@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.
@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.
The car is compressed. The metal in the car is NOT compressed. The density (specific gravity) of the car is increased. The density (specific gravity) of the metal in the car is NOT increased.
Again, the debate is semantic especially as the word means different things in different contexts. But as it was used as a counter argument to Bryce, it is wholly incorrect.
If two obverse dies, the faces of those two dies come into contact with each other, is it possible for one die to imprint raised letters onto the other die? I'm also suggesting one working die was still very warm (from the annealing process that softens the metal before the image/design in transfered) from just being stamped. And than the die was used to strike a coin, the extra letters on the rim would be incused and backwards.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
1 : pressed together : reduced in size or volume (as by pressure)
2 : flattened as though subjected to compression:
a : flattened laterally petioles compressed
b : narrow from side to side and deep in a dorsoventral direction
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.
Actually no, unless there is a volume change with it which we are interpreting there was not. What you have is caused STRAIN resulting in DEFORMATION caused by a directed FORCE acting on an object.
If metal is missing did PCGS happen to weigh it back in the day? Would the difference, if metal was removed, be significant enough to come to any conclusion?
@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
Not that you owe it to the forum, but it sure would help this discussion if you gave an explanation (with technical detail) for how you came to this conclusion.
@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.
Yes, I mixed up the Obv./Rev. designations in my post two days ago. My apologies.
My post wasn't a report per se, just my observations viewing the coin.
As I posted yesterday, I encourage the owner to show or submit it to
any of the other 3 authentication services - it will not be certified as a
mint error of any kind.
As for all of the speculation about how it 'could' occur in the Mint, none
of it is correct, imo, and as far as 'how' it could have been made outside
the Mint (which is my position), as Bill Fivaz says when asked EXACTLY
how a damaged 'error' was made, he'll sometimes say "I wasn't there when it was done,
so I can't tell you exactly how it was done" (but it's a damaged/altered coin)
I read each post on this thread, and I realize many of you have your own views
about it, and what caused it, etc. - makes for a lively thread, but I am confident
it was not struck like that at the Mint.
.....waiting for the baseball bats!
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
@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?
If it ever gets cracked out one could simply weigh it. Were it mine I'd just leave it holdered as is.
@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
Not that you owe it to the forum, but it sure would help this discussion if you gave an explanation (with technical detail) for how you came to this conclusion.
What force other than that from a coin press would result in that kind of impression especially considering that both "coins" would have identical composition and maybe hardness?
If you took a blank planchet with no rim and placed it in the press and placed a struck coin on top if it and cycled the press, what would be on the planchet. A clear impression of the top coin or some muddied weakly struck looking result?
Yes, I mixed up the Obv./Rev. designations in my post two days ago. My apologies.
My post wasn't a report per se, just my observations viewing the coin.
As I posted yesterday, I encourage the owner to show or submit it to
any of the other 3 authentication services - it will not be certified as a
mint error of any kind.
As for all of the speculation about how it 'could' occur in the Mint, none
of it is correct, imo, and as far as 'how' it could have been made outside
the Mint (which is my position), as Bill Fivaz says when asked EXACTLY
how a damaged 'error' was made, he'll sometimes say "I wasn't there when it was done,
so I can't tell you exactly how it was done" (but it's a damaged/altered coin)
I read each post on this thread, and I realize many of you have your own views
about it, and what caused it, etc. - makes for a lively thread, but I am confident
it was not struck like that at the Mint.
.....waiting for the baseball bats!
My question wasn’t how you think it was made. Rather, how you came to your conclusion it’s 100% not a mint product, with the technical details included.
@tradedollarnut said: "...I would expect more from an expert’s report. Not getting the sides mixed up and an explanation behind the missing rim."
It is simple. There are some coins "expert's" see which cannot be explained. There are other coins they see which can be explained by the "experts" but they don't agree on which explanation is correct. On occasion, only one out of many explanations turned out to be correct.
1 : pressed together : reduced in size or volume (as by pressure)
2 : flattened as though subjected to compression:
a : flattened laterally petioles compressed
b : narrow from side to side and deep in a dorsoventral direction
THANK YOU!
@jmlanzaf said: "...Again, the debate is semantic especially as the word means different things in different contexts. But as it was used as a counter argument to Bryce, it is wholly incorrect."
So, let's keep the word weenies of the scientific persuasion who argue about gas, solids. strain, compression, and whatever out of the simple observation - the edge opposite the extraneous letters is "smashed."
@amwldcoin said: "I'm actually surprised at your lack of knowledge in this regard. Did you take any science courses in school at all?"
Check out the definition above. I do very well on english comprehension tests.
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.
Actually no, unless there is a volume change with it which we are interpreting there was not. What you have is caused STRAIN resulting in DEFORMATION caused by a directed FORCE acting on an object.
