@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?
There are other (NOT PLENTY) examples. I've seen them - just not this much of the rim affected. Max was three letters just as "deep."
@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.
.
.
.
Can you post some of these photos? I don't recall seeing any similar pics or coins, but maybe I have.
.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@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.
.
.
.
Can you post some of these photos? I don't recall seeing any similar pics or coins, but maybe I have.
.
.
.
I've been looking for sure. This characteristic is not common. The amount shown on the OP's coin is probably unique!
Seems we have 2 different views (PMD vs Mint) and no way to prove either.
Coin in hand, good set of eyes, and strong loupe all needed to convince empirically about which occured first. Examination of boundary of incuse strike and dentil spaces, and incuse vestiges on dentils themselves, would provide necessary evidence showing which happened previous/subsequent. feynmans and alvarezes aside, think this doable
You keep mentioning that this phenomenon isn’t interesting, yet you keep following along with all the rest of us. Apparently it’s interesting now???
I also agree that it happened from two coins touching each other..... the question is where and how said touching occurred. It doesn’t happen from trivial glancing contact - that’s for sure.
Seems we have 2 different views (PMD vs Mint) and no way to prove either.
Coin in hand, good set of eyes, and strong loupe all needed to convince empirically about which occured first. Examination of boundary of incuse strike and dentil spaces, and incuse vestiges on dentils themselves, would provide necessary evidence showing which happened previous/subsequent. feynmans and alvarezes aside, think this [is] doable.
Apparently not.
Welcome and thanks for your authoritative post. This coin has been seen by a very good set of eyes using a loupe. Nevertheless, the opinion rendered has been criticized.
You keep mentioning that this phenomenon isn’t interesting, yet you keep following along with all the rest of us. Apparently it’s interesting now???
I also agree that it happened from two coins touching each other..... the question is where and how said touching occurred. It doesn’t happen from trivial glancing contact - that’s for sure.
No, he still doesn't care about the coin. He just likes calling the rest of us morons.
For those of us long- time collectors who have not availed ourselves of the TPG services all that much, it seemed that at various points in this discussion, there was as much intrigue and interest as to how this coin achieved a 'straight grade' and a 'CAC' than there was about the coin's birth. (or subsequent mistreatment after it left the mint)
A couple questions :
Were policy norms or rules possibly broken? Are graders', opinionators', or company's reputations negatively exposed? Will the coin be required to be re-holdered with a different label?
There certainly should be no negative financial implications given the provenance the thread has given this mysterious coin.
Since you guys have already dealt with almost every aspect of our hobby in this thread, as well as the physical sciences, manufacturing, history, and mild phsycological disorders - could these types of concerns be elaborated on a bit as well?
You keep mentioning that this phenomenon isn’t interesting, yet you keep following along with all the rest of us. Apparently it’s interesting now???
I also agree that it happened from two coins touching each other..... the question is where and how said touching occurred. It doesn’t happen from trivial glancing contact - that’s for sure.
I don't know where you get that idea? Did you see this comment from me: "I have taken photos of them because they are interesting."
how about this one: "PS The first time I saw one of these things I peed-my-pants with excitement too."
Perhaps I've confused some folks with all my posts throughout this discussion.
The fact that I thought this type of characteristic was neat, interesting, and something very special enough to image and show my boss ONLY signifies that I was impressed. No one else in the office thought anything about it,; HOWEVER, none of the impressions we've seen over the decades before were this complete!
There are several reasons I'm following along with this thread The entertainment factor is only one of them.
@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.
I don't believe that ANYONE on this forum has called the OP's coin a counterfeit. I used COIN "X" as an example to explain why there is no explanation needed to back up an opinion when some folks said the opinion given (not a mint error) was worthless w/o an explanation. I say NUTS to all of them!
If I clam a coin is a mint error, a genuine coin, an alteration, or a counterfeit, you can be 100% sure that I can back up that opinion and convince a jury that my opinion is correct in a court of law - the only place I'm required to do that.
@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?
Even when a bag was moved, how many coins in the bag were also moved? Probably not many. What kind of handling contact would have resulted in that kind of impression? Likely none. Where are the rim impressions from the striking coin that should be on either side of the struck coin?
