There is absolutely NO WAY they could have been on the planchet before the coin was struck.
Maybe, if ascertained that the planchet/coin struck only once. More likely untrue. Margin beyond denticles open terrain from refed prior strike. Would not sweat grade if were OP. Standing offer from here for straight swap of common date Unc 10 indian for it
I saw the coin today, in the PCGS MS-66 CAC Holder.
It is not a mint error of any kind or type.
The Obv. rim, from 12:00 to 1:00 has the impressed letters on the raised rim.
The Rev. rim, from 5:00 to 6:00 has an easily seen damaged beveled edge/rim.
This coin is the result of damage from another coin.
Those letters were not on the planchet, were not part of a 'first stuck
on rim, then struck normally' sequence at all, or in any way struck in
error, or as an error, at the Mint at the time of striking.
It's a damaged rim (on both sides) Period.
Fred
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
Maybe my theory of the angry mint gorilla body slamming bags of Morgans because he was tired of having to move them around was correct!
@FredWeinberg said:
I saw the coin today, in the PCGS MS-66 CAC Holder.
It is not a mint error of any kind or type.
The Obv. rim, from 12:00 to 1:00 has the impressed letters on the raised rim.
The Rev. rim, from 5:00 to 6:00 has an easily seen damaged beveled edge/rim.
This coin is the result of damage from another coin.
Those letters were not on the planchet, were not part of a 'first stuck
on rim, then struck normally' sequence at all, or in any way struck in
error, or as an error, at the Mint at the time of striking.
To be clear, you are of the opinion that the obverse rim was “bashed in” by another coin and was not deficient in metal in this area prior to striking? Is there metal spread along the rim consistent with an impact? It is actually quite difficult to know this from the photos we have. The photos made it look like metal was just simply “missing.”
I trust your opinion above anything else we’ve seen in this thread, but I’m quite surprised two coins could be hit together hard enough to impart this level of detail outside of a press or by other deliberate means (sledgehammer, etc). I wouldn’t think getting tossed around in bags would be enough to do it unless they were handled by airline baggage employees.
@FredWeinberg said:
I saw the coin today, in the PCGS MS-66 CAC Holder.
It is not a mint error of any kind or type.
The Obv. rim, from 12:00 to 1:00 has the impressed letters on the raised rim.
The Rev. rim, from 5:00 to 6:00 has an easily seen damaged beveled edge/rim.
This coin is the result of damage from another coin.
Those letters were not on the planchet, were not part of a 'first stuck
on rim, then struck normally' sequence at all, or in any way struck in
error, or as an error, at the Mint at the time of striking.
It's a damaged rim (on both sides) Period.
Fred
Thanks for looking at it. I certainly recognize your expertise and so your opinion is great!
I read your comments and conclusions, I am just personally uninformed as to how this could occur with something other than a device with hundreds of pounds per square inch could generate rim lettering on the reverse without more damage to said reverse
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
The Obv. rim, from 12:00 to 1:00 has the impressed letters on the raised rim.
The Rev. rim, from 5:00 to 6:00 has an easily seen damaged beveled edge/rim.
Is this correctly stated?
I have to wonder where all that metal went if the rim is damaged
@tradedollarnut said: The Obv. rim, from 12:00 to 1:00 has the impressed letters on the raised rim.
The Rev. rim, from 5:00 to 6:00 has an easily seen damaged beveled edge/rim.
Is this correctly stated?
I have to wonder where all that metal went if the rim is damaged
Fred has seen the beveled edge. Only part of it showed in the slab. If the edge was impacted as hard as it would take to impress those letters DEEPLY into the rim, the metal did not go anywhere. It got compressed.
@TurtleCat said:
Nice to finally have a conclusion. Thank you for posting here given the long and intense interest in this coin’s circumstances.
From earlier in the thread:
@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....
There is no conclusion. Just another opinion.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@TurtleCat said:
Nice to finally have a conclusion. Thank you for posting here given the long and intense interest in this coin’s circumstances.
From earlier in the thread:
@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....
There is no conclusion. Just another opinion.
I’d call this opinion a conclusion, though. There’s a reason why PCGS sends the obscure errors to him rather than rendering judgment themselves.
Fred has seen the beveled edge. Only part of it showed in the slab. If the edge was impacted as hard as it would take to impress those letters DEEPLY into the rim, the metal did not go anywhere. It got compressed.
Metal behaves as a plastic material. When compressed one direction, it bulges out the other way. If the rim was hit hard enough to deform it, I just want to know if it left a thickened edge - that’s all.
Every time I’ve seen a severe rim bump the coin ends up being thicker adjacent to the bump. The metal has to go somewhere.