Yes, I mixed up the Obv./Rev. designations in my post two days ago. My apologies.
My post wasn't a report per se, just my observations viewing the coin.
As I posted yesterday, I encourage the owner to show or submit it to
any of the other 3 authentication services - it will not be certified as a
mint error of any kind.
As for all of the speculation about how it 'could' occur in the Mint, none
of it is correct, imo, and as far as 'how' it could have been made outside
the Mint (which is my position), as Bill Fivaz says when asked EXACTLY
how a damaged 'error' was made, he'll sometimes say "I wasn't there when it was done,
so I can't tell you exactly how it was done" (but it's a damaged/altered coin)
I read each post on this thread, and I realize many of you have your own views
about it, and what caused it, etc. - makes for a lively thread, but I am confident
it was not struck like that at the Mint.
One of the things that was not obvious from the photos was the depth of the letters. Are they shallow? Are they close to the depth as the normal height of the letters?
Personally, I'm not of a mind to disagree with you. I've never been able to come up with a satisfying explanation of how it could have happened at the Mint.
@Insider2 said: @tradedollarnut said: "...I would expect more from an expert’s report. Not getting the sides mixed up and an explanation behind the missing rim."
It is simple. There are some coins "expert's" see which cannot be explained. There are other coins they see which can be explained by the "experts" but they don't agree on which explanation is correct. On occasion, only one out of many explanations turned out to be correct.
1 : pressed together : reduced in size or volume (as by pressure)
2 : flattened as though subjected to compression:
a : flattened laterally petioles compressed
b : narrow from side to side and deep in a dorsoventral direction
I don't think this explains the deeply incuse letters that IMO (if genuine) had to be made with a US Mint HUB.
I tire of the “100% isn’t but I can’t and won’t defend that” as well as the “I don’t have to know how it happened”.
But claiming it didn’t happen one way requires comprehension of what happened or at a minimum the complete process. At least in the real world of educated engineers. The fraternity of glorified sales people, standards are a little looser... I get it
PCGS giving it a pass because they rather be safe than sorry with what goes in their holder is understandable too even if it can encourage intellectual laziness by their experts.
@Insider2 said: @tradedollarnut said: "...I would expect more from an expert’s report. Not getting the sides mixed up and an explanation behind the missing rim."
It is simple. There are some coins "expert's" see which cannot be explained. There are other coins they see which can be explained by the "experts" but they don't agree on which explanation is correct. On occasion, only one out of many explanations turned out to be correct.
1 : pressed together : reduced in size or volume (as by pressure)
2 : flattened as though subjected to compression:
a : flattened laterally petioles compressed
b : narrow from side to side and deep in a dorsoventral direction
I don't think this explains the deeply incuse letters that IMO (if genuine) had to be made with a US Mint HUB.
Do we know how deeply incuse they are?
YES
Deeper than any marks on the rims of all the coins I've ever seen like this before! This coin has more letters and they are more deeply impressed. Examples I've seen up to now either have three stars or 2-3 letters at most. Additionally, they were not even close to this deep and they did not result from an encasement die strike. As I wrote before, this type of thing was not considered to be rim damage.
Sooner or later I'll find an image of this characteristic to post but too busy at the moment to search 6K + mostly unorganized images. I'm slowly putting them into organized folders.
@Insider2 said: @tradedollarnut said: "...I would expect more from an expert’s report. Not getting the sides mixed up and an explanation behind the missing rim."
It is simple. There are some coins "expert's" see which cannot be explained. There are other coins they see which can be explained by the "experts" but they don't agree on which explanation is correct. On occasion, only one out of many explanations turned out to be correct.
1 : pressed together : reduced in size or volume (as by pressure)
2 : flattened as though subjected to compression:
a : flattened laterally petioles compressed
b : narrow from side to side and deep in a dorsoventral direction
I don't think this explains the deeply incuse letters that IMO (if genuine) had to be made with a US Mint HUB.
Do we know how deeply incuse they are?
YES
Deeper than any marks on the rims of all the coins I've ever seen like this before! This coin has more letters and they are more deeply impressed. Examples I've seen up to now either have three stars or 2-3 letters at most. Additionally, they were not even close to this deep and they did not result from an encasement die strike. As I wrote before, this type of thing was not considered to be rim damage.
Sooner or later I'll find an image of this characteristic to post but too busy at the moment to search 6K + mostly unorganized images. I'm slowly putting them into organized folders.
You can use 82 point font if you want, but "deeper than any marks...I've ever seen" isn't a unit of depth.
I was raised in a monastery. The most beautiful woman I'd ever seen was quite homely.
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.
Truly enjoying this discussion, especially the knowledge being imparted on metallurgy, physics, and the minting process. I find the multiple-strike mint error arguments more persuasive than any PMD scenario presented.