@Insider2 said:
I don't believe that ANYONE on this forum has called the OP's coin a counterfeit. I used COIN "X" as an example to explain why there is no explanation needed to back up an opinion when some folks said the opinion given (not a mint error) was worthless w/o an explanation. I say NUTS to all of them!
If I clam a coin is a mint error, a genuine coin, an alteration, or a counterfeit, you can be 100% sure that I can back up that opinion and convince a jury that my opinion is correct in a court of law - the only place I'm required to do that.
Yeah, unless you decide to give the opinion and it is riddled with contradictions. Then the onus is on you to fix it - or you look like a dumbass. [I see the statement I have a huge problem with got removed, so ill stop harping on it after this post].
LOL, my middle name is "dumbass." It is much closer to the truth than calling me a "know-it-all!" Please post a contradiction I made in this thread. Then I'll try really hard to show why another thing I've been called is "shifty weasel."
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
What value can be established for the piece?
If you auctioned it on this forum, THOUSANDS!
The marketing campaign for this coin would be a link to the thread. I purchased this coin as I believed it was an error of some sort. I was targeting common date morgans in MS-66 with a clean cheek and this fit the bill and had the unique "Error or PMD" so I grabbed it.
I collect dimes and nickels as the majority of my collection, but the coin shows in the Memphis area I attend never have these coins, so I generally end up buying morgans to either flip or keep. As time has gone on, i have started to like them for all the reasons everyone else does..... no/few difficult ones to track down (except for lack of $$$), plenty of examples in every grade.... yada yada yada.
I have a disney cruise I am trying to pay for, so everyone get your checkbooks out.... the auction hammer is comin.....:)
Ignoring the cessation of wire rim 10:30-2:30 and wedgelike gouge eagle's breast, and the infinitely more damning soundings of the true experts, here're some more compelling notes to our limited visual mint error experience:
1) rim field surrounding incuse O T E S displays as though a regular struck field
2) incuse S middle shows in recess between dentils. If accepting that dentil spaces deeper than incuse letters, this evidences
prior imprinting of planchet
3) NW/SE sheer lines on obverse anomaly point to metal lost, not displaced. Wire rim along portions of its edge show
collaring and strike subsequent to sheer event. Banana shape of sheer as is points to displacement of presumed straight
planed original sheer caused by subsequent refed striking. Tried this with playdoh planchet with small planed angled snip
at edge, placed on beer can with high collared top, then impressed with morgy until filled edges pushed up and out. Voila..
banana
1) rim field surrounding incuse O T E S displays as though a regular struck field .
I agree if you are saying the field looks normal.
2) incuse S middle shows in recess between dentils. If accepting that dentil spaces deeper than incuse letters, this evidences
prior imprinting of planchet.
I disagree if you are saying the "letters came first." If they had been on the planchet befor the rest of the coin was struch MOST of the letters would be obliterated!
3) NW/SE sheer lines on obverse anomaly point to metal lost, not displaced. Wire rim along portions of its edge show
collaring and strike subsequent to sheer event. Banana shape of sheer as is points to displacement of presumed straight
planed original sheer caused by subsequent refed striking. Tried this with playdoh planchet with small planed angled snip
at edge, placed on beer can with high collared top, then impressed with morgy until filled edges pushed up and out. Voila..
banana.
I don't see any evidence of a "shear." I don't think that is the correct word to describe a large, banana-shaped, DENT into the coin's rim/edge.
@Insider2 (sidesofwaffleiron) D. Butterfly (hedge kind) said: It looks like opinions are divided on this coin.
_agreed_
"OP's coin...The coin is NOT damaged"
" I do know with 100% certainty that the rim is damaged..."
"So any...that relies on the opinion of anyone 100% will get "stung"..."
"...the OP's coin was not made using a coin press at the Mint."
"I don't believe that ANYONE on this forum has called the OP's coin a counterfeit."
I like to inform students about some things I've learned in my professional life. I'll pass two of them on to you here.
One day, you'll discover for yourself that many folks who are competent in one field are ignorant in another.
Some "opinions" are much better than those of others. Nevertheless, check out everything you hear or read for yourself - including what I tell you.