Fred has seen the beveled edge. Only part of it showed in the slab. If the edge was impacted as hard as it would take to impress those letters DEEPLY into the rim, the metal did not go anywhere. It got compressed.
Metal behaves as a plastic material. When compressed one direction, it bulges out the other way. If the rim was hit hard enough to deform it, I just want to know if it left a thickened edge - that’s all.
Every time I’ve seen a severe rim bump the coin ends up being thicker adjacent to the bump. The metal has to go somewhere.
@TurtleCat said:
Nice to finally have a conclusion. Thank you for posting here given the long and intense interest in this coin’s circumstances.
From earlier in the thread:
@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....
There is no conclusion. Just another opinion.
I’d call this opinion a conclusion, though. There’s a reason why PCGS sends the obscure errors to him rather than rendering judgment themselves.
Agree. It would be the height of folly to question Fred, especially when none of us have seen it in hand.
@FredWeinberg said:
I saw the coin today, in the PCGS MS-66 CAC Holder.
It is not a mint error of any kind or type.
The Obv. rim, from 12:00 to 1:00 has the impressed letters on the raised rim.
The Rev. rim, from 5:00 to 6:00 has an easily seen damaged beveled edge/rim.
This coin is the result of damage from another coin.
Those letters were not on the planchet, were not part of a 'first stuck
on rim, then struck normally' sequence at all, or in any way struck in
error, or as an error, at the Mint at the time of striking.
It's a damaged rim (on both sides) Period.
Fred
That level of impression, must have been done by impressive strength - why wasn't the rest of the coin damaged by the shear force of the 'damage' event? Do we see any other evidence that supports damage by another coin hitting this one? I would love to hear from you how it was done and then have an engineer calculate the amount of focused force needed to cause this while avoiding any other noticeable damage (if there is none observed that is). It also seems that if such damage can occur like this from another coin striking this one, shouldn't we see this more often? Why such a rare occurrence? Like, once?
This thread is like an episode of Ancient Aliens. Does Fred have crazy hair?
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Thanks for looking at it. I certainly recognize your expertise and so your opinion is great!
I read your comments and conclusions, I am just personally uninformed as to how this could occur with something other than a device with hundreds of pounds per square inch could generate rim lettering on the reverse without more damage to said reverse
Sorry for the news. Please list it on ebeah when back in hand for $600 bin if you'd care. Will take it off when seen
Not saying anybody is right or wrong but when people claim their opinion is fact and everybody else’s are only opinions. Especially if they posture aggression as certainty. I question if they are worth the breath or time to talk to even if they are right. Wouldn’t be the first “expert” to be wrong about something in coins.
A lack of better experts doesn’t necessarily mean one is great, it could also mean it is a shallow pool.
I took a Peace dollar (no Morgan culls on-hand) and took it out to my shop. First, I threw it has hard as I could against the concrete floor so that it hit edge-first. I was not too impressed by my efforts:
You can see a slight depression above "STATES".
The reeding is partially mashed in and the coin has gained only trivial width in this area.
Next. I smashed the obverse rim with a hammer near the "Y" in "LIBERTY". It flattened the rim, but also visibly put the coin "out of round."
I actually did succeed in thinning the edge a bit:
Finally, I stood the coin on-edge and whacked it with a framing hammer. This made a rather impressive rim bump, but I hit it HARD!
This one thickened the coin quite a bit:
As you can see it almost obliterated the reeding in this area.
What did I learn?
First silver/copper coins are reasonably tough. A deliberate downward throw against the concrete produced a bump that some might not even notice. Where-oh-where to visible rim bumps even come from? A hit directed against the obverse rim thinned the coin in the area, but caused it to bulge out-of-round adjacent to the hit. Finally, a hammer blow directed directly at the rim caused a visible dent, and visible thickening of the coin. The metal always goes somewhere......... Metal is essentially non-compressible. Striking a coin does not change its volume to any measurable degree.
None of this is intended to detract from Fred's assessment. All of my little experiments left shiny areas with rough exposed metal on an otherwise ugly, drab coin. It also bent it a bit, but I was able to fix most of that with another hammer blow. It is interesting that this coin could have endured whatever it was and could still merit a 66 designation, as has been mentioned.
It remains, to me, a bit of a mystery. I just wish someone could tell me about the thickness of the coin in the area of the damaged rim. If metal is simply missing, something strange happened and it might not have been simple damage (which, I agree, is BY FAR, the most likely and easily explained theory).
Doesn't mean anything...... just fun to think about.
I think that Fred Weinberg's opinion cannot be substantiated by a test. The only possible explanation for the incuse rim lettering is the Mint's die or another coin. The "other coin" explanation seems to be more than improbable because an annealed coin is way less hard that a hardened steel die. And the pressure that would be required with a Mint die would have to be provided by someone intentionally "making" this coin in a vise? Even a hydraulic press would not create the incuse lettering with another annealed coin.
