'A' go all the way up to the 'U' without impacting it, but then the E Pluribus Unum banner continues under 'UNI'?
Look at the first O of DOLLAR, there's a faint 2 (from 420) that extends down "under" the O. Same question as above.
I get that people make fake errors, but let's actually give this some thought and not just jump to the quickest/easiest conclusion.
False dies are relatively soft metal, such as brass or aluminum. They can overlap a feature such as the die scratch without flattening it.
Last I heard they were talking about sending JA $25 in hopes of receiving a Christmas card.
So soft enough to impress the wider letters into the fields, but not hard enough to disturb the die scratch? The physics of this doesn't add up, with equal force applied in the same location, there would be more pressure on the smaller surface area (die scratch).
Edit: I guess the die scratch could make in impression back into the soft metal vs. being deformed.
I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around how you can make the imprint on the soft metal using one coin, then use that same soft metal that deformed using a silver coin to then deform another silver coin. In the former, the silver coin deforms the soft metal, then the soft metal deforms the silver coin.
Who said that the die scratch was not disturbed? It was not obliterated, as would happen if you hit it with something really hard, like die steel.
Ok, how about "flattened"?
Do you have examples (pictures) of coins pressed with false dies? It would be helpful to compare.
First of all, no one said this was about me. HOWEVER, I posted a defense for the "lazy" authenticator and realized the next day that my post and comments made me look like the guilty party.
Second. You are correct. When authenticating a mint error you need to explain how it can occur without the "hand-of-man" involved in a fraudulent way. Decades ago, if a mint error could not occur naturally, they were not certified as genuine. It appears to be different today. All sorts of "things" are around.
IMO, whether the letters are incuse or raised doesn't really matter - what matters is that it's not possible to mash 2 coins on top of each other and the only contact point is the outside edge. The fact that half of the lettering is present and the other half is missing instead of destroying the denticles confirms that the lettering was present before the final strike.
I haven't seen a single user postulate how this would have been accomplished post-mint without damaging the denticles. Try it yourself.
Check out my iPhone app SlabReader!
Well, it's much easier to do post-mint. You could shave the coin down.
It also could happen accidentally if there is a third object involved. There's a diagram up above. I'll try and copy it here.
As for the denticles - it kind of depends on what the relative depths are. If the letters are shallow, the strike might not have penetrated as low as the denticles are lying.
Your graph above would leave the blue letters upside down on the red coin. The blue needs to be stacked almost directly on top of the red.
There is 0% chance of this occurring accidentally. There is enormous amount of force required (think tens of tons of force) and is not possible to occur from dropping.
Check out my iPhone app SlabReader!
It's a very rough diagram. And I would say two things: the odds aren't zero and no one has yet said whether the OP's coin was created accidentally or on purpose.
As for the "upside down", you are looking at the wrong two coins. It is blue transferring to blue, not to red.
If it was intentionally caused by a false die or smashed in a press, etc. the question to me is “to what end?” It’s a neat piece but would it be worth an enormous premium? And if it was done by an individual, why would they stop at just one piece? What would be their motivation? I don’t know how the effect was achieved/created but when I think of the specific look plus motivation it strikes me as falling a bit short of someone intentionally creating the effect.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Same difference. The lettering would be upside down.
No, it wouldn't. It would be incuse and backwards, as the OP's coin. That is why many people think this is a sandwich job.
A) Bored people do all kinds of things.
Do you know there aren't a dozen of them out there?
C) We've seen numerous sandwich jobs before, though not as elegant as this one - if that is what this is.
I think this is the image you're looking for if you think it was a mash job, which you can see isn't possible. (the orange mark is where the motto is)
• The amount of pressure required would make this end thinner and move the metal to the other side of the coin - where this extra metal or distortion is absent.
• The transferring coin would be required to be sandwiched at an angle - how do you sandwich a coin at an angle? And this would mean the depth of the incused lettering would be deepest on the outer edge and shallowest near the denticles
• The transferring coin would have to be curved (read: bent perfectly without distortion) to accomplish this
Check out my iPhone app SlabReader!
Again, why are you changing the drawing? In my drawing, the bottom coin would be transferring the legend to the upper coin.
I agree about the depth being slightly off, but the angle doesn't need to even be as large as in my drawing. We have no way of knowing how deep or how shallow the letering is.
