@jmlanzaf said:
Since you have trouble understanding the point, you would probably not enjoy any such discussions. The point is that the only explanation needed for an error is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to arise in the Minting process. So Fred need not explain, as SOME (not all) have requested, how the coin was made. *He need only be sure that it could not have happened in the Minting process. *
Not accurate. In order for it not to encapsulate as an error, he only needs to not know how the Mint could have made it. If there is not an explanation for it that he is aware of, then it cant be encapsulated.
This is not what he said.
He said it is 100% PMD. And, I guess, for all of you not logically trained, that doesnt mean anything. Heh. BECAUSE YOU ALL KEEP NOT UNDERSTANDING.
100% PMD means that he knows ALL of the ways it possibly could be an error, and it is none of those. Do you think that Fred is a God, and that he knows every single possible error the mint made on purpose or on accident? Do you think there is any wiggle room in that?
100% is an absolute. It leaves no room for being wrong. THIS is my problem.
Had he said what you said, okay. Had he said, "I know of no way this could be made at the Mint, hence I believe it to be PMD" OKAY! [this is what he should of said]. But, no, the expert must feed his ego. He claimed 100% PMD, and he cant be wrong.
EDIT:
Same pet peeve for the weather. Sometimes they claim a 100% forecast. Thats total bull shit. They cant be 100% sure that it will rain. I've experienced a 100% forecast be wrong.
Jesus. How hard is it to say, "'m 95% sure that this is not a Mint error?
LOL, authenticating coins is a heck of a lot more precise than making a weather forecast.
To answer your question, it would be both very hard and disingenuous to say that if someone thought the coin was 100% not a mint error!
Mint technicians at the Treasury Department's Office of Technology did it quite often and I only know of one mistake.
BTW, if he were willing to take a pay cut, I think Mr.Weinberg could have run that Department after Dr. Hunter retired!
@CoinJunkie said:
Another red herring in a sea of them. Please compare the quality of the appearance of the average "parking lot find" to that of the OP's Morgan. I find it hard to believe that a machine is not responsible for the lettering on the OP's coin. Beyond that, I don't know enough to have a theory on how or when it happened.
A machine does not necessarily imply a U.S. Mint press. You can transfer letters in a vice. I'm not saying that necessarily happened here. But it is not a red herring in the sense that we've had numerous "fake errors" posted here including sandwich coins and man-made clips.
Despite you are 'not saying that necessarily happened here', I and apparently many others here are concerned with how difficult this would be to do without mint equipment. We could be wrong but if it is truly PMD, the onus is to come up with a viable way to do it. So I would love the see the vice hypothesis tested. Do you have a vice (I don't)? Show us.
I see with this coin is the sheared off rim/edge opposite the letters. I have NEVER seen this on any of the coins I've examined in the past with incuse letters on the rim.
It was not sheared. Even with sharp blanking dies and brake shear presses, there is always evidence of shearing, and I have sheared a lot of sterling and other metals.
The answer to the obverse rim void is with the US Mint documents, and Downing's explanation of the coining problem at the New Orleans Mint in 1899.
@davids5104 should send the coin to David Lange, he understands the value of Mint documents. There are NGC Morgan Dollar Error coins with some of the issues this coin has. I would post links, but it would be a waste of time here. @davids5104 can PM for more info.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
These are comments from ATS source (also well-renouned)
1. "The transfer of letters is too clear and deep for this to be caused by ordinary contact between coins. Based only on the photos (above) I suspect that a second coin fell or was placed on top of your coin, then struck with considerable force. If there are no other traces of the other coin on the relief of your piece, then I suspect it was not struck by a US Mint toggle press.
Normal pressure used to strike this type of silver dollar was about 100 to 120 tons (net). This much pressure would be sufficient to transfer a substantial portion of the second coin's design to your coin. Since that does not appear to be the case, the next option is that the second coin was put (or placed) on your coin, and then struck with a heavy mallet or hammer. With force concentrated on the narrow rim, this could be accomplished by anyone curious about the effect.
The reverse rim boundary is uncharacteristically sharp and unnatural. Normally, there would be radial curvature and a drop-off of the rim as it meets the edge reeding, as seen or the rest of the photo. The distorted obverse rim and edge is not clear enough to offer additional information."
"Many older attributions rely on very limited, or even nonexistent, information about details of toggle press operation. For your coin, an off center die explanation does not "work" because the rim impressions are backward from what seen on a struck coin. Therefore, they can only originate with a previously struck coin sitting on the rim prior to application of force.
The shearing mechanism (as shown above) assumes only a plain - unreeded - collar. Morgans always used a reeded collar whether made with a drift tool or reeds cut with a knurling tool. Also, shaving off part of the planchet would create at underweight coin missing detail, and very likely to be caught by one of the reviewers prior to bagging."
1) It required approx. 100 tons to strike the entire coin. Application of that much force to the very small area of the rim (as shown in your photos) would have crushed the upper coin into yours. This would create extensive transfer and damage to your coin. I can see no evidence of that on the face of your coin. The area showing letter transfer is so small that I suspect a normal blow from a 5-lb hammer would have been sufficient to produce the observed effect. (Striking pressure on a toggle press was uniform from blow-to-blow.)