I still think this coin is the result of a brockade strike that was recycled in the minting process. To me, a believable Mint process that is not being considered as a viable explanation. The Mint creates no errors????????
I just wish someone could tell me about the thickness of the coin in the area of the damaged rim. If metal is simply missing, something strange happened and it might not have been simple damage (which, I agree, is BY FAR, the most likely and easily explained theory).
The US Mint's leading coining expert in 1899, foreman A. W. Downing, explained the New Orleans Mint coining problems in 1899, including not "filling the collar and making the edge more perfect," was caused by "the rapid and imperfect manner in which planchets were treated in the annealing furnace". Improperly annealed planchets are hard and the metal flow to the rim is not complete.
Anyone who has annealed silver (I have hundreds of times) knows that if the correct annealing temperature is not reached, the silver is hard and stiff. Batch annealing of planchets need to be "soaked" at the annealing temperature to receive the "proper share of the heat", which could not be done in a "rapid and imperfect manner."
Metallurgy 101 - metal does not compress, it displaces. Metal has a dense lattice structure of atoms, and under force does not change density/volume.<
Can solids be compressed?
It is difficult but it can be done! Solids have very little ability to compress.
The textbook answer in a beginning course would be 'no' or 'very little.'
The textbook answer in an advanced course might require understanding of what occurs with solids under extreme pressure. For example, solid carbon under great pressure crystallizes and changes over time to diamonds.
A simple experiment to show the compressibility of a solid is to take a metal gong and strike it. Compression waves within the gong result in sound waves in the surrounding air. If the solid gong could not be compressed it would not reverberate in the air.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
For a gong, deflection and vibration is not the same as compression. Metal musical instruments do not shrink and increase in density as they are played, even over centuries. For silver planchets, the change in density from an annealed state to a strain hardened struck state is almost immeasurable - CTE effects during strike from heat generated will cause an extremely slight increase in volume until the struck coin cools.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Metallurgy 101 - metal does not compress, it displaces. Metal has a dense lattice structure of atoms, and under force does not change density/volume.<
Can solids be compressed?
It is difficult but it can be done! Solids have very little ability to compress.
The textbook answer in a beginning course would be 'no' or 'very little.'
The textbook answer in an advanced course might require understanding of what occurs with solids under extreme pressure. For example, solid carbon under great pressure crystallizes and changes over time to diamonds.
A simple experiment to show the compressibility of a solid is to take a metal gong and strike it. Compression waves within the gong result in sound waves in the surrounding air. If the solid gong could not be compressed it would not reverberate in the air.
It is mostly vibrating, the degree of compression is minor.
@Nysoto said:
For a gong, deflection and vibration is not the same as compression. Metal musical instruments do not shrink and increase in density as they are played, even over centuries. For silver planchets, the change in density from an annealed state to a strain hardened struck state is almost immeasurable - CTE effects during strike from heat generated will cause an extremely slight increase in volume until the struck coin cools.
But nonetheless, the annealing process does soften metal as in a coin blank. And under 50 tons, the metal can be compressed and displaced to fill the devices in a working coin die. My point is, why I've jumped into this fray of discussion, it is well known how Jefferson nickels can have some very mushy strikes due to the very hard element of "nickel" within the alloy of the coin blank. When the fields of the die do not compress because there are little or no devices in the die for the metal to displace/flow into, the coin blank is compressed/compacted to a higher degree giving the coin a harder surface. This has been proven when one looks at the number of coins with mushy strikes that have graded higher more consistently over coins with a full detailed strike, softer surfaces, less compressed. The harder surfaces of a mushy struck coin do not receive nicks as easily as a coin with a full strike. To illustrate this with pictures, I've posted these coins in an earlier thread. Although those coins were struck without the constraints of a collar, the metal that did manage to remain within the details/diameter of the working die, these errors are remarkably free of any nicks. And such coins did fall into the hopper with the other coins.....why didn't they get nicked up like the majority of the other coins in the hopper? Harder surfaces that were compressed to a higher degree!
Of course, all this is just my opinion from what I've seen in coins over the years. A "it has to be this or that" type of conclusion solely on my part.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
I encourage the owner to submit it to, or show it to,
at a coin show, NGC, ANACS, and ICG.
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
I know almost zero about errors which is why I put faith in @FredWeinberg and PCGS.
Regarding what PCGS does with the coin at this point, we will see. Having it remain "as is" is my preferred option if there was ambiguity in what it represents, but fred stated his opinion rather strongly.
