@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.
Maybe, probably. But often, I “know” a coin is counterfeit because my eyes and memory are telling me that somehow, it doesn’t match genuine examples I’ve seen before. Yet, I can’t necessarily pinpoint or articulate what’s different, without comparing it to images of known genuine examples.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
Maybe, probably. But often, I “know” a coin is counterfeit because my eyes and memory are telling me that somehow, it doesn’t match genuine examples I’ve seen before. Yet, I can’t necessarily pinpoint or articulate what’s different, without comparing it to images of known genuine examples.
That's a little different than trying to identify a one-of-a-kind error as mint-made or not, isn't it? If there aren't any other examples to compare it to, not having ever seen such a coin doesn't necessarily disqualify it as legitimate, does it?
@MFeld said:
Maybe, probably. But often, I “know” a coin is counterfeit because my eyes and memory are telling me that somehow, it doesn’t match genuine examples I’ve seen before. Yet, I can’t necessarily pinpoint or articulate what’s different, without comparing it to images of known genuine examples.
That's a little different than trying to identify a one-of-a-kind error as mint-made or not, isn't it? If there aren't any other examples to compare it to, not having ever seen such a coin doesn't necessarily disqualify it as legitimate, does it?
As usual, I agree with you. But I was replying to a post about making a call on counterfeits.
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.
BUT you have a reason that you claim it to be counterfeit.
Maybe, probably. But often, I “know” a coin is counterfeit because my eyes and memory are telling me that somehow, it doesn’t match genuine examples I’ve seen before. Yet, I can’t necessarily pinpoint or articulate what’s different, without comparing it to images of known genuine examples.
But that is your reason: the design elements don't match a genuine example.
@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.
We arent talking about counterfeits. We are talking about genuine coins with an error or pmd present.
You, sir, are a red herring. Go crawl back into your irrelevant hole.
To be fair, he was responding to someone else's post who brought up counterfeits. He didn't raise the issue himself
It was a little slow for me to realize this...when I first saw the pictures of this Morgan in question; I mistook the rim at being the same height as the denticals. Therefore, I originally thought that incuse letters could only appear due to some unusual occurrence during the minting process...
After looking at several Morgans this morning; it appears on most that the rim is slightly higher than the denticals. This makes more sense as to how the letters could be pressed into the rim without effecting the denticals with the exception of the "O," and the "S" on this example. I agree with PMD 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.
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.
Brings up an interesting question. How much accountability is there between PCGS and the experts they use? I would hope there’s strong accountability but fear there is not.
@TradesWithChops said:
And as a side comment, I'd want my money back if I paid for an expert analysis on something - and all they gave me was 50s rhetoric, which is Insiders argument.
I dont give a rats ass that people in the 50s just considered it damage - without actually ANALYZING anything. I care about evidence, data, and facts RELEVANT to the discussion at hand.
What if someone is highly knowledgeable about the minting process and equipment, and has seen/handled thousands of errors, yet can’t conceive of how a particular coin was struck as an error. What more is there to conclude or state about it?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@TradesWithChops said:
And as a side comment, I'd want my money back if I paid for an expert analysis on something - and all they gave me was 50s rhetoric, which is Insiders argument.
I dont give a rats ass that people in the 50s just considered it damage - without actually ANALYZING anything. I care about evidence, data, and facts RELEVANT to the discussion at hand.
What if someone is highly knowledgeable about the minting process and equipment, and has seen/handled thousands of errors, yet can’t conceive of how a particular coin was struck as an error. What more is there to conclude or state about it?
@TradesWithChops said:
And as a side comment, I'd want my money back if I paid for an expert analysis on something - and all they gave me was 50s rhetoric, which is Insiders argument.
I dont give a rats ass that people in the 50s just considered it damage - without actually ANALYZING anything. I care about evidence, data, and facts RELEVANT to the discussion at hand.