2) Your theory (which is the same as what I discussed but using the press rather than a hammer to transfer lettering), omits mention of how this "sticking" would happen. The upper die (obverse) was held tightly in a locked chuck with only the face exposed - there was no place for a coin to stick. The bottom die was similarly connected.
The only place a coin could "stick" was in the collar. This could happen due to wear on the train of levers and gears coordinating press actions, damage or wear of the central die stake (upper die chuck), or distortion of the press arch/frame due to cracking. The most plausible scenario occurs if the feeding/sweeping mechanism (aka "feed fingers") failed to clear a struck coin from the top of the collar, then positioned a fresh planchet which was struck, then bumped the un-cleared coin slightly over the rim of your coin AND simultaneously failed to clear both your coin, the previous coin, and also feed a new planchet.
Feeding/sweeping mechanism failures are known and all show either multiple strikes to the same coin, or a pile of coins pressed together. That is, the same effects as seen on smaller denominations.
To go a little further, a "capped die" defect, where a coin mechanically adheres to one of the face dies, and then repeatedly strikes planchets could offer a solution. However, such coins are always highly distorted. Your coin shows no sign of distortion of the transferred letters, which are nearly pristine.
At present, I do not see a viable alternative to post-manufacture as the most likely cause of the letter transfer on your coin.
A couple of other things that weaken your arguments:
A) "The incuse letters on the rim of my coin, which are at a minimum, the same depth as the lettering of its "neighboring" coin it was struck against. "
Unless you have objective measurements made with proven methods, this argument is merely a wishful guess. (For reference, see the problems created last August when an unnamed grading company applied false "wishful guesses" to an experimental coin, and incorrectly stated it was "high relief" when it was not.)
"If compressed, where is the metal buildup?"
There is plenty of room for the rim metal to expand - especially outward where the sharp edge is visible.
C) "No other damage to be seen? the obverse rim damage is proportional to the force to generate incuse lettering?"
100 tons applied to a coin sitting on the rim of your coin would cause severe damage to the face of your coin. The overlying coin would be deeply pressed into your coin because almost all of the force would have been directed over a very small area. (Coining pressure is total force. The area over which it is applied created the force per square millimeter -- or inch.)
Obverse rim/edge below the date is not clear enough to form an opinion based on the photos.
D) "Why on earth would this be done to a Mint State Coin?"
Why not? Until a few decades ago, it was just a shiny silver dollar. Coins of all denominations show the effects of idle experiments with vices, hammers, punches, lathes, reeding gears, shooting targets (OK -- that was me with my .22 rifle), and on and on.
To prove your supposition, you will have to provide clear empirical evidence that the letter transfer occurred in the New Orleans Mint, and describe how it occurred using the toggle presses and other equipment available there in 1899.
I am far from an expert on errors, and I truly find this coin amazing. The scenarios discussed of what could have created this is very interesting to me to read and to try to interpret.
The thing that sticks out to me is the supposed annealing process issues noted at the New Orleans mint. As pmd, was the coin with the impression in the rim somehow much softer than the coin the created the impression?
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
...for real though, where the hell is @dcarr and why hasn’t he replied in this thread?...he was properly summoned I believe and a while back if I recall correctly. Please forgive me if I am incorrect as I am not going to go back and see if I missed him posting in here...but seriously, he seems like the dude who can explain the most in regards to operational theories within a US Mint, so where u at my man?
Edit to add: my wink emoji and also no bad blood on Mr. Carr and I hope he is well.
@ms70 said:
I simply dare anyone to recreate it and just as perfect.
...I got a hundo for whomever can produce one...maybe we can get a fund together and if it gets large enough folks may start at least trying and for reals
@ms70 said:
I simply dare anyone to recreate it and just as perfect.
...I got a hundo for whomever can produce one...maybe we can get a fund together and if it gets large enough folks may start at least trying and for reals
Yeah sure, I'll contribute $100 into such a fund. Best of luck to whomever wants to collect! All you need is a vise and a hammer and a dream, apparently...
@dcarr What do you think of this theory? I'm starting to believe it could be possible!
@amwldcoin said:
I just thought of a possible explanation...albeit far fetched...which this error/alteration is apparently. What if somehow the collar was loose and it was struck by the die. Then a coin was struck by the damaged collar. Odds are it would be a one off as the collar would probably detach quickly. I can't think any thing farther out of the box than that!
@amwldcoin said: @dcarr What do you think of this theory? I'm starting to believe it could be possible!
@amwldcoin said:
I just thought of a possible explanation...albeit far fetched...which this error/alteration is apparently. What if somehow the collar was loose and it was struck by the die. Then a coin was struck by the damaged collar. Odds are it would be a one off as the collar would probably detach quickly. I can't think any thing farther out of the box than that!
The collar forms the edge of the coin, not the design rim. This theory would not explain the incused lettering on the design rim.
And as a side note, actually this occurring is not that far-fetched. It happens often. Typically the hammer die is damaged by the collar. With reeded coins, the die will receive reed-like marks and coins struck from such dies will have reed-like marks the on the design rim.