I don't know what PCGS will do with the coin - I assume
they'll return it to you in the original holder, but there are
other options, I assume.
I posted that I have no problem with you showing it to
the other 3 services - I'm certain it will not be certified
as any type of Mint Error coin.
But, because there is some dispute/disagreement about what
I said about it (maybe not d/d, but still questions about it) you
might want to have other authentication services give you their view.
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
Maybe we could build a person with a deep understanding in all of these areas:
Current and historical numismatic markets
Classic and Modern Art
Counterfeit detection
Historical and contemporary grading
Sculpture
CNC modeling and manufacturing
Tool and die preparation
The history of US coinage, techniques, and methods.
Corrosion chemistry
Alloying, assaying, and annealing
Strength of Materials
Optics
Inorganic and Organic Chemistry
Photography
Collectively, here on the forum we have world experts in all of these areas. None of us have expertise in all of them.
Finally, once we create this guy (who doesn't exist) we could all argue with him.
@Nysoto said: "Metallurgy 101 - metal does not compress, it displaces. Metal has a dense lattice structure of atoms, and under force does not change density/volume."
You better get a new book that does not complicate what anyone can see!
We don't live at the atomic level! When @BryceM smacked the edge of a coin with a hammer, it may be true that metal atoms displaced each other as they moved closer together BUT I call that compression and I call the big dent into the edge of the coin - "Compressed Metal!"
@BryceM
regarding coin "dimensions or thickness" ..... Based on my opinion this coin had complete reeding around the entire coin EVEN where the "damage is". Regarding the thickness of the coin, I did not see buildup of material on the obverse of the coin, nor does it appear in the photos. It looks like if the coin was damaged, metal "loss" occurred.
@Insider2 said: @Nysoto said: "Metallurgy 101 - metal does not compress, it displaces. Metal has a dense lattice structure of atoms, and under force does not change density/volume."
You better get a new book that does not complicate what anyone can see!
We don't live at the atomic level! When @BryceM smacked the edge of a coin with a hammer, it may be true that metal atoms displaced each other as they moved closer together BUT I call that compression and I call the big dent into the edge of the coin - "Compressed Metal!"
You can use "compressed" if you want to....but just know you are not using the scientific meaning of compression.
Compression in a scientific sense infers, "putting the same material into a smaller volume". The SHAPE may change for a piece of metal, but the volume would not.
Each type of metal has a density which doesn't change. Density = Mass/Volume. The constant and consistent Density of a gold coin, (or more correctly, a gold alloy), is one way of confirming it is, in fact, gold.
Since mass doesn't change from a force being applied, the volume can't either....or you would be changing the density!
@davids5104 said:
I know almost zero about errors which is why I put faith in @FredWeinberg and PCGS.
Regarding what PCGS does with the coin at this point, we will see. Having it remain "as is" is my preferred option if there was ambiguity in what it represents, but fred stated his opinion rather strongly.
I hope they do leave it, "as is".
If a coin making a reeding mark on another coin doesn't make it "damaged", then this occurrence shouldn't make it "damaged" either. It's still MS-66 quality for the portion of the coin anyone CARES about!
@tradedollarnut said: The Obv. rim, from 12:00 to 1:00 has the impressed letters on the raised rim.
The Rev. rim, from 5:00 to 6:00 has an easily seen damaged beveled edge/rim.
Is this correctly stated?
I have to wonder where all that metal went if the rim is damaged
Still having issues with this statement: the rim void was on the obverse, the letters on the reverse - and where did all the metal go if this was impact damage?
@tradedollarnut said: The Obv. rim, from 12:00 to 1:00 has the impressed letters on the raised rim.
The Rev. rim, from 5:00 to 6:00 has an easily seen damaged beveled edge/rim.
Is this correctly stated?
I have to wonder where all that metal went if the rim is damaged
Still having issues with this statement: the rim void was on the obverse, the letters on the reverse - and where did all the metal go if this was impact damage?
He reversed his words obverse and reverse.... it read correctly that way. As far as your second question....
@Insider2 said: @Nysoto said: "Metallurgy 101 - metal does not compress, it displaces. Metal has a dense lattice structure of atoms, and under force does not change density/volume."
You better get a new book that does not complicate what anyone can see!
We don't live at the atomic level! When @BryceM smacked the edge of a coin with a hammer, it may be true that metal atoms displaced each other as they moved closer together BUT I call that compression and I call the big dent into the edge of the coin - "Compressed Metal!"
DISPLACEMENT is NOT COMPRESSION. Compression would change the density. You are always measuring specific gravity. Why? According to you metal compresses which means the specific gravity could be changed by the strike. The fact is it can't.