What if someone is highly knowledgeable about the minting process and equipment, and has seen/handled thousands of errors, yet can’t conceive of how a particular coin was struck as an error. What more is there to conclude or state about it?
Then they should say that.
Maybe they will?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
After reading through this I just smashed my head against the wall and there does seem to be some displacement both on the wall and my head. In the best interest of my health and my home will smoeone please PM when this is resolved.
FYI both PCGS and JA should be commended. PCGS in sending it to their expert for review and for JA for calling out the fact that something was out of the norm. Well done
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
After reading through this I just smashed my head against the wall and there does seem to be some displacement both on the wall and my head. In the best interest of my health and my home will smoeone please PM when this is resolved.
FYI both PCGS and JA should be commended. PCGS in sending it to their expert for review and for JA for calling our the fact that something was out of the norm. Well done
m
Mark, I think you should start a new thread, with pictures, so the forum can analyze and opine on your “displacement”. Feel better. 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PocketArt said:
It was a little slow for me to realize this...when I first saw the pictures of this Morgan in question; I mistook the rim at being the same height as the denticals. Therefore, I originally thought that incuse letters could only appear due to some unusual occurrence during the minting process...
After looking at several Morgans this morning; it appears on most that the rim is slightly higher than the denticals. This makes more sense as to how the letters could be pressed into the rim without effecting the denticals with the exception of the "O," and the "S" on this example. I agree with PMD now.
Then what event outside of the mint could generate the force/pressure needed to make that impression? Why aren't there any marks on the rim on either side of the letters that would be expected to be left from the striking coin?
@Justacommeman said:
After reading through this I just smashed my head against the wall and there does seem to be some displacement both on the wall and my head. In the best interest of my health and my home will smoeone please PM when this is resolved.
FYI both PCGS and JA should be commended. PCGS in sending it to their expert for review and for JA for calling our the fact that something was out of the norm. Well done
m
Mark, I'm sorry but I wasn't there when you hurt your head, so your injury isn't legitimate.
@TradesWithChops said:
And as a side comment, I'd want my money back if I paid for an expert analysis on something - and all they gave me was 50s rhetoric, which is Insiders argument.
I dont give a rats ass that people in the 50s just considered it damage - without actually ANALYZING anything. I care about evidence, data, and facts RELEVANT to the discussion at hand.
What if someone is highly knowledgeable about the minting process and equipment, and has seen/handled thousands of errors, yet can’t conceive of how a particular coin was struck as an error. What more is there to conclude or state about it?
Easy.
"It is my expert opinion that this is not an actual mint error. However, I can't be certain because of x,y,z. Therefore, my conclusion is to return to sender without an error designation."
NOT: "I am 100% confident, but dont know blah blah"
Thank you. In that event, what, if anything, do you think should PCGS do regarding the current grade of the coin?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Justacommeman said:
After reading through this I just smashed my head against the wall and there does seem to be some displacement both on the wall and my head. In the best interest of my health and my home will smoeone please PM when this is resolved.
FYI both PCGS and JA should be commended. PCGS in sending it to their expert for review and for JA for calling our the fact that something was out of the norm. Well done
m
Mark, I'm sorry but I wasn't there when you hurt your head, so your injury isn't legitimate.
Original Dan is Clever Dan. Well played and funny
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@MFeld said:
Thank you. In that event, what, if anything, do you think should PCGS do regarding the current grade of the coin?
If they can't determine how it was created via the mint, return the coin stating that - and what their opinion is. I don't think the lettering is significant enough, nor distracting, to warrant a damaged holder.
So, again, if they cant determine the method of it being an error - return in its current holder with a note of that decision.
*** The determination that the damage is not enough to warrant a damaged holder is theirs to make. --- but I wouldnt do it. If they decide to return in a damaged holder, then they will also have to pay out the gaurantee.
Did you mean “damaged coin” instead of “damaged holder”? I promise not to ask any more questions.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This has been a very instructive and fascinating thread. I'm just wondering how/if it will ever end.