The fact that this planchet was strain hardened by an initial improper, damaging strike, and then re-inserted for another correct strike, is probably what gave this coin's surface the ability to resist contact marks and remain a 66 level coin.
Historically speaking, in 1899, the mint workers were probably being told to use up all available planchets, even damaged ones, because of the worry that the presses might not even be functioning in the weeks ahead. What with society's high anxiety at the time about the impending impact of Y1.9K at midnight on 12/31 - people weren't even sure their whale oil lamps would still work!
I can see some US Mint employee fooling around with a couple of obverse working dies, positioning a coin blank, deliberately creating those letters on the rim. My explanations are quite simple to understand. For some of you, you'll just need to go back and read my posts.
Adios!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@jmlanzaf said:
You can use 82 point font if you want, but "deeper than any marks...I've ever seen" isn't a unit of depth.
I was raised in a monastery. The most beautiful woman I'd ever seen was quite homely.
From a mathematical standpoint, that is an excellent counterpoint on relativity. I may use this example in my classes. I love it! Touche.
II'm sure that one day after you have some experience examining a very large number of coins, you'll be able to understand the difference between terms such as "very shallow," "shallow," "deep," and "very deep."
That's because every YN I've ever taught can quickly understand/identify the differences between those adjectives in less than a MINUTE of instruction.
You might try this. Think of a rectangular swimming pool with two steps at the SHALLOW END (3' deep). The first step is very shallow, we'll call the second step very shallow also but when we step on to the bottom of the pool at that end, we'll be in three feet of water. It's called the "shallow end" of the pool. Now start walking toward the diving board at the other end of the pool. Eventually, as the bottom slopes down the water gets deeper. Usually 8' deep at the deep end. Some pools are 10' deep. That's deep. I've been in only one pool that was much deeper than 10' at the "deep" end. It was VERY DEEP! The depth of that pool is not normal. It is the deepest I've ever been in. It is often used for scuba classes.
So, just as my example, I can say the letters on the rim of the OP's coin are very deep. The deepest I've ever seen. They are DEEPER THAN MOST CHOP MARKS too!
I hope this post helps you to form a personal idea of words that are commonly used to indicate a general description of "depth." I'm unaware of any professional who tries to measure the actual depth of a mark on a coin. Perhaps, you can educate us regarding the PRECISE method you've chastised me for not knowing/using.
@jmlanzaf said:
You can use 82 point font if you want, but "deeper than any marks...I've ever seen" isn't a unit of depth.
I was raised in a monastery. The most beautiful woman I'd ever seen was quite homely.
From a mathematical standpoint, that is an excellent counterpoint on relativity. I may use this example in my classes. I love it! Touche.
Use gendered examples at your own peril in a post #metoo world
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.
Actually no, unless there is a volume change with it which we are interpreting there was not. What you have is caused STRAIN resulting in DEFORMATION caused by a directed FORCE acting on an object.
Ah no..... We are talking about solid materials and how they deform. We are talking about STRAIN, DEFORMATION, and FORCE.
From the web:
What is compression in science definition?
The definition of compression is the action or state of being squished down or made smaller or more pressed together. When a pile of material is squished together and made smaller and more dense, this is an example of compression.
i.e. VOLUME reduction. NOT HAPPENING HERE...........
II'm sure that one day after you have some experience examining a very large number of coins, you'll be able to understand the difference between terms such as "very shallow," "shallow," "deep," and "very deep."
That's because every YN I've ever taught can quickly understand/identify the differences between those adjectives in less than a MINUTE of instruction.
You might try this. Think of a rectangular swimming pool with two steps at the SHALLOW END (3' deep). The first step is very shallow, we'll call the second step very shallow also but when we step on to the bottom of the pool at that end, we'll be in three feet of water. It's called the "shallow end" of the pool. Now start walking toward the diving board at the other end of the pool. Eventually, as the bottom slopes down the water gets deeper. Usually 8' deep at the deep end. Some pools are 10' deep. That's deep. I've been in only one pool that was much deeper than 10' at the "deep" end. It was VERY DEEP! The depth of that pool is not normal. It is the deepest I've ever been in. It is often used for scuba classes.
So, just as my example, I can say the letters on the rim of the OP's coin are very deep. The deepest I've ever seen. They are DEEPER THAN MOST CHOP MARKS too!
I hope this post helps you to form a personal idea of words that are commonly used to indicate a general description of "depth." I'm unaware of any professional who tries to measure the actual depth of a mark on a coin. Perhaps, you can educate us regarding the PRECISE method you've chastised me for not knowing/using.
I can't believe I have to spell this out, but the depth standard would be the normal height of the letters. If the imprint is close in depth to the actual height, then you would need a striking pressure similar to the original. If the imprint is only 1/100th of the normal depth, then you can probably do it with two coins and a hammer.