If a hammer could generate the force needed for letter transfer given small area; and the coins orientation are below. Where is denticle damage? As a secondary comment, the obverse rim defect as the "strike point" of this coin has produced NO damage to the hair, neck, or cheek. The "hammer damage", looking at the shape of the damage tells me that there should be some. These coins were misaligned and would have shifted after being struck by a hammer producing friction
I picture it like this. A piece of the collar is struck by the die, then the next coin is struck with the struck piece of collar between the planchet and the die.
@amwldcoin said: @dcarr What do you think of this theory? I'm starting to believe it could be possible!
@amwldcoin said:
I just thought of a possible explanation...albeit far fetched...which this error/alteration is apparently. What if somehow the collar was loose and it was struck by the die. Then a coin was struck by the damaged collar. Odds are it would be a one off as the collar would probably detach quickly. I can't think any thing farther out of the box than that!
The collar forms the edge of the coin, not the design rim. This theory would not explain the incused lettering on the design rim.
And as a side note, actually this occurring is not that far-fetched. It happens often. Typically the hammer die is damaged by the collar. With reeded coins, the die will receive reed-like marks and coins struck from such dies will have reed-like marks the on the design rim.
Post a comment that summarizes this thread from early January to now, including what happened with the JA call, the latest opinions on the Morgan, and the reason the @Crypto Trade Dollar entered into this thread. And, tag me so I am aware of the summary and can easily find it.
@EVillageProwler
1. Coin purchased and sent to CAC. Got sticker and JA said to call him
2. He thought it was POSSIBLY something unusual (he thought it may be a mint error..... HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS A MINT ERROR (probably a page dedicated to that)
3. PCGS was contacted and Steven feltner had interest in this coin. He thought it was an error. It has been in his possession ever since.
4. Fred said here that the coin looked like PMD
5. PCGS error specialists did not know what this coin represented and sent it to Fred
6. Fred with extreme confidence said it was PMD
7. Fred did not provide any reason one way or another
8. People disliked Freds lack of explanation, people disliked peoples dislike for the lack of explanation
9. Fred said he has been wrong before and that PCGS should send it back to me as is, MS-66.
10. Coin went to Long Beach show and Fred, per Mr. Feltner, said it should be made genuine PMD
11. the error specialists had no reason to go against fred
12. The coin is coming back to me PMD
13. The last 5 pages is about where is burden of proof... on the mint error or PMD
@amwldcoin said:
I picture it like this. A piece of the collar is struck by the die, then the next coin is struck with the struck piece of collar between the planchet and the die.
@amwldcoin said: @dcarr What do you think of this theory? I'm starting to believe it could be possible!
@amwldcoin said:
I just thought of a possible explanation...albeit far fetched...which this error/alteration is apparently. What if somehow the collar was loose and it was struck by the die. Then a coin was struck by the damaged collar. Odds are it would be a one off as the collar would probably detach quickly. I can't think any thing farther out of the box than that!
The collar forms the edge of the coin, not the design rim. This theory would not explain the incused lettering on the design rim.
And as a side note, actually this occurring is not that far-fetched. It happens often. Typically the hammer die is damaged by the collar. With reeded coins, the die will receive reed-like marks and coins struck from such dies will have reed-like marks the on the design rim.
Oh got it. Yes, that would be unlikely. I would also expect more of a defined edge to the, what would properly be termed, a struck-through area.
@Baley said:
EVP!
It takes a matter of high and interest to lure you back into the forum...
Much looking forward to your thoughts
I had been following this, until early January (went on vacation!), then lost track. I was extremely interested in the technical issues. People had done much to try to expound on certain key points; I especially liked the overlays. Now I fear that I may have to go back to read the latter half of this thread. (/sad) So much for trying for the Cliff's Notes version.
@davids5104 said: @EVillageProwler
1. Coin purchased and sent to CAC. Got sticker and JA said to call him
2. He thought it was POSSIBLY something unusual (he thought it may be a mint error..... HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS A MINT ERROR (probably a page dedicated to that)
3. PCGS was contacted and Steven feltner had interest in this coin. He thought it was an error. It has been in his possession ever since.
4. Fred said here that the coin looked like PMD
5. PCGS error specialists did not know what this coin represented and sent it to Fred
6. Fred with extreme confidence said it was PMD
7. Fred did not provide any reason one way or another
8. People disliked Freds lack of explanation, people disliked peoples dislike for the lack of explanation
9. Fred said he has been wrong before and that PCGS should send it back to me as is, MS-66.
10. Coin went to Long Beach show and Fred, per Mr. Feltner, said it should be made genuine PMD
11. the error specialists had no reason to go against fred
12. The coin is coming back to me PMD
13. The last 5 pages is about where is burden of proof... on the mint error or PMD
Thanks! Your post, and coin, is famous!
What were PCGS' in-hand analysis of the coin? They must've had some specific thoughts in both directions not to be able to draw a conclusion.
Is Fred unwilling, or unable, to clarify his thoughts about this coin? Or is that uncertain because Fred has gone silent?
Is the Trade Dollar a tangent that I can ignore?
I am sorry that your coin is being returned as PMD. I guess that also obviates the CAC sticker. What kind of recompense can you be due? It probably isn't worth enough compared to the joy (or "joy") from this thread.
Pcgs official position as of this second is Fred is probably right, we use him for our tough to assess coins, so......