Seems we have 2 different views (PMD vs Mint) and no way to prove either.
@oldUScoins said:
This has been a very instructive and fascinating thread. I'm just wondering how/if it will ever end.
Seems we have 2 different views (PMD vs Mint) and no way to prove either.
There are numerous other instances (though not pertaining to whether a coin is damaged or an error) where there are opposing views, but no way to prove either. Those that first occur to me are coins for which the question is whether they are business strikes or Proofs. Debates can rage and the differences in value can be immense.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@oldUScoins said:
This has been a very instructive and fascinating thread. I'm just wondering how/if it will ever end.
Seems we have 2 different views (PMD vs Mint) and no way to prove either.
There are numerous other instances (though not pertaining to whether a coin is damaged or an error) where there are opposing views, but no way to prove either. Those that first occur to me are coins for which the question is whether they are business strikes or Proofs. Debates can rage and the differences in value can be immense.
My apologies, I don't think a few here are visualizing what I've tried to describe in my previous posts on how this error may have occurred. So....here's a diagram. But I believe a US Mint worker, let's call him a die maker, he's wearing heat resistant leather gloves to handle hot/heated dies. Before a working die is stamped to receive a coin image from a cold hardened working hub, the working die is heated through a process called annealing the dies to make them softer.
A hot/heated die is easier to stamped than a cold hardened die.
Also keep in mind the image of a working die is backwards or inverse like the one shown below.
The image imprinted/stamped on the die is incused or sunk into the die, there are no raised devices.
So....here's the scenario how those letters may have ended up on the rim of the coin. A die maker, in his attempt to gather up two dies in his gloved hand, inadvertently clanged the faces of two dies together on top of a table. This would have stamped forward raised letters onto the rim of the hot die and when the die was used to stamp a coin blank or planchet, the letters on the rim would be backwards again and incused/sunk into the newly made coin.
Feedback from someone from the US Mint is needed to verify if the above problem occurs at the mint.
I've posted the following diagram in an earlier post to help explain how the compressed area on the obverse just opposite where the letters appear on the reverse may have occurred. There's no-way of knowing whether the planchet was intentionally positioned in the collar or it was a bad mechanical feed of the coin blank into the collar that may have caused the damage on the obverse.
But the second picture below, I've noticed how perfect and complete the spaces and denticles appear. What I'm suggesting here is that the stamping of the coin was completed just after the damaged area occurred. The triangles between the denticles, the bottom of those triangles, the metal appears to have been pushed back out into the compressed or shaved area where the damage occurred.
Also take note of the angle of the damage, I was always under the impression the obverse die was the hammer die.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@TradesWithChops said:
And as a side comment, I'd want my money back if I paid for an expert analysis on something - and all they gave me was 50s rhetoric, which is Insiders argument.
I dont give a rats ass that people in the 50s just considered it damage - without actually ANALYZING anything. I care about evidence, data, and facts RELEVANT to the discussion at hand.
What if someone is highly knowledgeable about the minting process and equipment, and has seen/handled thousands of errors, yet can’t conceive of how a particular coin was struck as an error. What more is there to conclude or state about it?
Easy.
"It is my expert opinion that this is not an actual mint error. However, I can't be certain because of x,y,z. Therefore, my conclusion is to return to sender without an error designation."
NOT: "I am 100% confident, but dont know blah blah"
Thank you. In that event, what, if anything, do you think should PCGS do regarding the current grade of the coin?
What would they do if there were obvious and similarly deep reeding marks in the fields? Or on the cheek?
@leothelyon said:
My apologies, I don't think a few here are visualizing what I've tried to describe in my previous posts on how this error may have occurred. So....here's a diagram. But I believe a US Mint worker, let's call him a die maker, he's wearing heat resistant leather gloves to handle hot/heated dies. Before a working die is stamped to receive a coin image from a cold hardened working hub, the working die is heated through a process called annealing the dies to make them softer.