Now, I know you have vast experience and have looked at millions of coins. So, rather than being so invested in semantics, perhaps you could expound upon the perceived depth of those letters. How do you know they are deeper than chopmarks? It is not clear to me how deep the letters are in those photos. If they are actually quite shallow, then it is easier to see it as coin-to-coin transfer after it left the Mint.
II'm sure that one day after you have some experience examining a very large number of coins, you'll be able to understand the difference between terms such as "very shallow," "shallow," "deep," and "very deep."
That's because every YN I've ever taught can quickly understand/identify the differences between those adjectives in less than a MINUTE of instruction.
You might try this. Think of a rectangular swimming pool with two steps at the SHALLOW END (3' deep). The first step is very shallow, we'll call the second step very shallow also but when we step on to the bottom of the pool at that end, we'll be in three feet of water. It's called the "shallow end" of the pool. Now start walking toward the diving board at the other end of the pool. Eventually, as the bottom slopes down the water gets deeper. Usually 8' deep at the deep end. Some pools are 10' deep. That's deep. I've been in only one pool that was much deeper than 10' at the "deep" end. It was VERY DEEP! The depth of that pool is not normal. It is the deepest I've ever been in. It is often used for scuba classes.
So, just as my example, I can say the letters on the rim of the OP's coin are very deep. The deepest I've ever seen. They are DEEPER THAN MOST CHOP MARKS too!
I hope this post helps you to form a personal idea of words that are commonly used to indicate a general description of "depth." I'm unaware of any professional who tries to measure the actual depth of a mark on a coin. Perhaps, you can educate us regarding the PRECISE method you've chastised me for not knowing/using.
I can't believe I have to spell this out, but the depth standard would be the normal height of the letters. If the imprint is close in depth to the actual height, then you would need a striking pressure similar to the original. If the imprint is only 1/100th of the normal depth, then you can probably do it with two coins and a hammer.
Now, I know you have vast experience and have looked at millions of coins. So, rather than being so invested in semantics, perhaps you could expound upon the perceived depth of those letters. How do you know they are deeper than chopmarks? It is not clear to me how deep the letters are in those photos. If they are actually quite shallow, then it is easier to see it as coin-to-coin transfer after it left the Mint.
The depth of the incuse letters is equal to or deeper than the height of the letters of the normal coin.
Also, we can create a definitions thread for all these controversial terms such as compression and "folding" and density on another post. These terms have only just become defined, no wonder there is such debate. But for this thread let's debate/discuss the coin.
For the individual wishing to point out these definitions are relevant to identifying what happened to this this coin...... probably less than you think
Makes sense; but we are not talking science. We are talking coins and describing what they look like to the average person who, just like me, was not potty-trained correctly. Those are the folks who came up with words like "cud" - now called a major die break. Decades ago, I never heard of a doublED die, it was just "double die." Good luck to those wishing to change a damaged and "compressed" edge into the correct scientific terminology!
@jmlanzaf said: "I can't believe I have to spell this out, but the depth standard would be the normal height of the letters. If the imprint is close in depth to the actual height, then you would need a striking pressure similar to the original.
_You are absolutely correct and that's what I see. The letters are VERY DEEPLY impressed and there is no evidence of any damage to the rim on that side of the coin.** _
@jmlanzaf said: "If the imprint is only 1/100th of the normal depth, then you can probably do it with two coins and a hammer."
I've already demonstrated that it cannot be done with two coins and a hammer. Not a sledge hammer either! Not how sharp the incuse letters are on the OP's coin.
@jmlanzaf asked: "....How do you know they are deeper than chopmarks?
IMO, It is extremely obvious. I just used my four eyes.
This thread, for me, has ceased to be about the coin and is now a fascinating study into human behavior, communication, and persuasion.
I think the coin was made in 2 strikes, one ”cattywompus” and one normal, that the obverse rim is deficient, and that the coin would be precisely the correct weight. My theory takes into account the effect of the dentils on the incuse letters (and visa-versa), the obverse rim, and the overall condition of the coin. I am also perfectly convinced that I would be unable to explain why I think so to the satisfaction of those following along..... and therefore I won’t try.
I speak and process “my world” in the language of engineering, material properties, and physics. Those who don’t speak those languages simply can’t understand what is being said any more than I can understand modern rap music. They might recognize the words, but misunderstand the meaning behind them.
I also might be 100% wrong...... and doubt very much that we’ll ever know.
Bryce, you’ve taken a good swing at it, no one can deny you that.
It’s almost a relief to learn that, while most people can change their minds, very few can have their minds changed.
I firmly believe that if Dan Carr came on this thread tomorrow and demonstrated that he could strike a coin with the exact same characteristics as this one, the arguing would continue unabated.