And a few are blowhards who enjoy lecturing others.
I have learned to IGNORE the way someone is "lecturing," their attitude, and the way they come across AS LONG AS THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT! Some of my best and favorite teachers were "full-of-themselves." However, I did prefer learning from the more modest numismatists. I will not embarrass those still living but Charles Hoskins, Eric Newman, George Beach and Charlie Panish are some of them who are no longer with us.
@ms70 said:
It would be really nice to have very hi-res photos from all angles of the areas in question.
I told Mr. Feltner that if it gets cracked I would be interested in weight, because I think it is missing metal not "compressed", or shifted or displaced. I told him I was worried that the small area in question maynot have lost enough metal to change the weight outside the limits of acceptability.
I said I was interested in the assessment that it was PMD. I mentioned that I use the phrase diagnosis of exclusion from time to time. It represents a belief it is X, because you have eliminated all the other causes. I said I did not feel all the other causes were excluded to fall back on PMD.
I mentioned my comfort with this being placed in a genuine slab if a compelling case is made for its need. I said in its absence, leaving the coin as is, is my view of the most appropriate way this coin should be handled.
Mr. Feltner read portions of this thread. I pointed him to theoretical images you have all generated and commentary about the US minting issues in New Orleans.
I think that is all I can remember at the moment
@ms70 said:
It would be really nice to have very hi-res photos from all angles of the areas in question.
I told Mr. Feltner that if it gets cracked I would be interested in weight, because I think it is missing metal not "compressed", or shifted or displaced. I told him I was worried that the small area in question maynot have lost enough metal to change the weight outside the limits of acceptability.
I said I was interested in the assessment that it was PMD. I mentioned that I use the phrase diagnosis of exclusion from time to time. It represents a belief it is X, because you have eliminated all the other causes. I said I did not feel all the other causes were excluded to fall back on PMD.
I mentioned my comfort with this being placed in a genuine slab if a compelling case is made for its need. I said in its absence, as is, is my view of most appropriate way this coin should be handled.
Mr. Feltner read portions of this thread. I pointed him to theoretical images you have all generated and commentary about the US minting issues in New Orleans.
I think that is all I can remember at the moment
They should probably be able to weigh it in the slab. I'm sure PCGS must know the precise weight of a slab with the insert, etc. to figure it out.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
FWIW, I had a nice conversation with Fred about this coin at Long Beach yesterday. I won't try to put words in his mouth, but it was nice to get his take on it. It was very clear that he was thoughtful and thorough in his assessment. Decades of experience and specialty in an area count for something. As the French say, "Il a raison."
@BryceM said:
FWIW, I had a nice conversation with Fred about this coin at Long Beach yesterday. I won't try to put words in his mouth, but it was nice to get his take on it. It was very clear that he was thoughtful and thorough in his assessment. Decades of experience and specialty in an area count for something. As the French say, "Il a raison."
Thanks for this update. You could see the coin in hand if you track down Mr. Feltner....lol
Je suis d'accord...even though I took French in High School I had to look this response up because I got a D.
The rim is higher than the denticals...the denticals below the "O" and the "S" are effected because greater pressure was exerted on the exact opposite side when coin was whacked by who knows after struck. PMD.
@SeattleSlammer said:
Ok, what did I miss? Anyone want to summarize these 800+ replies? 😆
A bunch of people said the incuse lettering near the rim of the OP's coin was a mint error. A bunch of other people said it must be PMD. The coin was returned to PCGS, who sent it to Fred Weinberg, and he stated conclusively that it's PMD. And..................... you're up to date.
@SeattleSlammer said:
Ok, what did I miss? Anyone want to summarize these 800+ replies? 😆
A bunch of people said the incuse lettering near the rim of the OP's coin was a mint error. A bunch of other people said it must be PMD. The coin was returned to PCGS, who sent it to Fred Weinberg, and he stated conclusively that it's PMD. And..................... you're up to date.