The trade dollar comment is inappropriate.
Fred has gone silent but I do not disagree with this choice.
CAC can be restickered for a few bucks. The busted pcgs slab hurts.
@davids5104 said: "Fred has gone silent but I do not disagree with this choice."
Neither do I and I cannot blame him. News flash to all the "ex-perts" here demanding more information. Here is some just for you:
I've never met an honest numismatist who knows everything about everything. I have met some who think they do. Experience and their actions/opinions showed they did not.
Since none of us knows everything to the point of being virtually 100% correct all the time, many numismatists have chosen to specialize. There are specialized collectors (many unknown to most of us) who can run rings around many well known authorities and coin dealers in the world and would be qualified to work at any major grading service in their field. Some of them, along with many dealers, already act as CONSULTANTS to the hobby. It is a thankless job - often undertaken reluctantly to fill a need and not for praise or glory.
So, unless you are an expert consultant who has been harangued and badgered about a valid opinion, you have no standing to demand anything from anyone providing an opinion as a consultant. Get over it or complain about it to someone who cares. Ha, ha, hhhhaaaaaa.
Super long thread that started well and had a few nuggets throughout, but I largely gave up reading it due to most of the arguing and people thinking they know everything.
That said, I still don't think it is cut and dry. Has anyone contact DAN CARR to see if he would weigh in yet? From all the board members, I kind of think he has the most knowledge of striking and presses.......
I am really surprised @dcarr hasn't opined here. He's been flagged numerous times. Perhaps it's because of the reception + treatment Fred received?
@Bochiman said:
Super long thread that started well and had a few nuggets throughout, but I largely gave up reading it due to most of the arguing and people thinking they know everything.
That said, I still don't think it is cut and dry. Has anyone contact DAN CARR to see if he would weigh in yet? From all the board members, I kind of think he has the most knowledge of striking and presses.......
“Reception and treatment” meaning asking someone to back up their opinion with an explanation for how they know something with 100% certainty? How mean of us.
@amwldcoin said:
I am really surprised @dcarr hasn't opined here. He's been flagged numerous times. Perhaps it's because of the reception + treatment Fred received?
@Bochiman said:
Super long thread that started well and had a few nuggets throughout, but I largely gave up reading it due to most of the arguing and people thinking they know everything.
That said, I still don't think it is cut and dry. Has anyone contact DAN CARR to see if he would weigh in yet? From all the board members, I kind of think he has the most knowledge of striking and presses.......
Given the way this thread has progressed, I can understand why he may be hesitant to jump in...
@OriginalDan said:
“Reception and treatment” meaning asking someone to back up their opinion with an explanation for how they know something with 100% certainty? How mean of us.
Exactly, but not mean at all. Just uninformed about how things are.
While CU is a "meeting place" to share a hobby and perhaps even learn some new things - it is not a classroom (too many teachers with different opinions). So, If I were asked to comment on the micro diagnostics present on one of the dangerous early copper counterfeits posted here by @burfle23 my answer would be heck no. Additionally, I would not be able to tell you with 100% certainty exactly how they are made.
Furthermore, don't count Carr out. He may be working on the puzzle at this moment. I don't know anything.
Between two experts, there are rules and respect. Call it business acumen. And the OP is not seeking a 2nd opinion.
That doesn't necessarily mean they haven't discussed the matter. And I'm not going to assume whether they should/have or not.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@OriginalDan said:
“Reception and treatment” meaning asking someone to back up their opinion with an explanation for how they know something with 100% certainty? How mean of us.
Exactly, but not mean at all. Just uninformed about how things are.
While CU is a "meeting place" to share a hobby and perhaps even learn some new things - it is not a classroom (too many teachers with different opinions). So, If I were asked to comment on the micro diagnostics present on one of the dangerous early copper counterfeits posted here by @burfle23 my answer would be heck no. Additionally, I would no be able to tell you with 100% certainty exactly how they are made.
Furthermore, don't count Carr out. He may be working on the puzzle at this moment. I don't know anything.
If Dan can’t hypothesis out how this happened at the mint I wonder if Dan could reasonably re create an example by other means. Thus, showing us one way it could have happened in the wild and not the mint
Maybe DC just wants to mind his business
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......
@leothelyon said:
Between two experts, there are rules and respect. Call it business acumen. And the OP is not seeking a 2nd opinion.
That doesn't necessarily mean they haven't discussed the matter. And I'm not going to assume whether they should/have or not.
Leo
I do agree with the sentiment. Regarding a second opinion.... Only the TPG ATS is worth the effort. There have also been a lot of second opinions. Jon, who saw coin in hand.... Fred..... and PCGS graders..... 3 "NO's". Pretty solid group by reputation. This coin is a put away and forget type coin and see where the dust settles on resubmission in 10 years or 2 years even. With that said I have had quite a few offers, none high enough to pull it away from my hands...
Mr. Carr was summoned. I believe I posted that he could probably make a coin that looked as this one by some means. That would include "cheating." Such as cutting out a small section along the rim of one of his creations, placing it on a struck piece and seeing the result.