And if that won’t do it, no amount of words stands a chance!
@BryceM said:
This thread, for me, has ceased to be about the coin and is now a fascinating study into human behavior, communication, and persuasion.
I think the coin was made in 2 strikes, one ”cattywompus” and one normal, that the obverse rim is deficient, and that the coin would be precisely the correct weight. My theory takes into account the effect of the dentils on the incuse letters (and visa-versa), the obverse rim, and the overall condition of the coin. I am also perfectly convinced that I would be unable to explain why I think so to the satisfaction of those following along..... and therefore I won’t try.
I speak and process “my world” in the language of engineering, material properties, and physics. Those who don’t speak those languages simply can’t understand what is being said any more than I can understand modern rap music. They might recognize the words, but misunderstand the meaning behind them.
I also might be 100% wrong...... and doubt very much that we’ll ever know.
I remain unsure. So, I remain undecided. I do appreciate the calm clarity of your exposition.
@scubafuel said:
Bryce, you’ve taken a good swing at it, no one can deny you that.
It’s almost a relief to learn that, while most people can change their minds, very few can have their minds changed.
I firmly believe that if Dan Carr came on this thread tomorrow and demonstrated that he could strike a coin with the exact same characteristics as this one, the arguing would continue unabated.
And if that won’t do it, no amount of words stands a chance!
I DISAGREE.
If Mr. Carr wished to take the time and was paid for his work I'll bet he could make one of these - either by accident (as possibly happened when it was struck) OR intentionally using anything possible to produce the same effect! This "thing exists so another can be produced.
I wish this forum had color choices. I practically got run off another forum for using emojis, colors, and bold formatting for emphasis.
@Insider2 said: @tradedollarnut said: "...I would expect more from an expert’s report. Not getting the sides mixed up and an explanation behind the missing rim."
It is simple. There are some coins "expert's" see which cannot be explained. There are other coins they see which can be explained by the "experts" but they don't agree on which explanation is correct. On occasion, only one out of many explanations turned out to be correct.
1 : pressed together : reduced in size or volume (as by pressure)
2 : flattened as though subjected to compression:
a : flattened laterally petioles compressed
b : narrow from side to side and deep in a dorsoventral direction
I don't think this explains the deeply incuse letters that IMO (if genuine) had to be made with a US Mint HUB.
Do we know how deeply incuse they are?
YES
Deeper than any marks on the rims of all the coins I've ever seen like this before! This coin has more letters and they are more deeply impressed. Examples I've seen up to now either have three stars or 2-3 letters at most. Additionally, they were not even close to this deep and they did not result from an encasement die strike. As I wrote before, this type of thing was not considered to be rim damage.
Sooner or later I'll find an image of this characteristic to post but too busy at the moment to search 6K + mostly unorganized images. I'm slowly putting them into organized folders.
You can use 82 point font if you want, but "deeper than any marks...I've ever seen" isn't a unit of depth.
I was raised in a monastery. The most beautiful woman I'd ever seen was quite homely.
She must have been a visitor unless you were raised in a Convent.
@scubafuel said:
Bryce, you’ve taken a good swing at it, no one can deny you that.
It’s almost a relief to learn that, while most people can change their minds, very few can have their minds changed.
I firmly believe that if Dan Carr came on this thread tomorrow and demonstrated that he could strike a coin with the exact same characteristics as this one, the arguing would continue unabated.
And if that won’t do it, no amount of words stands a chance!
I DISAGREE.
If Mr. Carr wished to take the time and was paid for his work I'll bet he could make one of these - either by accident (as possibly happened when it was struck) OR intentionally using anything possible to produce the same effect! This "thing exists so another can be produced.
I wish this forum had color choices. I practically got run off another forum for using emojis, colors, and bold formatting for emphasis.
Every morning when I wake up, I thank my lucky stars that this forum does not have colour choices.
Yes, I mixed up the Obv./Rev. designations in my post two days ago. My apologies.
My post wasn't a report per se, just my observations viewing the coin.
As I posted yesterday, I encourage the owner to show or submit it to
any of the other 3 authentication services - it will not be certified as a
mint error of any kind.
As for all of the speculation about how it 'could' occur in the Mint, none
of it is correct, imo, and as far as 'how' it could have been made outside
the Mint (which is my position), as Bill Fivaz says when asked EXACTLY
how a damaged 'error' was made, he'll sometimes say "I wasn't there when it was done,
so I can't tell you exactly how it was done" (but it's a damaged/altered coin)
I read each post on this thread, and I realize many of you have your own views
about it, and what caused it, etc. - makes for a lively thread, but I am confident
it was not struck like that at the Mint.
.....waiting for the baseball bats!
My question wasn’t how you think it was made. Rather, how you came to your conclusion it’s 100% not a mint product, with the technical details included.