Is it just me or did cac put a note on ur slab when it didnt sticker saying a reason? I remember when coinfest started in 2008 they put a note for saying not strong enough etc. Just had like 6 dmpls that didn't receive a green bean kinda 😲
@ike126 said:
Is it just me or did cac put a note on ur slab when it didnt sticker saying a reason? I remember when coinfest started in 2008 they put a note for saying not strong enough etc. Just had like 6 dmpls that didn't receive a green bean kinda 😲
Not at all. It did sticker at CAC. JA said he did not know what it was. He thought it might be an error though.
FWIW, I had a nice conversation with Fred about this coin at Long Beach yesterday. I won't try to put words in his mouth, but it was nice to get his take on it. It was very clear that he was thoughtful and thorough in his assessment. Decades of experience and specialty in an area count for something. As the French say, "Il a raison."
Can you share what his technical explanation was? Don’t believe that’s been shared yet.
OFFICIAL FINAL UPDATE!!!!
The coin was taken to Long Beach, Steven and Fred met. Fred was adamant, according to Steve that it needed revision, I.e. placement in a "damaged, genuine holder" That will be the next resting place for this coin. The PCGS guarantee did apply and is being sorted out.
Secondly, I will be offering this coin for sale as I previously stated. You are welcome to PM me offers. I am unsure where I will be selling this. Let me know if any of you have questions.
Third.... I did ask for it to be returned as is, in the MS-66 slab. I feel, if I were to send it somewhere else it will get a better "review" of the coin as a Mint Error if it were a straight grade than it does damaged. Ultimately the answer was raw or details slabbed
Sorry, should have stated this in the last message, but i do not want to edit it for those who have already read the previous. Mr. Feltner said if Fred changes his mind on what this represents to let him and PCGS know, but they were going to go the route they did. I asked him based on his replies, if he felt comfortable with the decision and he did not reply to that specifically but referred to the fact that Fred is the expert with the knowledge of errors and the error graders at PCGS did not have any reason do recommend anything other that what was Fred's opinion.
I was offered Fred's number and email address to discuss it further as well. However, his opinion is known to me/us
I'm in correspondence with the US Mint with this coin. They have shown interest and have said, "If letters are found on rim it may have been put there on purpose. I was unable to look at the link. PLease tell me make model and year of coin". I sent them pictures from this thread.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Not that I claim, (or can even muster the clout to mutter), that it's a mint error. It seems unlikely at this point.
But in the absence of some evidence that it was INTENTIONAL, I view this coin just like I would a coin with reeding marks. It's a beautiful coin, and deserves a straight grade, even if you need to knock it down a grade or two for the "out of the ordinary bag handling" incidental marks.
...at the very least, our Wonderful host could re-slab the coin as details but with a special label insert of some sort. It seems that if she was truly damaged but originally went 66 at PCGS and then green at CAC, she would warrant a street-style nickname for the unbelievable magic-trick she pulled on the worlds greatest set of numismatic powerhouses. Maybe a Slippery-Liberty, Disappearing-Strike, or BU-Widget-Goggles type alias. To get the coin back raw or just in a regular old details slab seems silly at this point. I feel like people here were correct when they posted that the coin needed to be proven that it happened at the mint to be labeled an Error...so with that said, I also feel like it should have to be proven that it was done outside the mint in order to body bag it. Too cool of a coin to not leave as is with the 66 and green bean. That’s all, so good luck to the OP and I respect PCGS and Fred with whatever they decide or already decided to do
Disappointing results. PCGS can't conclude what it is and so (from your post) sounds as if they solely relied on one expert's insistence who also has not put forth conclusive evidence on how it was created. Unless they could definitively decide on what happened to this coin it should have been returned to you in the original slab. It seems to me more research needs to be done.
Just send it in for a simple reholder and maybe it will come back something different.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Comments
There are other (NOT PLENTY) examples. I've seen them - just not this much of the rim affected. Max was three letters just as "deep."
Some form of brockage was always the null hypothesis, no?
Not sure how many agree, and sure have no will to wade through all that again...
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
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.
.
.
.
Can you post some of these photos? I don't recall seeing any similar pics or coins, but maybe I have.
.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I've been looking for sure. This characteristic is not common. The amount shown on the OP's coin is probably unique!