A hot/heated die is easier to stamped than a cold hardened die.
Also keep in mind the image of a working die is backwards or inverse like the one shown below.
The image imprinted/stamped on the die is incused or sunk into the die, there are no raised devices.
So....here's the scenario how those letters may have ended up on the rim of the coin. A die maker, in his attempt to gather up two dies in his gloved hand, inadvertently clanged the faces of two dies together on top of a table. This would have stamped forward raised letters onto the rim of the hot die and when the die was used to stamp a coin blank or planchet, the letters on the rim would be backwards again and incused/sunk into the newly made coin.
Feedback from someone from the US Mint is needed to verify if the above problem occurs at the mint.
I've posted the following diagram in an earlier post to help explain how the compressed area on the obverse just opposite where the letters appear on the reverse may have occurred. There's no-way of knowing whether the planchet was intentionally positioned in the collar or it was a bad mechanical feed of the coin blank into the collar that may have caused the damage on the obverse.
But the second picture below, I've noticed how perfect and complete the spaces and denticles appear. What I'm suggesting here is that the stamping of the coin was completed just after the damaged area occurred. The triangles between the denticles, the bottom of those triangles, the metal appears to have been pushed back out into the compressed or shaved area where the damage occurred.
Also take note of the angle of the damage, I was always under the impression the obverse die was the hammer die.
Leo
Unless the mint threw the dies in the scrap heap there should be a fair number of these coins, no?
@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?
I'll take the bait. First, we are now writing about coin "X" not the OP's dollar.
Since there are ONLY three kinds of coins, 100% bad, 100% good and anything in between; I know what the surface of a genuine coin looks like at 40X to 80X. Besides that, I read somewhere that it takes 10K hours of serious study to be good at something. If we were to quadruple the number of hours to 40K, I'd value that person's opinion but I'd still want to confirm it to my satisfaction.
PS An authenticator is not paid to teach folks how to make a better counterfeit, he/she is paid to give an opinion. In some cases, the opinion is followed by a reason although I don't feel it is required. Take a seminar if you want reasons.
@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.
Yes, the reason is that it does not resemble a genuine coin.
@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.
We are talking about genuine coins with an error or pmd present.
The diversion into counterfeits is not helpful.
It is the best way to explain what you are asking Fred to do. My example goes for the OP's coin also. I know what the coin is to my satisfaction and have expressed my opinion already. The coin is NOT damaged.
@TradesWithChops said: "When discussing ERRORS, IF YOU CLAIM 100% it is such and such a thing, back up your claim. Otherwise, it's just bravado."
Your comment made a lot of sense in the 1970's. If an error coin could not possibly happen without "help" such as a struck quarter overstruck by a washer it was considered to be a fake. Things have changed over the decades.
Let's turn this on to your interest. How do you know the chops on the coins you purchase are contemporary?
I don't believe you do but you can prove it to me by telling us the characteristics (MICROSCOPIC DETAILS) of both a genuine chop and a "modern" alteration. Get the point I'm trying to convey about an INFORMED OPINION not being "bravado."
@TradesWithChops said:
And as a side comment, I'd want my money back if I paid for an expert analysis on something - and all they gave me was 50s rhetoric, which is Insiders argument.
I dont give a rats ass that people in the 50s just considered it damage - without actually ANALYZING anything. I care about evidence, data, and facts RELEVANT to the discussion at hand.
I guess that indicates that you've never sent a coin to a TPGS and paid them for an opinion consisting of a little colored label.
@TradesWithChops said: "It's hilarious to me that people even started talking about counterfeit coins. What else do you all think is "relevant"? Burger King serving non-meat burgers? Why not? Prove how its made or we must consider it meat if it tastes like meat! Im done with this post. It pains my brain to read all of this."
The only thing hilarious about this is the fact that some folks think they deserve an explanation concerning anything. I say: "Go pound sand."
