@Davideo said:
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.
More likely he doesn't know of a creative mechanism and so is not 100% for sure that it isn't a mint error, and can't guarantee that it isn't.. Even experts don't know it all.
Probaby resulted from some sort of jam and after it was cleared and the press operator just threw it back into the mix or smoe test planchets that were re-struck to be normal coins.
@Davideo said:
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.
If Fred’s answer is “I don’t know” then he should say that. His answer was that it’s 100% not mint product. With such a strong stance he should be able to back it up. I’m not saying he can’t back it up, but he’s chosen not to up to now.
@tradedollarnut said:
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
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
@tradedollarnut said:
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
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
This grossly misstates the entire proposition. It's not just JA. Mr. Feltner clearly thought it might be. The original graders did NOT consider it PMD. People on this forum are split on the matter.
Fred Weinberg is the foremost error authority who has weighed in on the matter, but let's not pretend there aren't others who think it is not PMD. And @tradedollarnut wasn't commenting on the correctness of Fred's position, just asking for a more detailed explanation.
@tradedollarnut said:
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
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
The final word himself has stated that he is confident, but has been wrong before. He is very experienced and very rarely wrong, but he's not God.
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error, just it may be and felt it was not PMD. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
@Davideo said:
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.
@davids5104 said:
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
It seems that JA implicitly said it was a mint error. If a slabbed coin has PMD, it shouldn't be receiving a sticker, correct?
@Davideo said:
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.
I wouldn't quite say I am an adamant owner....
No, not at all. I was not referring to you specifically. Also, your coin was not run over in a parking lot
@davids5104 said:
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
It seems that JA implicitly said it was a mint error. If a slabbed coin has PMD, it shouldn't be receiving a sticker, correct?
Incorrect. He does not determine PMD vs error.... pcgs and the ATS service does.
Since they did not call it PMD, he behaved as though it was not PMD and assessed coin accordingly
@davids5104 said:
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
It seems that JA implicitly said it was a mint error. If a slabbed coin has PMD, it shouldn't be receiving a sticker, correct?
I would think rather that both PCGS and CAC believe that whatever it is, it is market acceptable for the given grade. Whether it should be or not, is another question.
@davids5104 said:
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
It seems that JA implicitly said it was a mint error. If a slabbed coin has PMD, it shouldn't be receiving a sticker, correct?
Incorrect. He does not determine PMD vs error.... pcgs and the ATS service does.
Since they did not call it PMD, he behaved as though it was not PMD and assessed coin accordingly
OK, so if JA receives a counterfeit coin in a legitimate slab, should he sticker it based solely on the assigned grade?
@tradedollarnut said:
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
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
If he’s not willing to back up his position, he shouldn’t be the final word.
@davids5104 said:
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
It seems that JA implicitly said it was a mint error. If a slabbed coin has PMD, it shouldn't be receiving a sticker, correct?
Incorrect. He does not determine PMD vs error.... pcgs and the ATS service does.
Since they did not call it PMD, he behaved as though it was not PMD and assessed coin accordingly
OK, so if JA receives a counterfeit coin in a legitimate slab, should he sticker it based solely on the assigned grade?
He of course can do as he wishes, but his business model is not to assess whether a coin is a mint error vs damage. It is to assess the grade assigned by the TPGs for possible stickering.... you changed the discussion to counterfeit, and that IS NOT what my previous post is referring to. A counterfeit coin may produce a different behavior from him that I am unable to speak to, but my coin is not counterfeit.
I would assume he would sticker based on the coin as well though in the case of counterfeit if he was unaware FOR SURE, as that is the most basic of requirements for TPGs, but again I have no idea
@davids5104 said:
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
It seems that JA implicitly said it was a mint error. If a slabbed coin has PMD, it shouldn't be receiving a sticker, correct?
Incorrect. He does not determine PMD vs error.... pcgs and the ATS service does.
Since they did not call it PMD, he behaved as though it was not PMD and assessed coin accordingly
OK, so if JA receives a counterfeit coin in a legitimate slab, should he sticker it based solely on the assigned grade?
He of course can do as he wishes, but his business model is not to assess whether a coin is a mint error vs damage. It is to assess the grade assigned by the TPGs for possible stickering.... you changed the discussion to counterfeit, and that IS NOT what my previous post is referring to. A counterfeit coin may produce a different behavior from him that I am unable to speak to, but my coin is not counterfeit.