~~~~> @MFeld said:
Coin in hand, good set of eyes, and strong loupe all needed to convince empirically about which occured first. Examination of boundary of incuse strike and dentil spaces, and incuse vestiges on dentils themselves, would provide necessary evidence showing which happened previous/subsequent. feynmans and alvarezes aside, think this doable
@Insider2
You keep mentioning that this phenomenon isn’t interesting, yet you keep following along with all the rest of us. Apparently it’s interesting now???
I also agree that it happened from two coins touching each other..... the question is where and how said touching occurred. It doesn’t happen from trivial glancing contact - that’s for sure.
Apparently not.
Welcome and thanks for your authoritative post. This coin has been seen by a very good set of eyes using a loupe. Nevertheless, the opinion rendered has been criticized.
What value can be established for the piece?
If you auctioned it on this forum, THOUSANDS!
No, he still doesn't care about the coin. He just likes calling the rest of us morons.
For those of us long- time collectors who have not availed ourselves of the TPG services all that much, it seemed that at various points in this discussion, there was as much intrigue and interest as to how this coin achieved a 'straight grade' and a 'CAC' than there was about the coin's birth. (or subsequent mistreatment after it left the mint)
A couple questions :
Were policy norms or rules possibly broken? Are graders', opinionators', or company's reputations negatively exposed? Will the coin be required to be re-holdered with a different label?
There certainly should be no negative financial implications given the provenance the thread has given this mysterious coin.
Since you guys have already dealt with almost every aspect of our hobby in this thread, as well as the physical sciences, manufacturing, history, and mild phsycological disorders - could these types of concerns be elaborated on a bit as well?
I don't know where you get that idea? Did you see this comment from me: "I have taken photos of them because they are interesting."
how about this one: "PS The first time I saw one of these things I peed-my-pants with excitement too."
Perhaps I've confused some folks with all my posts throughout this discussion.
The fact that I thought this type of characteristic was neat, interesting, and something very special enough to image and show my boss ONLY signifies that I was impressed. No one else in the office thought anything about it,; HOWEVER, none of the impressions we've seen over the decades before were this complete!
There are several reasons I'm following along with this thread The entertainment factor is only one of them.
I don't believe that ANYONE on this forum has called the OP's coin a counterfeit. I used COIN "X" as an example to explain why there is no explanation needed to back up an opinion when some folks said the opinion given (not a mint error) was worthless w/o an explanation. I say NUTS to all of them!
If I clam a coin is a mint error, a genuine coin, an alteration, or a counterfeit, you can be 100% sure that I can back up that opinion and convince a jury that my opinion is correct in a court of law - the only place I'm required to do that.
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
Even when a bag was moved, how many coins in the bag were also moved? Probably not many. What kind of handling contact would have resulted in that kind of impression? Likely none. Where are the rim impressions from the striking coin that should be on either side of the struck coin?
LOL, my middle name is "dumbass." It is much closer to the truth than calling me a "know-it-all!" Please post a contradiction I made in this thread. Then I'll try really hard to show why another thing I've been called is "shifty
weasel."
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
The marketing campaign for this coin would be a link to the thread. I purchased this coin as I believed it was an error of some sort. I was targeting common date morgans in MS-66 with a clean cheek and this fit the bill and had the unique "Error or PMD" so I grabbed it.
I collect dimes and nickels as the majority of my collection, but the coin shows in the Memphis area I attend never have these coins, so I generally end up buying morgans to either flip or keep. As time has gone on, i have started to like them for all the reasons everyone else does..... no/few difficult ones to track down (except for lack of $$$), plenty of examples in every grade.... yada yada yada.
I have a disney cruise I am trying to pay for, so everyone get your checkbooks out.... the auction hammer is comin.....:)
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
I'm happy to see the experts stumped, except for the grade.