Remember the obvious...Whatever made the impression of the letters on the rim of the OP's coin WAS RAISED! Dies are not raised. Hubs are. What would a hub be doing around a coining press striking coins. Nothing because it would not be there. The ONLY object with raised letters that would be near a press is ANOTHER COIN! And that is assuming this even happened at the mint.
The fact that ONLY letters appear and no other imprint is significant. Additionally, if these letters were somehow on a planchet, the strike of the dies would have messed them up BIG TIME. They would NOT look like they do. So, the letters are there. No way it can be explained during the normal minting process. Is it a mint error. Not to me. Is it an interesting coin? Yes, I'd like to have one. Is it post mint damage? Well, it is a post mint characteristic IMO, but I don't consider it to be damage even though it can be considered to be and those who do would be technically correct. .
@davids5104 said: "This coin is a put away and forget type coin and see where the dust settles on resubmission in 10 years or 2 years even. With that said I have had quite a few offers, none high enough to pull it away from my hands...
The coin is what it is. If some fly-by-night service holders it as an error, it will not be worth what it is now. Stick it on Ebay with a link to this thread and you'll probably be thousands richer. Folks over there buy potato chips shaped like animals! I heard the 1959 "uncertified" mule cent brought over 50K in an auction.
My group reviewed the images (not the coin in hand) and agreed PMD. In summary "The physical evidence supports the idea that this is post mint damage. On the reverse at roughly 12 O'Clock to 2 O'Clock there appears to be an additional partial strike of the raised rim of this coin. If this is the case, then the obverse should show some marks from the obverse die. The obverse rim in the 4 O'Clock to 6 O'Clock position just shows a flattened featureless area on the obverse rim. Therefore the coin was not between the dies when the reverse rim alteration happened".
I understand the customer sent this coin back after it was graded; it was again reviewed and ruled it was not a mint error.
"summoned" does not = "contacted".
So, from the responses since my post, it does not sound like anyone actually involved with this has contacted, actually CONTACTED, Dan Carr, to get his opinion. I'm not talking about him coming to the thread and getting beat up. Contact can occur offline as well....if there is interest.
He's the only board member I know with his own USMint coin press....
@burfle23 said:
My group reviewed the images (not the coin in hand) and agreed PMD. In summary "The physical evidence supports the idea that this is post mint damage. On the reverse at roughly 12 O'Clock to 2 O'Clock there appears to be an additional partial strike of the raised rim of this coin. If this is the case, then the obverse should show some marks from the obverse die. The obverse rim in the 4 O'Clock to 6 O'Clock position just shows a flattened featureless area on the obverse rim. Therefore the coin was not between the dies when the reverse rim alteration happened".
I understand the customer sent this coin back after it was graded; it was again reviewed and ruled it was not a mint error.
What if there was another blank (offset) between the subject coin and the rest of the brockage coin, and yet another blank(s?) between the subject coin and the other die?
@Insider2 said: @davids5104 said: "This coin is a put away and forget type coin and see where the dust settles on resubmission in 10 years or 2 years even. With that said I have had quite a few offers, none high enough to pull it away from my hands...
The coin is what it is. If some fly-by-night service holders it as an error, it will not be worth what it is now. Stick it on Ebay with a link to this thread and you'll probably be thousands richer. Folks over there buy potato chips shaped like animals! I heard the 1959 "uncertified" mule cent brought over 50K in an auction.
Just wish someone here would pony up the thousands to avoid the fees!!!
...don’t let somebody with more money than you purchase your glory for “a few thousand.” Send it to NGC man, I can’t believe I said that...but it makes the most sense to me at this point
@Bochiman said:
"summoned" does not = "contacted".
So, from the responses since my post, it does not sound like anyone actually involved with this has contacted, actually CONTACTED, Dan Carr, to get his opinion. I'm not talking about him coming to the thread and getting beat up. Contact can occur offline as well....if there is interest.
He's the only board member I know with his own USMint coin press....
Mr. Carr posts here at least weekly. I assure you that he is aware of this coin although no one may have actually "contacted" him.
Comments
LOL, authenticating coins is a heck of a lot more precise than making a weather forecast.
To answer your question, it would be both very hard and disingenuous to say that if someone thought the coin was 100% not a mint error!
Mint technicians at the Treasury Department's Office of Technology did it quite often and I only know of one mistake.
BTW, if he were willing to take a pay cut, I think Mr.Weinberg could have run that Department after Dr. Hunter retired!
Despite you are 'not saying that necessarily happened here', I and apparently many others here are concerned with how difficult this would be to do without mint equipment. We could be wrong but if it is truly PMD, the onus is to come up with a viable way to do it. So I would love the see the vice hypothesis tested. Do you have a vice (I don't)? Show us.
Best, SH
@Insider2
It was not sheared. Even with sharp blanking dies and brake shear presses, there is always evidence of shearing, and I have sheared a lot of sterling and other metals.
The answer to the obverse rim void is with the US Mint documents, and Downing's explanation of the coining problem at the New Orleans Mint in 1899.
@davids5104 should send the coin to David Lange, he understands the value of Mint documents. There are NGC Morgan Dollar Error coins with some of the issues this coin has. I would post links, but it would be a waste of time here. @davids5104 can PM for more info.