I would assume he would sticker based on the coin as well though in the case of counterfeit if he was unaware FOR SURE, as that is the most basic of requirements for TPGs, but again I have no idea
As far as I understand it, the CAC business model is to identify coins which are high end for the assigned grade. I don't believe a damaged coin would fall into that category. YMMV.
@davids5104 said:
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
It seems that JA implicitly said it was a mint error. If a slabbed coin has PMD, it shouldn't be receiving a sticker, correct?
Incorrect. He does not determine PMD vs error.... pcgs and the ATS service does.
Since they did not call it PMD, he behaved as though it was not PMD and assessed coin accordingly
OK, so if JA receives a counterfeit coin in a legitimate slab, should he sticker it based solely on the assigned grade?
He of course can do as he wishes, but his business model is not to assess whether a coin is a mint error vs damage. It is to assess the grade assigned by the TPGs for possible stickering.... you changed the discussion to counterfeit, and that IS NOT what my previous post is referring to. A counterfeit coin may produce a different behavior from him that I am unable to speak to, but my coin is not counterfeit.
I would assume he would sticker based on the coin as well though in the case of counterfeit if he was unaware FOR SURE, as that is the most basic of requirements for TPGs, but again I have no idea
As far as I understand it, the CAC business model is to identify coins which are high end for the assigned grade. I don't believe a damaged coin would fall into that category. YMMV.
I agree with you completely, it is not his business model to evaluate coins that are damaged or counterfeit. He leaves that to the TPGs! Which is precisely why he does not care to make the distinction. Once the TPGs say it is a coin worthy of CAC eval, it is done.
@davids5104 said:
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
It seems that JA implicitly said it was a mint error. If a slabbed coin has PMD, it shouldn't be receiving a sticker, correct?
Incorrect. He does not determine PMD vs error.... pcgs and the ATS service does.
Since they did not call it PMD, he behaved as though it was not PMD and assessed coin accordingly
OK, so if JA receives a counterfeit coin in a legitimate slab, should he sticker it based solely on the assigned grade?
He of course can do as he wishes, but his business model is not to assess whether a coin is a mint error vs damage. It is to assess the grade assigned by the TPGs for possible stickering.... you changed the discussion to counterfeit, and that IS NOT what my previous post is referring to. A counterfeit coin may produce a different behavior from him that I am unable to speak to, but my coin is not counterfeit.
I would assume he would sticker based on the coin as well though in the case of counterfeit if he was unaware FOR SURE, as that is the most basic of requirements for TPGs, but again I have no idea
As far as I understand it, the CAC business model is to identify coins which are high end for the assigned grade. I don't believe a damaged coin would fall into that category. YMMV.
I agree with you completely, it is not his business model to evaluate coins that are damaged or counterfeit. He leaves that to the TPGs! Which is precisely why he does not care to make the distinction. Once the TPGs say it is a coin worthy of CAC eval, it is done.
Well, not to derail the thread, but that opens up a whole other can of worms. For example, if a straight-graded coin is technically very high end for the assigned grade, but in JA's judgment the color is questionable, is he obligated to sticker it since the TPG gave the color its stamp of approval? You may treat this as a rhetorical question, if you wish.
@davids5104 said:
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
It seems that JA implicitly said it was a mint error. If a slabbed coin has PMD, it shouldn't be receiving a sticker, correct?
Incorrect. He does not determine PMD vs error.... pcgs and the ATS service does.
Since they did not call it PMD, he behaved as though it was not PMD and assessed coin accordingly
OK, so if JA receives a counterfeit coin in a legitimate slab, should he sticker it based solely on the assigned grade?
He of course can do as he wishes, but his business model is not to assess whether a coin is a mint error vs damage. It is to assess the grade assigned by the TPGs for possible stickering.... you changed the discussion to counterfeit, and that IS NOT what my previous post is referring to. A counterfeit coin may produce a different behavior from him that I am unable to speak to, but my coin is not counterfeit.
I would assume he would sticker based on the coin as well though in the case of counterfeit if he was unaware FOR SURE, as that is the most basic of requirements for TPGs, but again I have no idea
As far as I understand it, the CAC business model is to identify coins which are high end for the assigned grade. I don't believe a damaged coin would fall into that category. YMMV.
I agree with you completely, it is not his business model to evaluate coins that are damaged or counterfeit. He leaves that to the TPGs! Which is precisely why he does not care to make the distinction. Once the TPGs say it is a coin worthy of CAC eval, it is done.