You really don't need to bend the coin at all to do this - well, maybe in your drawing. In my drawing, the rim of the top coin is resting right on the letters on the bottom coin. They will be slightly angled, but they don't need to have much of an angle at all, just enough to get the rim at rough 3:00 and 9:00 off the surface of the bottom, transferring coin to prevent rim damage at the intersection. [Scroll up, there are some coin overlays which show where the intersection points are.]
The best way to see this is to take 2 cull Morgans and line them up. You’ll see that the rims intersect quite far away from the imprint. The whole cartoon drawing thing is too limited for people to communicate clearly.
True. And then tip it up at a 1 or 2 degree angle and you'll see that the rims don't touch but the letters do still cross the rim...though at a 1 or 2 degree angle.
[You could also use any pocket change you have. Same geometry, different coin/legend.]
One other thought....... prior to striking, planchets aren’t flat. They’re given an “upset” or raised rim. Why is this done? If not, there isn’t enough metal to strike up the rims fully and you end up with mushy or incomplete rims.
To me, the apparent obverse rim bump is key to understanding how this happened. If you take a silver dollar and give it a good solid rim bump there will be metal “piled up” somewhere. It will sometimes distort the adjacent dentils too. The OPs coin doesn’t look like this to me, but it’s hard to tell from the photo. If metal is just “missing” then I find a rim hit/transfer method harder to accept.
Whatever it was, it took an impressive whack to transfer the reverse image - those letters are well formed and reasonably deep. That doesn’t happen from dropping a coin or stacking them up.
It is not a rim "bump" IMO. There is a flat area of missing metal opposite the incuse impression we are discussing on the rim.
So how in blazes do you explain that without a double striking event?
Act of @Insider2 ...er... I mean, Act of God.
😈
Here is some movement on the coin.....
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Waiting with baited breath...
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Lay off the cat food....
I’m feeling frisky...
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Wrong forum.
At least wait with bated breath...
Smitten with DBLCs.
Says you
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Interesting Mint letters regarding striking issues on 1899-O dollars have been posted by a couple of researchers on another forum. These letters are available on the Newman Numismatic Portal, Record Group 104 (Mint Records) "Letters Sent by Headquarters to Mints..." and "Letters Received...", placed on the NNP courtesy of numismatist Roger W. Burdette.
On 1/5/1900, the New Orleans Mint Superintendent sent a pair of cracked dollar dies that failed prematurely to Philadelphia, requesting "that necessary steps be taken in the future to remedy similar defects." A request was made to change the die positioning.
In response, Barber recommended Mint coining foreman A. W, Downing investigate. In a letter dated 2/7/1900, Downing was "fully convinced that the cracking of the coinage dies and the defective appearance of the coin was caused by the rapid and imperfect manner in which the planchets were treated in the annealing furnace." and he recommended an annealing process change "to make it soft enough to stamp without injury to the dies." Regarding the metal flow of properly annealed (softened) planchets of the revised process, Downing stated "the metal flowing into the design of the die much more completely, the reading [reeding] filling the collar and making the edge more perfect."
For the OP 1899-O dollar, a large obverse edge void is at the apex of a slightly misaligned dies strike. An improperly annealed (too hard) planchet as Downing described with the 1899 New Orleans annealing process, combined with the slight off-centering, could have caused the void at the rim. A hard planchet would also retain any possible striking anomoly or pre-strike planchet damage as previously speculated in this thread.
I had previously stated in this thread "Clearly, the New Orleans Mint had dollar die set-up and striking issues in 1899" from the many errors I found on 1899-O dollars, some of which I gave links to. The Mint letter correspondence proves that New Orleans had serious coining issues in 1899.
It will be interesting to read the results of the in-hand inspection of the 1899-O dollar.
A bit of background music as we await the verdict with baighted breath
>
Will it be on Netflix or do I have to keep following this drama?
Be patient, Toppy.
Spoke to Mr. Feltner at PCGS. He said it looked to him to be a genuine error, but they were having a tough time coming up with the mechanism of it happening. They sent the coin to @FredWeinberg , I do not know if that is happened yet, although they used past tense....
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Thanks for the update!
Latin American Collection
LOL. So, Mr. Feltner can join the rest of us.
Guess I must of missed JA at Christmas. Perhaps you lost my number and my address. Feel free to call again.
Sounds more like a downdate.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
It will be interesting to get Fred's opinion after examining the coin in hand.
I haven't rec'd any Errors from PCGS since I got back from
my two-weeks out of the office - I'll assume I'll see it at the
end of this week maybe, or next week for sure.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
or upside down date
I dont know whats more exciting. Waiting for my tax returns or waiting for an update on this thread!