The big dent you reference is thicker because the metal moved, it didn't compress
@Insider2 said: @Nysoto said: "Metallurgy 101 - metal does not compress, it displaces. Metal has a dense lattice structure of atoms, and under force does not change density/volume."
You better get a new book that does not complicate what anyone can see!
We don't live at the atomic level! When @BryceM smacked the edge of a coin with a hammer, it may be true that metal atoms displaced each other as they moved closer together BUT I call that compression and I call the big dent into the edge of the coin - "Compressed Metal!"
You can use "compressed" if you want to....but just know you are not using the scientific meaning of compression.
Compression in a scientific sense infers, "putting the same material into a smaller volume". The SHAPE may change for a piece of metal, but the volume would not.
Each type of metal has a density which doesn't change. Density = Mass/Volume. The constant and consistent Density of a gold coin, (or more correctly, a gold alloy), is one way of confirming it is, in fact, gold.
Since mass doesn't change from a force being applied, the volume can't either....or you would be changing the density!
IF I TAKE A Dollar and turn into a CUBE, it is still silver, it is still the same volume - but a different shape. it has been compressed.
Now, many terms from other fields have been added to the numismatic lexicon. You've probably never heard of "Mud Cracks" applied to coins but I took this usage from Geology (dry mud puddle) to describe the surface of a "fire coin." Other words COMPRESSION - as you point out (thanks for the education) may not be correctly used in the scientific sense by ignorant folks like me when applied to a coin. So, while "compression" is not exactly a correct scientific usage for an edge dent, IT WORKS JUST FINE to describe what I see on coins!
@Insider2 said: @Nysoto said: "Metallurgy 101 - metal does not compress, it displaces. Metal has a dense lattice structure of atoms, and under force does not change density/volume."
You better get a new book that does not complicate what anyone can see!
We don't live at the atomic level! When @BryceM smacked the edge of a coin with a hammer, it may be true that metal atoms displaced each other as they moved closer together BUT I call that compression and I call the big dent into the edge of the coin - "Compressed Metal!"
You can use "compressed" if you want to....but just know you are not using the scientific meaning of compression.
Compression in a scientific sense infers, "putting the same material into a smaller volume". The SHAPE may change for a piece of metal, but the volume would not.
Each type of metal has a density which doesn't change. Density = Mass/Volume. The constant and consistent Density of a gold coin, (or more correctly, a gold alloy), is one way of confirming it is, in fact, gold.
Since mass doesn't change from a force being applied, the volume can't either....or you would be changing the density!
IF I TAKE A Dollar and turn into a CUBE, it is still silver, it is still the same volume - but a different shape. it has been compressed.
Now, many terms from other fields have been added to the numismatic lexicon. You've probably never heard ""mud Cracks" applied to coins but I took this usage from Geology (dry mud puddle) to describe the surface of a "fire coin." So while "compression is not exactly a correct scientific usage for an edge dent, IT WORKS JUST FINE!
We can argue over your use of the term "compressed", but YOU are MUDDYING the discussion. Bryce's point was that if you struck the coin hard enough to create the obverse damage, the metal had to go somewhere and there should be added thickness or the edge should be out of the round. The (grossly incorrect) counterpoint was that there was no metal MOVEMENT because of COMPRESSION.
You are using COMPRESSION to mean MOVEMENT, but this muddies Bryce's point. By your own (incorrect) use of compression, the "compression" of which you speak should have resulted in the movement of metal. You are agreeing with Bryce while at the same time supporting the counterargument by engaging in this pointless semantic debate.
@tradedollarnut said:
_ IF I TAKE A Dollar and turn into a CUBE, it is still silver, it is still the same volume - but a different shape. it has been compressed._
Omg...alt facts are spreading...
Read the post above.
OK, you guys win. I agree my "cube" dollar has been displaced. The car in the junkyard crusher also got displaced.
Comments
Maybe, if ascertained that the planchet/coin struck only once. More likely untrue. Margin beyond denticles open terrain from refed prior strike. Would not sweat grade if were OP. Standing offer from here for straight swap of common date Unc 10 indian for it
I saw the coin today, in the PCGS MS-66 CAC Holder.
It is not a mint error of any kind or type.
The Obv. rim, from 12:00 to 1:00 has the impressed letters on the raised rim.
The Rev. rim, from 5:00 to 6:00 has an easily seen damaged beveled edge/rim.
This coin is the result of damage from another coin.
Those letters were not on the planchet, were not part of a 'first stuck
on rim, then struck normally' sequence at all, or in any way struck in
error, or as an error, at the Mint at the time of striking.
It's a damaged rim (on both sides) Period.