These are comments from ATS source (also well-renouned)
1. "The transfer of letters is too clear and deep for this to be caused by ordinary contact between coins. Based only on the photos (above) I suspect that a second coin fell or was placed on top of your coin, then struck with considerable force. If there are no other traces of the other coin on the relief of your piece, then I suspect it was not struck by a US Mint toggle press.
Normal pressure used to strike this type of silver dollar was about 100 to 120 tons (net). This much pressure would be sufficient to transfer a substantial portion of the second coin's design to your coin. Since that does not appear to be the case, the next option is that the second coin was put (or placed) on your coin, and then struck with a heavy mallet or hammer. With force concentrated on the narrow rim, this could be accomplished by anyone curious about the effect.
The reverse rim boundary is uncharacteristically sharp and unnatural. Normally, there would be radial curvature and a drop-off of the rim as it meets the edge reeding, as seen or the rest of the photo. The distorted obverse rim and edge is not clear enough to offer additional information."
The shearing mechanism (as shown above) assumes only a plain - unreeded - collar. Morgans always used a reeded collar whether made with a drift tool or reeds cut with a knurling tool. Also, shaving off part of the planchet would create at underweight coin missing detail, and very likely to be caught by one of the reviewers prior to bagging."
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
this is the photo he was referring to as "the shearing mechanism"
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
1) It required approx. 100 tons to strike the entire coin. Application of that much force to the very small area of the rim (as shown in your photos) would have crushed the upper coin into yours. This would create extensive transfer and damage to your coin. I can see no evidence of that on the face of your coin. The area showing letter transfer is so small that I suspect a normal blow from a 5-lb hammer would have been sufficient to produce the observed effect. (Striking pressure on a toggle press was uniform from blow-to-blow.)
2) Your theory (which is the same as what I discussed but using the press rather than a hammer to transfer lettering), omits mention of how this "sticking" would happen. The upper die (obverse) was held tightly in a locked chuck with only the face exposed - there was no place for a coin to stick. The bottom die was similarly connected.
The only place a coin could "stick" was in the collar. This could happen due to wear on the train of levers and gears coordinating press actions, damage or wear of the central die stake (upper die chuck), or distortion of the press arch/frame due to cracking. The most plausible scenario occurs if the feeding/sweeping mechanism (aka "feed fingers") failed to clear a struck coin from the top of the collar, then positioned a fresh planchet which was struck, then bumped the un-cleared coin slightly over the rim of your coin AND simultaneously failed to clear both your coin, the previous coin, and also feed a new planchet.
Feeding/sweeping mechanism failures are known and all show either multiple strikes to the same coin, or a pile of coins pressed together. That is, the same effects as seen on smaller denominations.
To go a little further, a "capped die" defect, where a coin mechanically adheres to one of the face dies, and then repeatedly strikes planchets could offer a solution. However, such coins are always highly distorted. Your coin shows no sign of distortion of the transferred letters, which are nearly pristine.
At present, I do not see a viable alternative to post-manufacture as the most likely cause of the letter transfer on your coin.
A couple of other things that weaken your arguments:
A) "The incuse letters on the rim of my coin, which are at a minimum, the same depth as the lettering of its "neighboring" coin it was struck against. "
Unless you have objective measurements made with proven methods, this argument is merely a wishful guess. (For reference, see the problems created last August when an unnamed grading company applied false "wishful guesses" to an experimental coin, and incorrectly stated it was "high relief" when it was not.)
There is plenty of room for the rim metal to expand - especially outward where the sharp edge is visible.
C) "No other damage to be seen? the obverse rim damage is proportional to the force to generate incuse lettering?"
100 tons applied to a coin sitting on the rim of your coin would cause severe damage to the face of your coin. The overlying coin would be deeply pressed into your coin because almost all of the force would have been directed over a very small area. (Coining pressure is total force. The area over which it is applied created the force per square millimeter -- or inch.)
Obverse rim/edge below the date is not clear enough to form an opinion based on the photos.
D) "Why on earth would this be done to a Mint State Coin?"
Why not? Until a few decades ago, it was just a shiny silver dollar. Coins of all denominations show the effects of idle experiments with vices, hammers, punches, lathes, reeding gears, shooting targets (OK -- that was me with my .22 rifle), and on and on.
To prove your supposition, you will have to provide clear empirical evidence that the letter transfer occurred in the New Orleans Mint, and describe how it occurred using the toggle presses and other equipment available there in 1899.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
That is the well reasoned explanation I was hoping to see.
Thanks!!
I am far from an expert on errors, and I truly find this coin amazing. The scenarios discussed of what could have created this is very interesting to me to read and to try to interpret.
The thing that sticks out to me is the supposed annealing process issues noted at the New Orleans mint. As pmd, was the coin with the impression in the rim somehow much softer than the coin the created the impression?
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
does anyone know anything about this A+ sticker?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/254448542079?&ul_noapp=true&autorefresh=true
I simply dare anyone to recreate it and just as perfect.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
...for real though, where the hell is @dcarr and why hasn’t he replied in this thread?...he was properly summoned I believe and a while back if I recall correctly. Please forgive me if I am incorrect as I am not going to go back and see if I missed him posting in here...but seriously, he seems like the dude who can explain the most in regards to operational theories within a US Mint, so where u at my man?