The question remains @fredweinberg, how are you so confident this isn’t a mint product?
It appears Fred's position is that he doesn't believe there is a mechanism for which it could have been created at the mint, therefore it wasn't. This is a reasonable position. However, for a particularly puzzling coin like this it would be very interesting to provide additional details, speculate on how PMD could cause what we are seeing, provide further explanation, etc.
I know Fred has seen innumerable vice jobs, mangled coins, etc. where owners are convinced it's an error and he's not going to waste his time to an adamant owner, that no it isn't a mint error, but no, I can't tell you the exact model of car that ran over it in the parking lot.
So I don't know that we are going to get further answers to questions, just a data point of the final opinion of an expert error evaluator.
@Davideo said:
I know Fred has seen innumerable vice jobs, mangled coins, etc. where owners are convinced it's an error and he's not going to waste his time to an adamant owner, that no it isn't a mint error, but no, I can't tell you the exact model of car that ran over it in the parking lot.
It's not just the owner that has a different opinion. This post appears earlier in this 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....
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Comments
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.
The car is compressed. The metal in the car is NOT compressed. The density (specific gravity) of the car is increased. The density (specific gravity) of the metal in the car is NOT increased.
Again, the debate is semantic especially as the word means different things in different contexts. But as it was used as a counter argument to Bryce, it is wholly incorrect.
I gave up a long time ago........
If two obverse dies, the faces of those two dies come into contact with each other, is it possible for one die to imprint raised letters onto the other die? I'm also suggesting one working die was still very warm (from the annealing process that softens the metal before the image/design in transfered) from just being stamped. And than the die was used to strike a coin, the extra letters on the rim would be incused and backwards.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
NEVER SURRENDER!!!
Maybe I’m in the minority, but I would expect more from an expert’s report. Not getting the sides mixed up and an explanation behind the missing rim
**Definition of compressed
1 : pressed together : reduced in size or volume (as by pressure)
2 : flattened as though subjected to compression:
a : flattened laterally petioles compressed
b : narrow from side to side and deep in a dorsoventral direction
https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compressed
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Actually no, unless there is a volume change with it which we are interpreting there was not. What you have is caused STRAIN resulting in DEFORMATION caused by a directed FORCE acting on an object.
Best, SH
gasses compress,solids and liquids-nope
If metal is missing did PCGS happen to weigh it back in the day? Would the difference, if metal was removed, be significant enough to come to any conclusion?
.
Not that you owe it to the forum, but it sure would help this discussion if you gave an explanation (with technical detail) for how you came to this conclusion.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I'm actually surprised at your lack of knowledge in this regard. Did you take any science courses in school at all?
Good Mornin' -
Yes, I mixed up the Obv./Rev. designations in my post two days ago. My apologies.
My post wasn't a report per se, just my observations viewing the coin.
As I posted yesterday, I encourage the owner to show or submit it to
any of the other 3 authentication services - it will not be certified as a
mint error of any kind.
As for all of the speculation about how it 'could' occur in the Mint, none
of it is correct, imo, and as far as 'how' it could have been made outside
the Mint (which is my position), as Bill Fivaz says when asked EXACTLY
how a damaged 'error' was made, he'll sometimes say "I wasn't there when it was done,
so I can't tell you exactly how it was done" (but it's a damaged/altered coin)
I read each post on this thread, and I realize many of you have your own views
about it, and what caused it, etc. - makes for a lively thread, but I am confident
it was not struck like that at the Mint.
.....waiting for the baseball bats!
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
If it ever gets cracked out one could simply weigh it. Were it mine I'd just leave it holdered as is.
What force other than that from a coin press would result in that kind of impression especially considering that both "coins" would have identical composition and maybe hardness?
If you took a blank planchet with no rim and placed it in the press and placed a struck coin on top if it and cycled the press, what would be on the planchet. A clear impression of the top coin or some muddied weakly struck looking result?
My question wasn’t how you think it was made. Rather, how you came to your conclusion it’s 100% not a mint product, with the technical details included.
@tradedollarnut said: "...I would expect more from an expert’s report. Not getting the sides mixed up and an explanation behind the missing rim."
It is simple. There are some coins "expert's" see which cannot be explained. There are other coins they see which can be explained by the "experts" but they don't agree on which explanation is correct. On occasion, only one out of many explanations turned out to be correct.
@ms70 posted the definition of compressed:
1 : pressed together : reduced in size or volume (as by pressure)
2 : flattened as though subjected to compression:
a : flattened laterally petioles compressed
b : narrow from side to side and deep in a dorsoventral direction
THANK YOU!
@jmlanzaf said: "...Again, the debate is semantic especially as the word means different things in different contexts. But as it was used as a counter argument to Bryce, it is wholly incorrect."