When I send a coin out as a mint error, I don't put a note with the coin explaining how it was made. If I determine a coin is damaged, I state the damage I see (rim damage) but that's all I know for sure. I don't know the "how," "when," or "where" because I was not there when it happened. I do know with 100% certainty that the rim is damaged enough to hurt its commercial value. This should not be hard to understand. The fact that a knowledgeable professional numismatist does not bother to give a reason for his opinion is fine with me. After all, this is a chat room and not a courtroom.
@OriginalDan said: "Brings up an interesting question. How much accountability is there between PCGS and the experts they use? I would hope there’s strong accountability but fear there is not."
I'm not speaking for PCGS but at the risk of being called a know-it-all by those who don't seem to know much about anything...
What do you think the answer is? A major TPGS stands behind its opinion. Sometimes it is necessary to go outside the organization to get an opinion. They don't ask any uninformed T, D or H posting nonsense on coin forums for opinions because most of the time it would be worthless! There are certain numismatists around the country who have become specialists in a field. AFAIK, they are not paid for their opinions. When all the opinions, work, research is done on a coin - whatever it took - the TPGS must render an opinion or say they cannot reach one. It is the TPGS and not the consultants making the decision. I can say for a fact that some of the most respected, well know consultants/dealers/collectors have made BIG ERRORS. For this reason, in the past, our consultants were kept secret. Today, many are known. If I ask who would you want to see for an opinion on a colonial coin, most here would favor one person over a few others. Consultants tend to stand out for their knowledge.
When I became settled in as an authenticator, we learned to never trust anyone but our own eyes. We sent coins out to consultants and learned from them but after a few errors, we dropped a bunch of them and verified the opinions of the rest with actual coins. No one has a perfect record. So any TPGS that relies on the opinion of anyone 100% will get "stung" later or later than that. Witness what happened to one major service and the "Regulated Gold screw-up!"
Nevertheless, TPGS's need consultants and are grateful to have them. I've NEVER EVER heard of a consultant being held financially responsible for an error.
@TradesWithChops said:
And as a side comment, I'd want my money back if I paid for an expert analysis on something - and all they gave me was 50s rhetoric, which is Insiders argument.
I dont give a rats ass that people in the 50s just considered it damage - without actually ANALYZING anything. I care about evidence, data, and facts RELEVANT to the discussion at hand.
What if someone is highly knowledgeable about the minting process and equipment, and has seen/handled thousands of errors, yet can’t conceive of how a particular coin was struck as an error. What more is there to conclude or state about it?
Then they should say that.
You must be very late to this discussion.
I believe "THEY" did stating it was not a minting error. Unfortunately, this opinion was not excepted by some because "they" did not give a reason for their opinion.
@TradesWithChops said: "Again, to be clear and for the 3rd time, the bone I'm picking is the claim about being 100% correct, while admitting they dont know."
I understand perfectly. Mr. Carr could easily make a coin that looked like this; however, IMO the OP's coin was not made using a coin press at the Mint.
I grow very weary of all of our numismatic "experts" trying to explain how the incuse letters on the OP's coin were formed. Significantly, the pressure required to create the incuse letters on the rim of the OP coin was not insignificant. And not believable that it was due to bag contact. To be relevant you must be able to compute the force required (psi) to create those incuse letters. Screw your opinion. Show me the numbers. Probably beyond the capability of most all members of this forum, including me. I deal in metal forming with the products that I produce and while I do not deal with stamped parts, I know that stamping pressure is quantifiable. I only have a 20 ton press in my shop and if anyone wants to send me a few sacrificial dollars for experimental purposes I will be happy to see if 20 tons is enough to impress the letters from one coin to another. I suspect that it will be significantly short.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
Significantly, the pressure required to create the incuse letters on the rim of the OP coin was not insignificant. And not believable that it was due to bag contact.
How many Morgans were stored in bags over the years? An awful lot, right? So- if contact during handling caused the lettering impression, there should be plenty of other examples, shouldn't there?