Ignoring the cessation of wire rim 10:30-2:30 and wedgelike gouge eagle's breast, and the infinitely more damning soundings of the true experts, here're some more compelling notes to our limited visual mint error experience:
1) rim field surrounding incuse O T E S displays as though a regular struck field
2) incuse S middle shows in recess between dentils. If accepting that dentil spaces deeper than incuse letters, this evidences
prior imprinting of planchet
3) NW/SE sheer lines on obverse anomaly point to metal lost, not displaced. Wire rim along portions of its edge show
collaring and strike subsequent to sheer event. Banana shape of sheer as is points to displacement of presumed straight
planed original sheer caused by subsequent refed striking. Tried this with playdoh planchet with small planed angled snip
at edge, placed on beer can with high collared top, then impressed with morgy until filled edges pushed up and out. Voila..
banana
This is mint error 99.85% certainty, mostly
@davids5104 anxiously await your bidfest
@rugerdoc1 said:
1) rim field surrounding incuse O T E S displays as though a regular struck field .
I agree if you are saying the field looks normal.
2) incuse S middle shows in recess between dentils. If accepting that dentil spaces deeper than incuse letters, this evidences
prior imprinting of planchet.
I disagree if you are saying the "letters came first." If they had been on the planchet befor the rest of the coin was struch MOST of the letters would be obliterated!
3) NW/SE sheer lines on obverse anomaly point to metal lost, not displaced. Wire rim along portions of its edge show
collaring and strike subsequent to sheer event. Banana shape of sheer as is points to displacement of presumed straight
planed original sheer caused by subsequent refed striking. Tried this with playdoh planchet with small planed angled snip
at edge, placed on beer can with high collared top, then impressed with morgy until filled edges pushed up and out. Voila..
banana.
I don't see any evidence of a "shear." I don't think that is the correct word to describe a large, banana-shaped, DENT into the coin's rim/edge.
4) This is mint error 99.85% certainty, mostly.
It looks like opinions are divided on this coin.
"OP's coin...The coin is NOT damaged"
" I do know with 100% certainty that the rim is damaged..."
"So any...that relies on the opinion of anyone 100% will get "stung"..."
"...the OP's coin was not made using a coin press at the Mint."
"I don't believe that ANYONE on this forum has called the OP's coin a counterfeit."
@rugerdoc1,
I like to inform students about some things I've learned in my professional life. I'll pass two of them on to you here.
One day, you'll discover for yourself that many folks who are competent in one field are ignorant in another.
Some "opinions" are much better than those of others. Nevertheless, check out everything you hear or read for yourself - including what I tell you.
The one thing I can state with certainty is that this coin is interesting.
And a few are blowhards who enjoy lecturing others.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I have learned to IGNORE the way someone is "lecturing," their attitude, and the way they come across AS LONG AS THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT! Some of my best and favorite teachers were "full-of-themselves." However, I did prefer learning from the more modest numismatists. I will not embarrass those still living but Charles Hoskins, Eric Newman, George Beach and Charlie Panish are some of them who are no longer with us.
I haven't.
UPDATE..... the coin is going to go to the Long Beach show. Mr. Feltner is going to take it. I presume for further discussion with Fred.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
It would be really nice to have very hi-res photos from all angles of the areas in question.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I told Mr. Feltner that if it gets cracked I would be interested in weight, because I think it is missing metal not "compressed", or shifted or displaced. I told him I was worried that the small area in question maynot have lost enough metal to change the weight outside the limits of acceptability.
I said I was interested in the assessment that it was PMD. I mentioned that I use the phrase diagnosis of exclusion from time to time. It represents a belief it is X, because you have eliminated all the other causes. I said I did not feel all the other causes were excluded to fall back on PMD.
I mentioned my comfort with this being placed in a genuine slab if a compelling case is made for its need. I said in its absence, leaving the coin as is, is my view of the most appropriate way this coin should be handled.
Mr. Feltner read portions of this thread. I pointed him to theoretical images you have all generated and commentary about the US minting issues in New Orleans.
I think that is all I can remember at the moment
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
They should probably be able to weigh it in the slab. I'm sure PCGS must know the precise weight of a slab with the insert, etc. to figure it out.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@ms70 True about the weight. I was just thinking every item has a range and fewer variables...... but you are exactly right.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
I hope you get over it one day. Life will be less stressful.
FWIW, I had a nice conversation with Fred about this coin at Long Beach yesterday. I won't try to put words in his mouth, but it was nice to get his take on it. It was very clear that he was thoughtful and thorough in his assessment. Decades of experience and specialty in an area count for something. As the French say, "Il a raison."