So, let's keep the word weenies of the scientific persuasion who argue about gas, solids. strain, compression, and whatever out of the simple observation - the edge opposite the extraneous letters is "smashed."
@amwldcoin said: "I'm actually surprised at your lack of knowledge in this regard. Did you take any science courses in school at all?"
Check out the definition above. I do very well on english comprehension tests.
@leothelyon posted:
I don't think this explains the deeply incuse letters that IMO (if genuine) had to be made with a US Mint HUB.
Hi @FredWeinberg
One of the things that was not obvious from the photos was the depth of the letters. Are they shallow? Are they close to the depth as the normal height of the letters?
Personally, I'm not of a mind to disagree with you. I've never been able to come up with a satisfying explanation of how it could have happened at the Mint.
Thanks,
Joe
Do we know how deeply incuse they are?
I tire of the “100% isn’t but I can’t and won’t defend that” as well as the “I don’t have to know how it happened”.
But claiming it didn’t happen one way requires comprehension of what happened or at a minimum the complete process. At least in the real world of educated engineers. The fraternity of glorified sales people, standards are a little looser... I get it
PCGS giving it a pass because they rather be safe than sorry with what goes in their holder is understandable too even if it can encourage intellectual laziness by their experts.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
YES
Deeper than any marks on the rims of all the coins I've ever seen like this before! This coin has more letters and they are more deeply impressed. Examples I've seen up to now either have three stars or 2-3 letters at most. Additionally, they were not even close to this deep and they did not result from an encasement die strike. As I wrote before, this type of thing was not considered to be rim damage.
Sooner or later I'll find an image of this characteristic to post but too busy at the moment to search 6K + mostly unorganized images.
I'm slowly putting them into organized folders.
You can use 82 point font if you want, but "deeper than any marks...I've ever seen" isn't a unit of depth.
I was raised in a monastery. The most beautiful woman I'd ever seen was quite homely.
@Nysoto posted:
Truly enjoying this discussion, especially the knowledge being imparted on metallurgy, physics, and the minting process. I find the multiple-strike mint error arguments more persuasive than any PMD scenario presented.
The fact that this planchet was strain hardened by an initial improper, damaging strike, and then re-inserted for another correct strike, is probably what gave this coin's surface the ability to resist contact marks and remain a 66 level coin.
Historically speaking, in 1899, the mint workers were probably being told to use up all available planchets, even damaged ones, because of the worry that the presses might not even be functioning in the weeks ahead. What with society's high anxiety at the time about the impending impact of Y1.9K at midnight on 12/31 - people weren't even sure their whale oil lamps would still work!
I can see some US Mint employee fooling around with a couple of obverse working dies, positioning a coin blank, deliberately creating those letters on the rim. My explanations are quite simple to understand. For some of you, you'll just need to go back and read my posts.
Adios!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
From a mathematical standpoint, that is an excellent counterpoint on relativity. I may use this example in my classes. I love it! Touche.
@jmlanzaf,
II'm sure that one day after you
have some experience examining a very large number of coins, you'll be able to understand the difference between terms such as "very shallow," "shallow," "deep," and "very deep." 
That's because every YN I've ever taught can quickly understand/identify the differences between those adjectives in less than a MINUTE of instruction.
You might try this. Think of a rectangular swimming pool with two steps at the SHALLOW END (3' deep). The first step is very shallow, we'll call the second step very shallow also but when we step on to the bottom of the pool at that end, we'll be in three feet of water. It's called the "shallow end" of the pool. Now start walking toward the diving board at the other end of the pool. Eventually, as the bottom slopes down the water gets deeper. Usually 8' deep at the deep end. Some pools are 10' deep. That's deep. I've been in only one pool that was much deeper than 10' at the "deep" end. It was VERY DEEP! The depth of that pool is not normal. It is the deepest I've ever been in. It is often used for scuba classes.
So, just as my example, I can say the letters on the rim of the OP's coin are very deep. The deepest I've ever seen. They are DEEPER THAN MOST CHOP MARKS too!
I hope this post helps you to form a personal idea of words that are commonly used to indicate a general description of "depth." I'm unaware of any professional who tries to measure the actual depth of a mark on a coin. Perhaps, you can educate us regarding the PRECISE method you've chastised me for not knowing/using.
Use gendered examples at your own peril in a post #metoo world
Ah no..... We are talking about solid materials and how they deform. We are talking about STRAIN, DEFORMATION, and FORCE.
From the web:
What is compression in science definition?
The definition of compression is the action or state of being squished down or made smaller or more pressed together. When a pile of material is squished together and made smaller and more dense, this is an example of compression.
i.e. VOLUME reduction. NOT HAPPENING HERE...........