I think "damage" overstates it if it is not a mint error. An MS65 Morgan will have hits (damage?) on the coin from bumping into other coins. We generally don't refer to this as damage. Passive transfer of the letters could be viewed as a market acceptable contact mark and not damage.
@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.
Color is a very good thing. Using a contrasting color lets me add something in the middle of a post that anyone can tell was not the poster's thought. Great for clarity in a discussion.
@jmlanzaf said: @blitzdude said:
PMD, I thought this ja was supposed to be some sort of expert? lol
That's very funny. He's only looked at millions of coins, made millions of dollars and knows about 100x more than you. I get the irony of your joke. It's like calling a short person "stretch".
If those letters are incuse, it is probably damage. If the letters are in relief, it is far more confusing.
In either case, I don't think it can be PMD because the denticles are unaffected.
I owe you an apology, You asked me about the depth of the letters on the rim and I used a tilted image (with shadow) to reply that they were VERY DEEP. I just went back and looked at the images at the beginning of this thread. They are not deep at all! Nevertheless, I'm sticking to what I wrote many pages ago AS GOSPEL!
I've seen this effect on many large coins before - mostly $20 gold.
They are not made by an encasement but are made with contact with another coin.
I've NEVER seen one that looked like it was done intentionally.
I've never seen one affecting the coin's rim so much.
These characteristics have never been given even a second thought by any authenticator or TPGS I've worked at (5) in the past; however, I have taken photos of them because they are interesting. Unfortunately, I never thought this characteristic was anything more than two coins touching under pressure. I still believe that.
Do I consider the coin a minting error" NO
Do I consider the coin damaged NO, absolutely not.
So, I guess I agree with Fred. Not a Mint error. I also agree with JA and PCGS: Straight grade it if the shear on the obverse looks natural.
@jmlanzaf said: @blitzdude said:
PMD, I thought this ja was supposed to be some sort of expert? lol
That's very funny. He's only looked at millions of coins, made millions of dollars and knows about 100x more than you. I get the irony of your joke. It's like calling a short person "stretch".
If those letters are incuse, it is probably damage. If the letters are in relief, it is far more confusing.
In either case, I don't think it can be PMD because the denticles are unaffected.
I owe you an apology, You asked me about the depth of the letters on the rim and I used a tilted image (with shadow) to reply that they were VERY DEEP. I just went back and looked at the images at the beginning of this thread. They are not deep at all! Nevertheless, I'm sticking to what I wrote many pages ago AS GOSPEL!
I've seen this effect on many large coins before - mostly $20 gold.
They are not made by an encasement but are made with contact with another coin.
I've NEVER seen one that looked like it was done intentionally.
I've never seen one affecting the coin's rim so much.
These characteristics have never been given even a second thought by any authenticator or TPGS I've worked at (5) in the past; however, I have taken photos of them because they are interesting. Unfortunately, I never thought this characteristic was anything more than two coins touching under pressure. I still believe that.
Do I consider the coin a minting error" NO
Do I consider the coin damaged NO, absolutely not.
So, I guess I agree with Fred. Not a Mint error. I also agree with JA and PCGS: Straight grade it if the shear on the obverse looks natural.
According to a 1900 examination of the New Orleans Mint, the most frequent cause of insufficient silver dollar detail was improper annealing of planchets, not pressure. Adding more pressure (by reducing the adjustment wedge depth) only caused dies to crack and fail earlier than expected.
The 1900 examination by A. W. Downing that I described earlier is the same as Roger mentioned. In January of 1900, the NO Mint superintendent sent two 1899 dollar dies to Philadelphia that had failed after 75,500 strikes (Barber said they can last >450,000). Engraver Charles Barber states "I am fully satisfied the fault does not rest with the dies. The steel is the same we have used for twenty-five years..." and suggests coining expert Downing be sent to NO.
Downing determines the NO Mint problem to be the volume of planchets sent through one annealing furnace (over 12M dollars in 1899, plus other denominations) in a "rapid and imperfect manner." Downing implements a larger annealing pan (reducing the number of batches per day, enabling longer soak and full annealing temperature). "The results have been much more satisfactory, The dies are stamping more pieces before cracking...The entire appearance of the coin is much improved, the metal flowing into the design of the die much more completely, the reeding filling the collar and making the edge more perfect."