Fred
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Nice to finally have a conclusion. Thank you for posting here given the long and intense interest in this coin’s circumstances.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
Maybe my theory of the angry mint gorilla body slamming bags of Morgans because he was tired of having to move them around was correct!
@FredWeinberg
To be clear, you are of the opinion that the obverse rim was “bashed in” by another coin and was not deficient in metal in this area prior to striking? Is there metal spread along the rim consistent with an impact? It is actually quite difficult to know this from the photos we have. The photos made it look like metal was just simply “missing.”
I trust your opinion above anything else we’ve seen in this thread, but I’m quite surprised two coins could be hit together hard enough to impart this level of detail outside of a press or by other deliberate means (sledgehammer, etc). I wouldn’t think getting tossed around in bags would be enough to do it unless they were handled by airline baggage employees.
Thanks for looking at it. I certainly recognize your expertise and so your opinion is great!
I read your comments and conclusions, I am just personally uninformed as to how this could occur with something other than a device with hundreds of pounds per square inch could generate rim lettering on the reverse without more damage to said reverse
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
The Obv. rim, from 12:00 to 1:00 has the impressed letters on the raised rim.
The Rev. rim, from 5:00 to 6:00 has an easily seen damaged beveled edge/rim.
Is this correctly stated?
I have to wonder where all that metal went if the rim is damaged
Fred has seen the beveled edge. Only part of it showed in the slab. If the edge was impacted as hard as it would take to impress those letters DEEPLY into the rim, the metal did not go anywhere. It got compressed.
I'm certainly not going to argue with THE error expert, who has actually seen and examined it in hand.
But it still shocks me that after all of the rim damage this coin (apparently) went through, it's still has MS-66 quality fields and devices!!!
Guess the old saying that infinite monkeys, banging on infinite typewriters, will eventually write Hamlet applies. Anything is possible.
Once you file a return why would you wait for it? You'd only wait for a refund I think.
PMD, thanks, currently in jail but probably should be in the grading house. Regards!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
From earlier in the thread:
There is no conclusion. Just another opinion.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I’d call this opinion a conclusion, though. There’s a reason why PCGS sends the obscure errors to him rather than rendering judgment themselves.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
So what does PCGS do now? Buy it back? I think I would rather have it as-is, in the 66 CAC holder, than have the buyback money.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Metal behaves as a plastic material. When compressed one direction, it bulges out the other way. If the rim was hit hard enough to deform it, I just want to know if it left a thickened edge - that’s all.
Every time I’ve seen a severe rim bump the coin ends up being thicker adjacent to the bump. The metal has to go somewhere.
I agree. Metals are not very compressible.
Agree. It would be the height of folly to question Fred, especially when none of us have seen it in hand.
Sure has become a great conversation piece. If it was mine I'd keep it as is.
That level of impression, must have been done by impressive strength - why wasn't the rest of the coin damaged by the shear force of the 'damage' event? Do we see any other evidence that supports damage by another coin hitting this one? I would love to hear from you how it was done and then have an engineer calculate the amount of focused force needed to cause this while avoiding any other noticeable damage (if there is none observed that is). It also seems that if such damage can occur like this from another coin striking this one, shouldn't we see this more often? Why such a rare occurrence? Like, once?
Best, SH
Any reason to believe that both areas were damaged at the same time or during the same event?
This thread is like an episode of Ancient Aliens. Does Fred have crazy hair?
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Sorry for the news. Please list it on ebeah when back in hand for $600 bin if you'd care. Will take it off when seen
Not saying anybody is right or wrong but when people claim their opinion is fact and everybody else’s are only opinions. Especially if they posture aggression as certainty. I question if they are worth the breath or time to talk to even if they are right. Wouldn’t be the first “expert” to be wrong about something in coins.
A lack of better experts doesn’t necessarily mean one is great, it could also mean it is a shallow pool.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
So.....
I abused a coin.
I took a Peace dollar (no Morgan culls on-hand) and took it out to my shop. First, I threw it has hard as I could against the concrete floor so that it hit edge-first. I was not too impressed by my efforts:
You can see a slight depression above "STATES".
The reeding is partially mashed in and the coin has gained only trivial width in this area.
Next. I smashed the obverse rim with a hammer near the "Y" in "LIBERTY". It flattened the rim, but also visibly put the coin "out of round."
I actually did succeed in thinning the edge a bit:
Finally, I stood the coin on-edge and whacked it with a framing hammer. This made a rather impressive rim bump, but I hit it HARD!
This one thickened the coin quite a bit:
As you can see it almost obliterated the reeding in this area.
What did I learn?