@OldIndianNutKase said:
I grow very weary of all of our numismatic "experts" trying to explain how the incuse letters on the OP's coin were formed. Significantly, the pressure required to create the incuse letters on the rim of the OP coin was not insignificant. And not believable that it was due to bag contact. To be relevant you must be able to compute the force required (psi) to create those incuse letters. Screw your opinion. Show me the numbers. Probably beyond the capability of most all members of this forum, including me. I deal in metal forming with the products that I produce and while I do not deal with stamped parts, I know that stamping pressure is quantifiable. I only have a 20 ton press in my shop and if anyone wants to send me a few sacrificial dollars for experimental purposes I will be happy to see if 20 tons is enough to impress the letters from one coin to another. I suspect that it will be significantly short.
OINK
Sorry to say, IMO there is no way to prove how this could happen to anyone
s satisfaction w/o a coin press. I don't have access to a very hot coin vault in NO with bags and bags of silver dollars stored on top of each other for several years.
Comments
Maybe, probably. But often, I “know” a coin is counterfeit because my eyes and memory are telling me that somehow, it doesn’t match genuine examples I’ve seen before. Yet, I can’t necessarily pinpoint or articulate what’s different, without comparing it to images of known genuine examples.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That's a little different than trying to identify a one-of-a-kind error as mint-made or not, isn't it? If there aren't any other examples to compare it to, not having ever seen such a coin doesn't necessarily disqualify it as legitimate, does it?
As usual, I agree with you. But I was replying to a post about making a call on counterfeits.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
But that is your reason: the design elements don't match a genuine example.
To be fair, he was responding to someone else's post who brought up counterfeits. He didn't raise the issue himself
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
It was a little slow for me to realize this...when I first saw the pictures of this Morgan in question; I mistook the rim at being the same height as the denticals. Therefore, I originally thought that incuse letters could only appear due to some unusual occurrence during the minting process...
After looking at several Morgans this morning; it appears on most that the rim is slightly higher than the denticals. This makes more sense as to how the letters could be pressed into the rim without effecting the denticals with the exception of the "O," and the "S" on this example. I agree with PMD now.
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
Agreed. This thread really brought out a lot of arrogant know-it-alls.
The thread stopped being interesting about the coin long ago, but as others have said, remains fascinating about the various prople 😉
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Unbelievable staying power for a thread. Quite enjoyable.
Brings up an interesting question. How much accountability is there between PCGS and the experts they use? I would hope there’s strong accountability but fear there is not.
What if someone is highly knowledgeable about the minting process and equipment, and has seen/handled thousands of errors, yet can’t conceive of how a particular coin was struck as an error. What more is there to conclude or state about it?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Then they should say that.
Maybe they will?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
After reading through this I just smashed my head against the wall and there does seem to be some displacement both on the wall and my head. In the best interest of my health and my home will smoeone please PM when this is resolved.
FYI both PCGS and JA should be commended. PCGS in sending it to their expert for review and for JA for calling out the fact that something was out of the norm. Well done
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Mark, I think you should start a new thread, with pictures, so the forum can analyze and opine on your “displacement”. Feel better. 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Then what event outside of the mint could generate the force/pressure needed to make that impression? Why aren't there any marks on the rim on either side of the letters that would be expected to be left from the striking coin?
No, they're always here.
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
Mark, I'm sorry but I wasn't there when you hurt your head, so your injury isn't legitimate.
Thank you. In that event, what, if anything, do you think should PCGS do regarding the current grade of the coin?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
Original Dan is Clever Dan. Well played and funny
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Did you mean “damaged coin” instead of “damaged holder”? I promise not to ask any more questions.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
This has been a very instructive and fascinating thread. I'm just wondering how/if it will ever end.
Seems we have 2 different views (PMD vs Mint) and no way to prove either.