Anyone who has annealed silver knows that unless full annealing temperature (~1175F) is reached, the silver is hard and stiff. With the large NO mintage volume in 1899, most or all planchets would not have time to soak and reach full temperature. In fact, a 600 degree temperature with a delay in quenching would have a hardening effect on silver. NO Mint compensated for hard planchets in 1899 by increasing the striking pressure, which greatly reduced die life and caused other coining problems.
Based on the 1900 Mint examination findings, the subject 1899-O dollar was struck on an improperly annealed, hard planchet. The obverse was struck slightly off-center (misaligned die), while the reverse was centered. The large obverse rim void at 5-6:00 is at the apex of the off-centering, where the reverse working die did not provide full support, resulting in the planchet not filling the collar (as Downing described), and leaving the obverse rim void.
If the obverse rim issue was a PMD dent, and as others have asked, where did the material go? Where are the deformed dentils, raised fields, or a bulge in the rim? As we know metal under pressure does not reduce in volume (increase density), the large amount of missing material would be displaced and seen somewhere else. If the displaced metal is not seen, then any PMD claim would defy the laws of metallurgy.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
According to a 1900 examination of the New Orleans Mint, the most frequent cause of insufficient silver dollar detail was improper annealing of planchets, not pressure. Adding more pressure (by reducing the adjustment wedge depth) only caused dies to crack and fail earlier than expected.
The 1900 examination by A. W. Downing that I described earlier is the same as Roger mentioned. In January of 1900, the NO Mint superintendent sent two 1899 dollar dies to Philadelphia that had failed after 75,500 strikes (Barber said they can last >450,000). Engraver Charles Barber states "I am fully satisfied the fault does not rest with the dies. The steel is the same we have used for twenty-five years..." and suggests coining expert Downing be sent to NO.
Downing determines the NO Mint problem to be the volume of planchets sent through one annealing furnace (over 12M dollars in 1899, plus other denominations) in a "rapid and imperfect manner." Downing implements a larger annealing pan (reducing the number of batches per day, enabling longer soak and full annealing temperature). "The results have been much more satisfactory, The dies are stamping more pieces before cracking...The entire appearance of the coin is much improved, the metal flowing into the design of the die much more completely, the reeding filling the collar and making the edge more perfect."
Anyone who has annealed silver knows that unless full annealing temperature (~1175F) is reached, the silver is hard and stiff. With the large NO mintage volume in 1899, most or all planchets would not have time to soak and reach full temperature. In fact, a 600 degree temperature with a delay in quenching would have a hardening effect on silver. NO Mint compensated for hard planchets in 1899 by increasing the striking pressure, which greatly reduced die life and caused other coining problems.
Based on the 1900 Mint examination findings, the subject 1899-O dollar was struck on an improperly annealed, hard planchet. The obverse was struck slightly off-center (misaligned die), while the reverse was centered. The large obverse rim void at 5-6:00 is at the apex of the off-centering, where the reverse working die did not provide full support, resulting in the planchet not filling the collar (as Downing described), and leaving the obverse rim void.
If the obverse rim issue was a PMD dent, and as others have asked, where die the material go? Where are the deformed dentils, raised fields, or a bulge in the rim? As we know metal under pressure does not reduce in volume (increase density), the large amount of missing material would be displaced and seen somewhere else. If the displaced metal is not seen, then any PMD claim would defy the laws of metallurgy.
I have wondered during the entirety of this thread, why this historic commentary has not been dissected. However, Fred said he read all the comments though, so since I am not knowledgeable enough to understand what it is saying, I am trusting he does, and that it must be unrelated
It does not look shaved to me, it looks flattened. The part of the rim flattened looks pushed out and the coin no longer looks round. PMD
On the first post of this thread, open the link and enlarge the Trueview image. If the coin is pushed out in that location, it will show on both the reverse and obverse images - it does not, the edge is not pushed out.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
It does not look shaved to me, it looks flattened. The part of the rim flattened looks pushed out and the coin no longer looks round. PMD
On the first post of this thread, open the link and enlarge the Trueview image. If the coin is pushed out in that location, it will show on both the reverse and obverse images - it does not, the edge is not pushed out.
I disagree, but it is not a lot. This is opposite flattened area and not perfectly rounded
I don't see a bulge in the edge on the reverse image from TES through OF to wing tip, relative to the rest of the reverse. Better images can help determine if there is any pushing out of the edge in the area of the obverse rim issue.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@tradedollarnut said:
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
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
If he’s not willing to back up his position, he shouldn’t be the final word.
I see it in some very powerful tables at meetings where if some people tried to get technical it would become apparent that the emperor has no clothes and they are just regurgitating the work of others. They typically deflect, talk down or fall back on positioning.