First silver/copper coins are reasonably tough. A deliberate downward throw against the concrete produced a bump that some might not even notice. Where-oh-where to visible rim bumps even come from? A hit directed against the obverse rim thinned the coin in the area, but caused it to bulge out-of-round adjacent to the hit. Finally, a hammer blow directed directly at the rim caused a visible dent, and visible thickening of the coin. The metal always goes somewhere......... Metal is essentially non-compressible. Striking a coin does not change its volume to any measurable degree.
None of this is intended to detract from Fred's assessment. All of my little experiments left shiny areas with rough exposed metal on an otherwise ugly, drab coin. It also bent it a bit, but I was able to fix most of that with another hammer blow.
It is interesting that this coin could have endured whatever it was and could still merit a 66 designation, as has been mentioned.
It remains, to me, a bit of a mystery. I just wish someone could tell me about the thickness of the coin in the area of the damaged rim. If metal is simply missing, something strange happened and it might not have been simple damage (which, I agree, is BY FAR, the most likely and easily explained theory).
Doesn't mean anything...... just fun to think about.
Is the coin still in the slab?
I think that Fred Weinberg's opinion cannot be substantiated by a test. The only possible explanation for the incuse rim lettering is the Mint's die or another coin. The "other coin" explanation seems to be more than improbable because an annealed coin is way less hard that a hardened steel die. And the pressure that would be required with a Mint die would have to be provided by someone intentionally "making" this coin in a vise? Even a hydraulic press would not create the incuse lettering with another annealed coin.
I still think this coin is the result of a brockade strike that was recycled in the minting process. To me, a believable Mint process that is not being considered as a viable explanation. The Mint creates no errors????????
OINK
Metallurgy 101 - metal does not compress, it displaces. Metal has a dense lattice structure of atoms, and under force does not change density/volume.
@BryceM stated:
The US Mint's leading coining expert in 1899, foreman A. W. Downing, explained the New Orleans Mint coining problems in 1899, including not "filling the collar and making the edge more perfect," was caused by "the rapid and imperfect manner in which planchets were treated in the annealing furnace". Improperly annealed planchets are hard and the metal flow to the rim is not complete.
Anyone who has annealed silver (I have hundreds of times) knows that if the correct annealing temperature is not reached, the silver is hard and stiff. Batch annealing of planchets need to be "soaked" at the annealing temperature to receive the "proper share of the heat", which could not be done in a "rapid and imperfect manner."
Here is the NNP link to Downing's failure analysis of the New Orleans Mint in 1899 - worth reading for those who value primary sources of evidence https://archive.org/details/rg104entry229box109/page/n95/mode/2up
Can solids be compressed?
It is difficult but it can be done! Solids have very little ability to compress.
The textbook answer in a beginning course would be 'no' or 'very little.'
The textbook answer in an advanced course might require understanding of what occurs with solids under extreme pressure. For example, solid carbon under great pressure crystallizes and changes over time to diamonds.
A simple experiment to show the compressibility of a solid is to take a metal gong and strike it. Compression waves within the gong result in sound waves in the surrounding air. If the solid gong could not be compressed it would not reverberate in the air.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
For a gong, deflection and vibration is not the same as compression. Metal musical instruments do not shrink and increase in density as they are played, even over centuries. For silver planchets, the change in density from an annealed state to a strain hardened struck state is almost immeasurable - CTE effects during strike from heat generated will cause an extremely slight increase in volume until the struck coin cools.
It is mostly vibrating, the degree of compression is minor.
But nonetheless, the annealing process does soften metal as in a coin blank. And under 50 tons, the metal can be compressed and displaced to fill the devices in a working coin die. My point is, why I've jumped into this fray of discussion, it is well known how Jefferson nickels can have some very mushy strikes due to the very hard element of "nickel" within the alloy of the coin blank. When the fields of the die do not compress because there are little or no devices in the die for the metal to displace/flow into, the coin blank is compressed/compacted to a higher degree giving the coin a harder surface. This has been proven when one looks at the number of coins with mushy strikes that have graded higher more consistently over coins with a full detailed strike, softer surfaces, less compressed. The harder surfaces of a mushy struck coin do not receive nicks as easily as a coin with a full strike. To illustrate this with pictures, I've posted these coins in an earlier thread. Although those coins were struck without the constraints of a collar, the metal that did manage to remain within the details/diameter of the working die, these errors are remarkably free of any nicks. And such coins did fall into the hopper with the other coins.....why didn't they get nicked up like the majority of the other coins in the hopper? Harder surfaces that were compressed to a higher degree!
Of course, all this is just my opinion from what I've seen in coins over the years. A "it has to be this or that" type of conclusion solely on my part.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Pic courtesy of ha.com
I will add, no one person is 100% right all the time. I would try a few other places, and get their opinion as well.
I agree with you Jw - I've been wrong before.