Best, SH
I can't believe I have to spell this out, but the depth standard would be the normal height of the letters. If the imprint is close in depth to the actual height, then you would need a striking pressure similar to the original. If the imprint is only 1/100th of the normal depth, then you can probably do it with two coins and a hammer.
Now, I know you have vast experience and have looked at millions of coins. So, rather than being so invested in semantics, perhaps you could expound upon the perceived depth of those letters. How do you know they are deeper than chopmarks? It is not clear to me how deep the letters are in those photos. If they are actually quite shallow, then it is easier to see it as coin-to-coin transfer after it left the Mint.
The depth of the incuse letters is equal to or deeper than the height of the letters of the normal coin.
Also, we can create a definitions thread for all these controversial terms such as compression and "folding" and density on another post. These terms have only just become defined, no wonder there is such debate. But for this thread let's debate/discuss the coin.
For the individual wishing to point out these definitions are relevant to identifying what happened to this this coin...... probably less than you think
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
@spacehayduke,
Makes sense; but we are not talking science. We are talking coins and describing what they look like to the average person who, just like me, was not potty-trained correctly. Those are the folks who came up with words like "cud" - now called a major die break. Decades ago, I never heard of a doublED die, it was just "double die." Good luck to those wishing to change a damaged and "compressed" edge into the correct scientific terminology!
We can create definitions all night long but at the end of the day and as was stated months ago already, PMD is the only definition we need.
@jmlanzaf said: "I can't believe I have to spell this out, but the depth standard would be the normal height of the letters. If the imprint is close in depth to the actual height, then you would need a striking pressure similar to the original.
_You are absolutely correct and that's what I see. The letters are VERY DEEPLY impressed and there is no evidence of any damage to the rim on that side of the coin.** _
@jmlanzaf said: "If the imprint is only 1/100th of the normal depth, then you can probably do it with two coins and a hammer."
I've already demonstrated that it cannot be done with two coins and a hammer. Not a sledge hammer either! Not how sharp the incuse letters are on the OP's coin.
@jmlanzaf asked: "....How do you know they are deeper than chopmarks?
IMO, It is extremely obvious. I just used my four
eyes.
This thread, for me, has ceased to be about the coin and is now a fascinating study into human behavior, communication, and persuasion.
I think the coin was made in 2 strikes, one ”cattywompus” and one normal, that the obverse rim is deficient, and that the coin would be precisely the correct weight. My theory takes into account the effect of the dentils on the incuse letters (and visa-versa), the obverse rim, and the overall condition of the coin. I am also perfectly convinced that I would be unable to explain why I think so to the satisfaction of those following along..... and therefore I won’t try.
I speak and process “my world” in the language of engineering, material properties, and physics. Those who don’t speak those languages simply can’t understand what is being said any more than I can understand modern rap music. They might recognize the words, but misunderstand the meaning behind them.
I also might be 100% wrong...... and doubt very much that we’ll ever know.
Bryce, you’ve taken a good swing at it, no one can deny you that.
It’s almost a relief to learn that, while most people can change their minds, very few can have their minds changed.
I firmly believe that if Dan Carr came on this thread tomorrow and demonstrated that he could strike a coin with the exact same characteristics as this one, the arguing would continue unabated.
And if that won’t do it, no amount of words stands a chance!
I remain unsure. So, I remain undecided. I do appreciate the calm clarity of your exposition.
I DISAGREE.
If Mr. Carr wished to take the time and was paid for his work I'll bet he could make one of these - either by accident (as possibly happened when it was struck) OR intentionally using anything possible to produce the same effect! This "thing exists so another can be produced.
I wish this forum had color choices. I practically got run off another forum for using emojis, colors, and bold formatting for emphasis.
She must have been a visitor unless you were raised in a Convent.
Every morning when I wake up, I thank my lucky stars that this forum does not have colour choices.
Smitten with DBLCs.
I find it interesting that all those spaces between the denticles in the shaved area look so perfect.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
The question remains @fredweinberg, how are you so confident this isn’t a mint product?
It appears Fred's position is that he doesn't believe there is a mechanism for which it could have been created at the mint, therefore it wasn't. This is a reasonable position. However, for a particularly puzzling coin like this it would be very interesting to provide additional details, speculate on how PMD could cause what we are seeing, provide further explanation, etc.
I know Fred has seen innumerable vice jobs, mangled coins, etc. where owners are convinced it's an error and he's not going to waste his time to an adamant owner, that no it isn't a mint error, but no, I can't tell you the exact model of car that ran over it in the parking lot.
So I don't know that we are going to get further answers to questions, just a data point of the final opinion of an expert error evaluator.
So, if it's not a mint error and it is PMD, then there ought not be a grade or a sticker.
Somebody needs to call somebody, over this simple fact.
It's not just the owner that has a different opinion. This post appears earlier in this thread:
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.