@davids5104 said:
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
It seems that JA implicitly said it was a mint error. If a slabbed coin has PMD, it shouldn't be receiving a sticker, correct?
No, he did not. AFAIK the coin was straight graded at the TPGS. No mention was made of a mint error on the label. If this is incorrect, blame it on old age memory as I'm not going to read this from the beginning. CAC "certified" (agreed on) its grade.
@davids5104 said:
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
It seems that JA implicitly said it was a mint error. If a slabbed coin has PMD, it shouldn't be receiving a sticker, correct?
Incorrect. He does not determine PMD vs error.... pcgs and the ATS service does.
Since they did not call it PMD, he behaved as though it was not PMD and assessed coin accordingly
OK, so if JA receives a counterfeit coin in a legitimate slab, should he sticker it based solely on the assigned grade?
Was this a serious question? Really?
On the uncommon chance that the TPGS slabs a C/F in error, it will either be detected at CAC or not detected. If it has happened, I'll bet it was a Large cent or half cent.
@tradedollarnut said:
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
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
If he’s not willing to back up his position, he shouldn’t be the final word.
I find it very humorous that many here who cannot grade or authenticate coins or errors thenmselves are pontificating about any mistakes that they believe were made. News flash fellas and gals, there has NEVER been anyone on the front lines of coin authentication whose opinions have been 100% correct. That includes (fill in the blank) _______________________. I'll go first.
Me
If opinions change on this coin it will we taken care of. If this coin had been seen by me at the first TPGS (INSAB in DC) it would have gone out with a photo certificate as genuine and a buff-colored card with its grade:
Choice Uncirculated, impressed letters on the rim. Period!
@CoinJunkie asked: "Well, not to derail the thread, but that opens up a whole other can of worms. For example, if a straight-graded coin is technically very high end for the assigned grade, but in JA's judgment the color is questionable, is he obligated to sticker it since the TPG gave the color its stamp of approval? You may treat this as a rhetorical question, if you wish.
Actually, it opens NOTHING! JA stickers what JA wishes. I can have a top-end, perfect coin (Unknown to us that's been sent to CAC 5 times and rejected) that All who see it think it deserves a sticker - except JA. The coin will not get stickered. Now let's get back to the OP's weird coin.
@tradedollarnut said:
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
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
There is no such thing as a final word until someone comes up with a convincing mechanism to explain this either as PMD or mint made.
@tradedollarnut said:
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
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
There is no such thing as a final word until someone comes up with a convincing mechanism to explain this either as PMD or mint made.
The problem is, even if such a convincing mechanism to explain it one way or another is put forth, some will probably STILL not consider it to be the final word.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@tradedollarnut said:
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
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
There is no such thing as a final word until someone comes up with a convincing mechanism to explain this either as PMD or mint made.
The problem is, even if such a convincing mechanism to explain it one way or another is put forth, some will probably STILL not consider it to be the final word.😉
Indeed. You can't convince everyone, no matter what. Some people are not convinced Elvis is dead for example.
@MFeld said:
The problem is, even if such a convincing mechanism to explain it one way or another is put forth, some will probably STILL not consider it to be the final word.😉
Maybe not, but then it'll be their problem to disprove the "convincing mechanism".
@tradedollarnut said:
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
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
There is no such thing as a final word until someone comes up with a convincing mechanism to explain this either as PMD or mint made.
The problem is, even if such a convincing mechanism to explain it one way or another is put forth, some will probably STILL not consider it to be the final word.😉
Still, that’s not a valid reason for not being willing or able to produce data, facts and evidence to back up claims if one has been deemed “final word”.
@tradedollarnut said:
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
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
There is no such thing as a final word until someone comes up with a convincing mechanism to explain this either as PMD or mint made.
The problem is, even if such a convincing mechanism to explain it one way or another is put forth, some will probably STILL not consider it to be the final word.😉
Still, that’s not a valid reason for not being willing or able to produce data, facts and evidence to back up claims if one has been deemed “final word”.
Fair enough. Perhaps Fred will provide that to PCGS. And while I have zero knowledge about this, maybe he felt it best to do that, before (or instead of) posting it here.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@TradesWithChops said:
To claim 100% certainty, and then say you dont know how it happens, is intellectually dishonest.
BS! This happens all time. Example: Coin "X" is 100% counterfeit. That's all I know. I don't know how it was made, what it's made of, where or when it was made or who made it and why? I really don't care either! All I know for 100% certainty is coin "X" is not a genuine product as represented from its country of origin.