There are numerous other instances (though not pertaining to whether a coin is damaged or an error) where there are opposing views, but no way to prove either. Those that first occur to me are coins for which the question is whether they are business strikes or Proofs. Debates can rage and the differences in value can be immense.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I thought all you needed was a letter from Breen.
My apologies, I don't think a few here are visualizing what I've tried to describe in my previous posts on how this error may have occurred. So....here's a diagram. But I believe a US Mint worker, let's call him a die maker, he's wearing heat resistant leather gloves to handle hot/heated dies. Before a working die is stamped to receive a coin image from a cold hardened working hub, the working die is heated through a process called annealing the dies to make them softer.
A hot/heated die is easier to stamped than a cold hardened die.
Also keep in mind the image of a working die is backwards or inverse like the one shown below.
The image imprinted/stamped on the die is incused or sunk into the die, there are no raised devices.
So....here's the scenario how those letters may have ended up on the rim of the coin. A die maker, in his attempt to gather up two dies in his gloved hand, inadvertently clanged the faces of two dies together on top of a table. This would have stamped forward raised letters onto the rim of the hot die and when the die was used to stamp a coin blank or planchet, the letters on the rim would be backwards again and incused/sunk into the newly made coin.
Feedback from someone from the US Mint is needed to verify if the above problem occurs at the mint.
I've posted the following diagram in an earlier post to help explain how the compressed area on the obverse just opposite where the letters appear on the reverse may have occurred. There's no-way of knowing whether the planchet was intentionally positioned in the collar or it was a bad mechanical feed of the coin blank into the collar that may have caused the damage on the obverse.
But the second picture below, I've noticed how perfect and complete the spaces and denticles appear. What I'm suggesting here is that the stamping of the coin was completed just after the damaged area occurred. The triangles between the denticles, the bottom of those triangles, the metal appears to have been pushed back out into the compressed or shaved area where the damage occurred.
Also take note of the angle of the damage, I was always under the impression the obverse die was the hammer die.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
What would they do if there were obvious and similarly deep reeding marks in the fields? Or on the cheek?
Unless the mint threw the dies in the scrap heap there should be a fair number of these coins, no?
I'll take the bait. First, we are now writing about coin "X" not the OP's dollar.
Since there are ONLY three kinds of coins, 100% bad, 100% good and anything in between; I know what the surface of a genuine coin looks like at 40X to 80X. Besides that, I read somewhere that it takes 10K hours of serious study to be good at something. If we were to quadruple the number of hours to 40K, I'd value that person's opinion but I'd still want to confirm it to my satisfaction.
PS An authenticator is not paid to teach folks how to make a better counterfeit, he/she is paid to give an opinion. In some cases, the opinion is followed by a reason although I don't feel it is required. Take a seminar if you want reasons.
Yes, the reason is that it does not resemble a genuine coin.
It is the best way to explain what you are asking Fred to do. My example goes for the OP's coin also. I know what the coin is to my satisfaction and have expressed my opinion already. The coin is NOT damaged.
@Insider2 "The coin is NOT damaged. "
I hope everyone agrees with you on this point........
OINK
@TradesWithChops said: "When discussing ERRORS, IF YOU CLAIM 100% it is such and such a thing, back up your claim. Otherwise, it's just bravado."
Your comment made a lot of sense in the 1970's. If an error coin could not possibly happen without "help" such as a struck quarter overstruck by a washer it was considered to be a fake. Things have changed over the decades.
Let's turn this on to your interest. How do you know the chops on the coins you purchase are contemporary?
I don't believe you do but you can prove it to me by telling us the characteristics (MICROSCOPIC DETAILS) of both a genuine chop and a "modern" alteration. Get the point I'm trying to convey about an INFORMED OPINION not being "bravado."
I guess that indicates that you've never sent a coin to a TPGS and paid them for an opinion consisting of a little colored label.