I encourage the owner to submit it to, or show it to,
at a coin show, NGC, ANACS, and ICG.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
I know almost zero about errors which is why I put faith in @FredWeinberg and PCGS.
Regarding what PCGS does with the coin at this point, we will see. Having it remain "as is" is my preferred option if there was ambiguity in what it represents, but fred stated his opinion rather strongly.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
I don't know what PCGS will do with the coin - I assume
they'll return it to you in the original holder, but there are
other options, I assume.
I posted that I have no problem with you showing it to
the other 3 services - I'm certain it will not be certified
as any type of Mint Error coin.
But, because there is some dispute/disagreement about what
I said about it (maybe not d/d, but still questions about it) you
might want to have other authentication services give you their view.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Maybe we could build a person with a deep understanding in all of these areas:
Current and historical numismatic markets
Classic and Modern Art
Counterfeit detection
Historical and contemporary grading
Sculpture
CNC modeling and manufacturing
Tool and die preparation
The history of US coinage, techniques, and methods.
Corrosion chemistry
Alloying, assaying, and annealing
Strength of Materials
Optics
Inorganic and Organic Chemistry
Photography
Collectively, here on the forum we have world experts in all of these areas. None of us have expertise in all of them.
Finally, once we create this guy (who doesn't exist) we could all argue with him.
@Nysoto said: "Metallurgy 101 - metal does not compress, it displaces. Metal has a dense lattice structure of atoms, and under force does not change density/volume."
You better get a new book that does not complicate what anyone can see!
We don't live at the atomic level! When @BryceM smacked the edge of a coin with a hammer, it may be true that metal atoms displaced each other as they moved closer together BUT I call that compression and I call the big dent into the edge of the coin - "Compressed Metal!"
@BryceM
regarding coin "dimensions or thickness" ..... Based on my opinion this coin had complete reeding around the entire coin EVEN where the "damage is". Regarding the thickness of the coin, I did not see buildup of material on the obverse of the coin, nor does it appear in the photos. It looks like if the coin was damaged, metal "loss" occurred.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
You can use "compressed" if you want to....but just know you are not using the scientific meaning of compression.
Compression in a scientific sense infers, "putting the same material into a smaller volume". The SHAPE may change for a piece of metal, but the volume would not.
Each type of metal has a density which doesn't change. Density = Mass/Volume. The constant and consistent Density of a gold coin, (or more correctly, a gold alloy), is one way of confirming it is, in fact, gold.
Since mass doesn't change from a force being applied, the volume can't either....or you would be changing the density!
I hope they do leave it, "as is".
If a coin making a reeding mark on another coin doesn't make it "damaged", then this occurrence shouldn't make it "damaged" either. It's still MS-66 quality for the portion of the coin anyone CARES about!
GREAT thread!
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Still having issues with this statement: the rim void was on the obverse, the letters on the reverse - and where did all the metal go if this was impact damage?
He reversed his words obverse and reverse.... it read correctly that way. As far as your second question....
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
DISPLACEMENT is NOT COMPRESSION. Compression would change the density. You are always measuring specific gravity. Why? According to you metal compresses which means the specific gravity could be changed by the strike. The fact is it can't.
The big dent you reference is thicker because the metal moved, it didn't compress
IF I TAKE A Dollar and turn into a CUBE, it is still silver, it is still the same volume - but a different shape. it has been compressed.
Now, many terms from other fields have been added to the numismatic lexicon. You've probably never heard of "Mud Cracks" applied to coins but I took this usage from Geology (dry mud puddle) to describe the surface of a "fire coin." Other words COMPRESSION - as you
point out (thanks for the education) may not be correctly used in the scientific sense by ignorant folks like me when applied to a coin. So, while "compression" is not exactly a correct scientific usage for an edge dent, IT WORKS JUST FINE to describe what I see on coins! 
_ IF I TAKE A Dollar and turn into a CUBE, it is still silver, it is still the same volume - but a different shape. it has been compressed._
Omg...alt facts are spreading...
We can argue over your use of the term "compressed", but YOU are MUDDYING the discussion. Bryce's point was that if you struck the coin hard enough to create the obverse damage, the metal had to go somewhere and there should be added thickness or the edge should be out of the round. The (grossly incorrect) counterpoint was that there was no metal MOVEMENT because of COMPRESSION.
You are using COMPRESSION to mean MOVEMENT, but this muddies Bryce's point. By your own (incorrect) use of compression, the "compression" of which you speak should have resulted in the movement of metal. You are agreeing with Bryce while at the same time supporting the counterargument by engaging in this pointless semantic debate.
Read the post above.
OK, you guys win. I agree my "cube" dollar has been displaced. The car in the junkyard crusher also got displaced.