@TradesWithChops said:
To claim 100% certainty, and then say you dont know how it happens, is intellectually dishonest.
BS! This happens all time. Example: Coin "X" is 100% counterfeit. That's all I know. I don't know how it was made, what it's made of, where or when it was made or who made it and why? I really don't care either! All I know for 100% certainty is coin "X" is not a genuine product as represented from its country of origin.
I can’t decide whether I agree with you, but maybe you can help me. In your above example, what DO you know that allows you to be certain the coin’s a counterfeit?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@tradedollarnut said:
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
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
There is no such thing as a final word until someone comes up with a convincing mechanism to explain this either as PMD or mint made.
The problem is, even if such a convincing mechanism to explain it one way or another is put forth, some will probably STILL not consider it to be the final word.😉
That's a big problem with all the "somes" in the world. If this coin were taken down to the floor of the Mint in the 1940's a lowly pressman could probably tell us what happened. If this coin had been sent to the ANA's Certification Service while it was located down the street from the Treasury Dept. in DC, we would have resolved this decades ago.
As I wrote above, it was not considered damage or an error back then. The one or two cases when a star or 1-2 letters were impressed on the rim of a coin were considered as an "interesting artifact" not worth a discussion.
PS The first time I saw one of these things I peed-my-pants with excitement too. I was told it was made by another coin. This is just a huge one and harder to believe that is the case but mow I'm satisfied in my own mind. A truly remarkable coin would have RAISED letters on its rim.
@TradesWithChops said:
To claim 100% certainty, and then say you dont know how it happens, is intellectually dishonest.
BS! This happens all time. Example: Coin "X" is 100% counterfeit. That's all I know. I don't know how it was made, what it's made of, where or when it was made or who made it and why? I really don't care either! All I know for 100% certainty is coin "X" is not a genuine product as represented from its country of origin.
BUT you have a reason that you claim it to be counterfeit.
Comments
More likely he doesn't know of a creative mechanism and so is not 100% for sure that it isn't a mint error, and can't guarantee that it isn't.. Even experts don't know it all.
Probaby resulted from some sort of jam and after it was cleared and the press operator just threw it back into the mix or smoe test planchets that were re-struck to be normal coins.
If Fred’s answer is “I don’t know” then he should say that. His answer was that it’s 100% not mint product. With such a strong stance he should be able to back it up. I’m not saying he can’t back it up, but he’s chosen not to up to now.
I find it chivalrous for you to continually support JA's wrong opinion of this being a mint error instead of the post mint damage it has always been...
However Fred is the final word even if there aren't enough of them for your liking.
This grossly misstates the entire proposition. It's not just JA. Mr. Feltner clearly thought it might be. The original graders did NOT consider it PMD. People on this forum are split on the matter.
Fred Weinberg is the foremost error authority who has weighed in on the matter, but let's not pretend there aren't others who think it is not PMD. And @tradedollarnut wasn't commenting on the correctness of Fred's position, just asking for a more detailed explanation.
The final word himself has stated that he is confident, but has been wrong before. He is very experienced and very rarely wrong, but he's not God.
There is a little misinformation coming out.... JA NEVER said it was a mint error, just it may be and felt it was not PMD. He had me call him to say it MAY BE something interesting. He said he did not care if it was an error, his job was to evaluate it as relates to the grade PCGS gave it. Steve Feltner thought it may be an error but was performing due diligence. He said he had good understanding of typical common errors but was puzzled by this one
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
I wouldn't quite say I am an adamant owner....
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
If all the brain cells wasted in this thread thinking it was something more than it is combined could have probably come up with a cure for cancer.
It seems that JA implicitly said it was a mint error. If a slabbed coin has PMD, it shouldn't be receiving a sticker, correct?
No, not at all. I was not referring to you specifically. Also, your coin was not run over in a parking lot
Incorrect. He does not determine PMD vs error.... pcgs and the ATS service does.
Since they did not call it PMD, he behaved as though it was not PMD and assessed coin accordingly
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
I would think rather that both PCGS and CAC believe that whatever it is, it is market acceptable for the given grade. Whether it should be or not, is another question.
OK, so if JA receives a counterfeit coin in a legitimate slab, should he sticker it based solely on the assigned grade?
If he’s not willing to back up his position, he shouldn’t be the final word.