Edit to add: my wink emoji and also no bad blood on Mr. Carr and I hope he is well.
...I got a hundo for whomever can produce one...maybe we can get a fund together and if it gets large enough folks may start at least trying and for reals
Yeah sure, I'll contribute $100 into such a fund. Best of luck to whomever wants to collect! All you need is a vise and a hammer and a dream, apparently...
It has to come out MS66 perfect, just like the subject coin.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Well that’s $200...and hopefully counting
@dcarr What do you think of this theory? I'm starting to believe it could be possible!
I’d pay $500 for the coin as is. I suspect that I’m low
That’s (a little) more than I offered.
The collar forms the edge of the coin, not the design rim. This theory would not explain the incused lettering on the design rim.
And as a side note, actually this occurring is not that far-fetched. It happens often. Typically the hammer die is damaged by the collar. With reeded coins, the die will receive reed-like marks and coins struck from such dies will have reed-like marks the on the design rim.
Here is my unanswered question....
If a hammer could generate the force needed for letter transfer given small area; and the coins orientation are below. Where is denticle damage? As a secondary comment, the obverse rim defect as the "strike point" of this coin has produced NO damage to the hair, neck, or cheek. The "hammer damage", looking at the shape of the damage tells me that there should be some. These coins were misaligned and would have shifted after being struck by a hammer producing friction
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
I picture it like this. A piece of the collar is struck by the die, then the next coin is struck with the struck piece of collar between the planchet and the die.
Please someone do me a favor:
Post a comment that summarizes this thread from early January to now, including what happened with the JA call, the latest opinions on the Morgan, and the reason the @Crypto Trade Dollar entered into this thread. And, tag me so I am aware of the summary and can easily find it.
TIA!
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
EVP!
It takes a matter of high and interest to lure you back into the forum...
Much looking forward to your thoughts
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@EVillageProwler
1. Coin purchased and sent to CAC. Got sticker and JA said to call him
2. He thought it was POSSIBLY something unusual (he thought it may be a mint error..... HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS A MINT ERROR (probably a page dedicated to that)
3. PCGS was contacted and Steven feltner had interest in this coin. He thought it was an error. It has been in his possession ever since.
4. Fred said here that the coin looked like PMD
5. PCGS error specialists did not know what this coin represented and sent it to Fred
6. Fred with extreme confidence said it was PMD
7. Fred did not provide any reason one way or another
8. People disliked Freds lack of explanation, people disliked peoples dislike for the lack of explanation
9. Fred said he has been wrong before and that PCGS should send it back to me as is, MS-66.
10. Coin went to Long Beach show and Fred, per Mr. Feltner, said it should be made genuine PMD
11. the error specialists had no reason to go against fred
12. The coin is coming back to me PMD
13. The last 5 pages is about where is burden of proof... on the mint error or PMD
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Oh got it. Yes, that would be unlikely. I would also expect more of a defined edge to the, what would properly be termed, a struck-through area.
I had been following this, until early January (went on vacation!), then lost track. I was extremely interested in the technical issues. People had done much to try to expound on certain key points; I especially liked the overlays. Now I fear that I may have to go back to read the latter half of this thread. (/sad) So much for trying for the Cliff's Notes version.
Thanks! Your post, and coin, is famous!
What were PCGS' in-hand analysis of the coin? They must've had some specific thoughts in both directions not to be able to draw a conclusion.
Is Fred unwilling, or unable, to clarify his thoughts about this coin? Or is that uncertain because Fred has gone silent?
Is the Trade Dollar a tangent that I can ignore?
I am sorry that your coin is being returned as PMD. I guess that also obviates the CAC sticker. What kind of recompense can you be due? It probably isn't worth enough compared to the joy (or "joy") from this thread.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Pcgs official position as of this second is Fred is probably right, we use him for our tough to assess coins, so......
The trade dollar comment is inappropriate.
Fred has gone silent but I do not disagree with this choice.
CAC can be restickered for a few bucks. The busted pcgs slab hurts.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
@davids5104 said: "Fred has gone silent but I do not disagree with this choice."
Neither do I and I cannot blame him. News flash to all the "ex-perts" here demanding more information. Here is some just for you:
I've never met an honest numismatist who knows everything about everything. I have met some who think they do. Experience and their actions/opinions showed they did not.
Since none of us knows everything to the point of being virtually 100% correct all the time, many numismatists have chosen to specialize. There are specialized collectors (many unknown to most of us) who can run rings around many well known authorities and coin dealers in the world and would be qualified to work at any major grading service in their field. Some of them, along with many dealers, already act as CONSULTANTS to the hobby. It is a thankless job - often undertaken reluctantly to fill a need and not for praise or glory.
So, unless you are an expert consultant who has been harangued and badgered about a valid opinion, you have no standing to demand anything from anyone providing an opinion as a consultant. Get over it or complain about it to someone who cares. Ha, ha, hhhhaaaaaa.
Imo, it's a lot less about who has the most "expertness" and a lot mor about "how the hell this happened?"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Super long thread that started well and had a few nuggets throughout, but I largely gave up reading it due to most of the arguing and people thinking they know everything.