Thanks for this update. You could see the coin in hand if you track down Mr. Feltner....lol
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Ok, what did I miss? Anyone want to summarize these 800+ replies? 😆
Je suis d'accord...even though I took French in High School I had to look this response up because I got a D.
The rim is higher than the denticals...the denticals below the "O" and the "S" are effected because greater pressure was exerted on the exact opposite side when coin was whacked by who knows after struck. PMD.
A bunch of people said the incuse lettering near the rim of the OP's coin was a mint error. A bunch of other people said it must be PMD. The coin was returned to PCGS, who sent it to Fred Weinberg, and he stated conclusively that it's PMD. And..................... you're up to date.
Thanks Brotha. 😎
Is it just me or did cac put a note on ur slab when it didnt sticker saying a reason? I remember when coinfest started in 2008 they put a note for saying not strong enough etc. Just had like 6 dmpls that didn't receive a green bean kinda 😲
Not at all. It did sticker at CAC. JA said he did not know what it was. He thought it might be an error though.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
.> @BryceM said:
Can you share what his technical explanation was? Don’t believe that’s been shared yet.
OFFICIAL FINAL UPDATE!!!!
The coin was taken to Long Beach, Steven and Fred met. Fred was adamant, according to Steve that it needed revision, I.e. placement in a "damaged, genuine holder" That will be the next resting place for this coin. The PCGS guarantee did apply and is being sorted out.
Secondly, I will be offering this coin for sale as I previously stated. You are welcome to PM me offers. I am unsure where I will be selling this. Let me know if any of you have questions.
Third.... I did ask for it to be returned as is, in the MS-66 slab. I feel, if I were to send it somewhere else it will get a better "review" of the coin as a Mint Error if it were a straight grade than it does damaged. Ultimately the answer was raw or details slabbed
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Sorry, should have stated this in the last message, but i do not want to edit it for those who have already read the previous. Mr. Feltner said if Fred changes his mind on what this represents to let him and PCGS know, but they were going to go the route they did. I asked him based on his replies, if he felt comfortable with the decision and he did not reply to that specifically but referred to the fact that Fred is the expert with the knowledge of errors and the error graders at PCGS did not have any reason do recommend anything other that what was Fred's opinion.
I was offered Fred's number and email address to discuss it further as well. However, his opinion is known to me/us
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
I'm in correspondence with the US Mint with this coin. They have shown interest and have said, "If letters are found on rim it may have been put there on purpose. I was unable to look at the link. PLease tell me make model and year of coin". I sent them pictures from this thread.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I find that disappointing.
Not that I claim, (or can even muster the clout to mutter), that it's a mint error. It seems unlikely at this point.
But in the absence of some evidence that it was INTENTIONAL, I view this coin just like I would a coin with reeding marks. It's a beautiful coin, and deserves a straight grade, even if you need to knock it down a grade or two for the "out of the ordinary bag handling" incidental marks.
Phooey.
...at the very least, our Wonderful host could re-slab the coin as details but with a special label insert of some sort. It seems that if she was truly damaged but originally went 66 at PCGS and then green at CAC, she would warrant a street-style nickname for the unbelievable magic-trick she pulled on the worlds greatest set of numismatic powerhouses. Maybe a Slippery-Liberty, Disappearing-Strike, or BU-Widget-Goggles type alias. To get the coin back raw or just in a regular old details slab seems silly at this point. I feel like people here were correct when they posted that the coin needed to be proven that it happened at the mint to be labeled an Error...so with that said, I also feel like it should have to be proven that it was done outside the mint in order to body bag it. Too cool of a coin to not leave as is with the 66 and green bean. That’s all, so good luck to the OP and I respect PCGS and Fred with whatever they decide or already decided to do
I still like it! Win, lose or draw.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Here is the cert and photo. Cert updated on verification
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Disappointing results. PCGS can't conclude what it is and so (from your post) sounds as if they solely relied on one expert's insistence who also has not put forth conclusive evidence on how it was created. Unless they could definitively decide on what happened to this coin it should have been returned to you in the original slab. It seems to me more research needs to be done.
Just send it in for a simple reholder and maybe it will come back something different.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.