He of course can do as he wishes, but his business model is not to assess whether a coin is a mint error vs damage. It is to assess the grade assigned by the TPGs for possible stickering.... you changed the discussion to counterfeit, and that IS NOT what my previous post is referring to. A counterfeit coin may produce a different behavior from him that I am unable to speak to, but my coin is not counterfeit.
I would assume he would sticker based on the coin as well though in the case of counterfeit if he was unaware FOR SURE, as that is the most basic of requirements for TPGs, but again I have no idea
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
As far as I understand it, the CAC business model is to identify coins which are high end for the assigned grade. I don't believe a damaged coin would fall into that category. YMMV.
I agree with you completely, it is not his business model to evaluate coins that are damaged or counterfeit. He leaves that to the TPGs! Which is precisely why he does not care to make the distinction. Once the TPGs say it is a coin worthy of CAC eval, it is done.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Well, not to derail the thread, but that opens up a whole other can of worms. For example, if a straight-graded coin is technically very high end for the assigned grade, but in JA's judgment the color is questionable, is he obligated to sticker it since the TPG gave the color its stamp of approval? You may treat this as a rhetorical question, if you wish.
Absolutely can read letters on the outside of the denticles. Real nice find.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
If no one can figure out where the letters came from,its just as likely they came from a mint press as anywhere else,imho
I think "damage" overstates it if it is not a mint error. An MS65 Morgan will have hits (damage?) on the coin from bumping into other coins. We generally don't refer to this as damage. Passive transfer of the letters could be viewed as a market acceptable contact mark and not damage.
It does not look shaved to me, it looks flattened. The part of the rim flattened looks pushed out and the coin no longer looks round. PMD
Color is a very good thing. Using a contrasting color lets me add something in the middle of a post that anyone can tell was not the poster's thought. Great for clarity in a discussion.
@BAJJERFAN said: "If it ever gets cracked out one could simply weigh it. Were it mine I'd just leave it holdered as is."
That would prove nothing. I'll bet the coin will be in
tolerance.
@jmlanza,
I owe you an apology, You asked me about the depth of the letters on the rim and I used a tilted image (with shadow) to reply that they were VERY DEEP. I just went back and looked at the images at the beginning of this thread. They are not deep at all! Nevertheless, I'm sticking to what I wrote many pages ago AS GOSPEL!
So, I guess I agree with Fred. Not a Mint error. I also agree with JA and PCGS: Straight grade it if the shear on the obverse looks natural.
Actually, I can live with this analysis. Thanks!
RogerB 2/8/2018:
The 1900 examination by A. W. Downing that I described earlier is the same as Roger mentioned. In January of 1900, the NO Mint superintendent sent two 1899 dollar dies to Philadelphia that had failed after 75,500 strikes (Barber said they can last >450,000). Engraver Charles Barber states "I am fully satisfied the fault does not rest with the dies. The steel is the same we have used for twenty-five years..." and suggests coining expert Downing be sent to NO.
Downing determines the NO Mint problem to be the volume of planchets sent through one annealing furnace (over 12M dollars in 1899, plus other denominations) in a "rapid and imperfect manner." Downing implements a larger annealing pan (reducing the number of batches per day, enabling longer soak and full annealing temperature). "The results have been much more satisfactory, The dies are stamping more pieces before cracking...The entire appearance of the coin is much improved, the metal flowing into the design of the die much more completely, the reeding filling the collar and making the edge more perfect."
Anyone who has annealed silver knows that unless full annealing temperature (~1175F) is reached, the silver is hard and stiff. With the large NO mintage volume in 1899, most or all planchets would not have time to soak and reach full temperature. In fact, a 600 degree temperature with a delay in quenching would have a hardening effect on silver. NO Mint compensated for hard planchets in 1899 by increasing the striking pressure, which greatly reduced die life and caused other coining problems.
Based on the 1900 Mint examination findings, the subject 1899-O dollar was struck on an improperly annealed, hard planchet. The obverse was struck slightly off-center (misaligned die), while the reverse was centered. The large obverse rim void at 5-6:00 is at the apex of the off-centering, where the reverse working die did not provide full support, resulting in the planchet not filling the collar (as Downing described), and leaving the obverse rim void.
If the obverse rim issue was a PMD dent, and as others have asked, where did the material go? Where are the deformed dentils, raised fields, or a bulge in the rim? As we know metal under pressure does not reduce in volume (increase density), the large amount of missing material would be displaced and seen somewhere else. If the displaced metal is not seen, then any PMD claim would defy the laws of metallurgy.