@TradesWithChops said: "It's hilarious to me that people even started talking about counterfeit coins. What else do you all think is "relevant"? Burger King serving non-meat burgers? Why not? Prove how its made or we must consider it meat if it tastes like meat! Im done with this post. It pains my brain to read all of this."
The only thing hilarious about this is the fact that some folks think they deserve an explanation concerning anything. I say: "Go pound sand."
When I send a coin out as a mint error, I don't put a note with the coin explaining how it was made. If I determine a coin is damaged, I state the damage I see (rim damage) but that's all I know for sure. I don't know the "how," "when," or "where" because I was not there when it happened. I do know with 100% certainty that the rim is damaged enough to hurt its commercial value. This should not be hard to understand. The fact that a knowledgeable professional numismatist does not bother to give a reason for his opinion is fine with me. After all, this is a chat room and not a courtroom.
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
@OriginalDan said: "Brings up an interesting question. How much accountability is there between PCGS and the experts they use? I would hope there’s strong accountability but fear there is not."
I'm not speaking for PCGS but at the risk of being called a know-it-all by those who don't seem to know much about anything...
What do you think the answer is? A major TPGS stands behind its opinion. Sometimes it is necessary to go outside the organization to get an opinion. They don't ask any uninformed T, D or H posting nonsense on coin forums for opinions because most of the time it would be worthless! There are certain numismatists around the country who have become specialists in a field. AFAIK, they are not paid for their opinions. When all the opinions, work, research is done on a coin - whatever it took - the TPGS must render an opinion or say they cannot reach one. It is the TPGS and not the consultants making the decision. I can say for a fact that some of the most respected, well know consultants/dealers/collectors have made BIG ERRORS. For this reason, in the past, our consultants were kept secret. Today, many are known. If I ask who would you want to see for an opinion on a colonial coin, most here would favor one person over a few others. Consultants tend to stand out for their knowledge.
When I became settled in as an authenticator, we learned to never trust anyone but our own eyes. We sent coins out to consultants and learned from them but after a few errors, we dropped a bunch of them and verified the opinions of the rest with actual coins. No one has a perfect record. So any TPGS that relies on the opinion of anyone 100% will get "stung" later or later than that. Witness what happened to one major service and the "Regulated Gold screw-up!"
Nevertheless, TPGS's need consultants and are grateful to have them. I've NEVER EVER heard of a consultant being held financially responsible for an error.
You must be very late to this discussion.
I believe "THEY" did stating it was not a minting error. Unfortunately, this opinion was not excepted by some because "they" did not give a reason for their opinion.
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
@TradesWithChops said: "Again, to be clear and for the 3rd time, the bone I'm picking is the claim about being 100% correct, while admitting they dont know."
I understand perfectly. Mr. Carr could easily make a coin that looked like this; however, IMO the OP's coin was not made using a coin press at the Mint.
I grow very weary of all of our numismatic "experts" trying to explain how the incuse letters on the OP's coin were formed. Significantly, the pressure required to create the incuse letters on the rim of the OP coin was not insignificant. And not believable that it was due to bag contact. To be relevant you must be able to compute the force required (psi) to create those incuse letters. Screw your opinion. Show me the numbers. Probably beyond the capability of most all members of this forum, including me. I deal in metal forming with the products that I produce and while I do not deal with stamped parts, I know that stamping pressure is quantifiable. I only have a 20 ton press in my shop and if anyone wants to send me a few sacrificial dollars for experimental purposes I will be happy to see if 20 tons is enough to impress the letters from one coin to another. I suspect that it will be significantly short.
OINK
Regular brockage coins are created with reverse-image, incuse letters in a coin press, right?
How many Morgans were stored in bags over the years? An awful lot, right? So- if contact during handling caused the lettering impression, there should be plenty of other examples, shouldn't there?
Sorry to say, IMO there is no way to prove how this could happen to anyone
s satisfaction w/o a coin press. I don't have access to a very hot coin vault in NO with bags and bags of silver dollars stored on top of each other for several years.