That said, I still don't think it is cut and dry. Has anyone contact DAN CARR to see if he would weigh in yet? From all the board members, I kind of think he has the most knowledge of striking and presses.......
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
I am really surprised @dcarr hasn't opined here. He's been flagged numerous times. Perhaps it's because of the reception + treatment Fred received?
“Reception and treatment” meaning asking someone to back up their opinion with an explanation for how they know something with 100% certainty? How mean of us.
All this for a few stray letters on the rim of a silver dollar..
Appears to be a very minor, partial brockage-damaged planchet from a coinage machine jam, struck a second time nicely.
I'd like to hear the concise PMD explanation.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Given the way this thread has progressed, I can understand why he may be hesitant to jump in...
Smitten with DBLCs.
Exactly, but not mean at all. Just uninformed about how things are.
While CU is a "meeting place" to share a hobby and perhaps even learn some new things - it is not a classroom (too many teachers with different opinions). So, If I were asked to comment on the micro diagnostics present on one of the dangerous early copper counterfeits posted here by @burfle23 my answer would be heck no. Additionally, I would not be able to tell you with 100% certainty exactly how they are made.
Furthermore, don't count Carr out. He may be working on the puzzle at this moment. I don't know anything.
Between two experts, there are rules and respect. Call it business acumen. And the OP is not seeking a 2nd opinion.
That doesn't necessarily mean they haven't discussed the matter. And I'm not going to assume whether they should/have or not.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
If Dan can’t hypothesis out how this happened at the mint I wonder if Dan could reasonably re create an example by other means. Thus, showing us one way it could have happened in the wild and not the mint
Maybe DC just wants to mind his business
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......
I do agree with the sentiment. Regarding a second opinion.... Only the TPG ATS is worth the effort. There have also been a lot of second opinions. Jon, who saw coin in hand.... Fred..... and PCGS graders..... 3 "NO's". Pretty solid group by reputation. This coin is a put away and forget type coin and see where the dust settles on resubmission in 10 years or 2 years even. With that said I have had quite a few offers, none high enough to pull it away from my hands...
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Mr. Carr was summoned. I believe I posted that he could probably make a coin that looked as this one by some means. That would include "cheating." Such as cutting out a small section along the rim of one of his creations, placing it on a struck piece and seeing the result.
Remember the obvious...Whatever made the impression of the letters on the rim of the OP's coin WAS RAISED! Dies are not raised. Hubs are. What would a hub be doing around a coining press striking coins. Nothing because it would not be there. The ONLY object with raised letters that would be near a press is ANOTHER COIN! And that is assuming this even happened at the mint.
The fact that ONLY letters appear and no other imprint is significant. Additionally, if these letters were somehow on a planchet, the strike of the dies would have messed them up BIG TIME. They would NOT look like they do. So, the letters are there. No way it can be explained during the normal minting process. Is it a mint error. Not to me. Is it an interesting coin? Yes, I'd like to have one. Is it post mint damage? Well, it is a post mint characteristic IMO, but I don't consider it to be damage even though it can be considered to be and those who do would be technically correct. .
@davids5104 said: "This coin is a put away and forget type coin and see where the dust settles on resubmission in 10 years or 2 years even. With that said I have had quite a few offers, none high enough to pull it away from my hands...
The coin is what it is. If some fly-by-night service holders it as an error, it will not be worth what it is now. Stick it on Ebay with a link to this thread and you'll probably be thousands richer. Folks over there buy potato chips shaped like animals! I heard the 1959 "uncertified" mule cent brought over 50K in an auction.
My group reviewed the images (not the coin in hand) and agreed PMD. In summary "The physical evidence supports the idea that this is post mint damage. On the reverse at roughly 12 O'Clock to 2 O'Clock there appears to be an additional partial strike of the raised rim of this coin. If this is the case, then the obverse should show some marks from the obverse die. The obverse rim in the 4 O'Clock to 6 O'Clock position just shows a flattened featureless area on the obverse rim. Therefore the coin was not between the dies when the reverse rim alteration happened".
I understand the customer sent this coin back after it was graded; it was again reviewed and ruled it was not a mint error.
"summoned" does not = "contacted".
So, from the responses since my post, it does not sound like anyone actually involved with this has contacted, actually CONTACTED, Dan Carr, to get his opinion. I'm not talking about him coming to the thread and getting beat up. Contact can occur offline as well....if there is interest.
He's the only board member I know with his own USMint coin press....
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
What if there was another blank (offset) between the subject coin and the rest of the brockage coin, and yet another blank(s?) between the subject coin and the other die?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Just wish someone here would pony up the thousands to avoid the fees!!!
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
How about you put a price tag on it if you want to sell it? I hope you get your thousands. But I don’t think you will.
I’d like to own the coin for 5 minutes because seeing it in hand for that amount of time would clear it up 100% for me.
...don’t let somebody with more money than you purchase your glory for “a few thousand.” Send it to NGC man, I can’t believe I said that...but it makes the most sense to me at this point
Mr. Carr posts here at least weekly. I assure you that he is aware of this coin although no one may have actually "contacted" him.
Perhaps he's doing the experiments 😉
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Just one more comment after this and someone wins the prize for the 1000th post on the thread. So congrats whoever it is!
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
ME ME ME!