Possibly, which means metal was probably moved vs removed.
I have wondered during the entirety of this thread, why this historic commentary has not been dissected. However, Fred said he read all the comments though, so since I am not knowledgeable enough to understand what it is saying, I am trusting he does, and that it must be unrelated
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
@davewesen said:
On the first post of this thread, open the link and enlarge the Trueview image. If the coin is pushed out in that location, it will show on both the reverse and obverse images - it does not, the edge is not pushed out.
I disagree, but it is not a lot. This is opposite flattened area and not perfectly rounded
I don't see a bulge in the edge on the reverse image from TES through OF to wing tip, relative to the rest of the reverse. Better images can help determine if there is any pushing out of the edge in the area of the obverse rim issue.
I see it in some very powerful tables at meetings where if some people tried to get technical it would become apparent that the emperor has no clothes and they are just regurgitating the work of others. They typically deflect, talk down or fall back on positioning.
Happens all the time
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
No, he did not. AFAIK the coin was straight graded at the TPGS. No mention was made of a mint error on the label. If this is incorrect, blame it on old age memory as I'm not going to read this from the beginning. CAC "certified" (agreed on) its grade.
Was this a serious question? Really?
On the uncommon chance that the TPGS slabs a C/F in error, it will either be detected at CAC or not detected. If it has happened, I'll bet it was a Large cent or half cent.
I find it very humorous that many here who cannot grade or authenticate coins or errors thenmselves are pontificating about any mistakes that they believe were made. News flash fellas and gals, there has NEVER been anyone on the front lines of coin authentication whose opinions have been 100% correct. That includes (fill in the blank) _______________________. I'll go first.
Me
If opinions change on this coin it will we taken care of. If this coin had been seen by me at the first TPGS (INSAB in DC) it would have gone out with a photo certificate as genuine and a buff-colored card with its grade:
Choice Uncirculated, impressed letters on the rim. Period!
@CoinJunkie asked: "Well, not to derail the thread, but that opens up a whole other can of worms. For example, if a straight-graded coin is technically very high end for the assigned grade, but in JA's judgment the color is questionable, is he obligated to sticker it since the TPG gave the color its stamp of approval? You may treat this as a rhetorical question, if you wish.
Actually, it opens NOTHING! JA stickers what JA wishes. I can have a top-end, perfect coin (Unknown to us that's been sent to CAC 5 times and rejected) that All who see it think it deserves a sticker - except JA. The coin will not get stickered. Now let's get back to the OP's weird coin.
Think about it, Mint presses do not put incuse letters into the rims of coins!
There is no such thing as a final word until someone comes up with a convincing mechanism to explain this either as PMD or mint made.
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
The problem is, even if such a convincing mechanism to explain it one way or another is put forth, some will probably STILL not consider it to be the final word.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Indeed. You can't convince everyone, no matter what. Some people are not convinced Elvis is dead for example.
Maybe not, but then it'll be their problem to disprove the "convincing mechanism".
Still, that’s not a valid reason for not being willing or able to produce data, facts and evidence to back up claims if one has been deemed “final word”.
Fair enough. Perhaps Fred will provide that to PCGS. And while I have zero knowledge about this, maybe he felt it best to do that, before (or instead of) posting it here.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
BS! This happens all time. Example: Coin "X" is 100% counterfeit. That's all I know. I don't know how it was made, what it's made of, where or when it was made or who made it and why? I really don't care either! All I know for 100% certainty is coin "X" is not a genuine product as represented from its country of origin.
I can’t decide whether I agree with you, but maybe you can help me. In your above example, what DO you know that allows you to be certain the coin’s a counterfeit?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That's a big problem with all the "somes" in the world. If this coin were taken down to the floor of the Mint in the 1940's a lowly pressman could probably tell us what happened. If this coin had been sent to the ANA's Certification Service while it was located down the street from the Treasury Dept. in DC, we would have resolved this decades ago.
As I wrote above, it was not considered damage or an error back then. The one or two cases when a star or 1-2 letters were impressed on the rim of a coin were considered as an "interesting artifact" not worth a discussion.
PS The first time I saw one of these things I peed-my-pants with excitement too. I was told it was made by another coin. This is just a huge one and harder to believe that is the case but mow I'm satisfied in my own mind. A truly remarkable coin would have RAISED letters on its rim.
PS Is Elvis dead?
BUT you have a reason that you claim it to be counterfeit.