I received an email from Steven Feltner. He is the director of education and outreach. He said he is "intrigued by what this could be." He is going to contact the appropriate specialists.
It is PMD in my opinion. I've seen similar coins. A normally struck silver dollar was somehow "pressed" into this coin. On the obverse side opposite the "fake brockage", there should be minute or perhaps not so minute disturbances in the metal.
There are very minor "bulges" in the rim it appears to me, which are from the metal getting pushed outwards when the brockage maker was "struck" into this coin's rim.
@davids5104 said:
I received an email from Steven Feltner. He is the director of education and outreach. He said he is "intrigued by what this could be." He is going to contact the appropriate specialists.
Jon Sullivan already jumped in so maybe you should contact JA and see if he wants to buy a neat beaned paperweight?
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
@SullivanNumismatics said:
It is PMD in my opinion. I've seen similar coins. A normally struck silver dollar was somehow "pressed" into this coin. On the obverse side opposite the "fake brockage", there should be minute or perhaps not so minute disturbances in the metal.
There are very minor "bulges" in the rim it appears to me, which are from the metal getting pushed outwards when the brockage maker was "struck" into this coin's rim.
@davids5104 said:
I received an email from Steven Feltner. He is the director of education and outreach. He said he is "intrigued by what this could be." He is going to contact the appropriate specialists.
Jon Sullivan already jumped in so maybe you should contact JA and see if he wants to buy a neat beaned paperweight?
Immediately after Jon posted this, my friend that took it to Baltimore texted me and said that Jon Sullivan is who he had look at it.
It seems to me that if you lay a coin on top of another and align them in the exact same manner, that if pressure where applied there would be other damage. Based on the location of the letters the (2) coins would essentially be laying almost entirely over each other with a very small overlap. I don't see how the damage could be done post-minting.
@davids5104 said:
I received an email from Steven Feltner. He is the director of education and outreach. He said he is "intrigued by what this could be." He is going to contact the appropriate specialists.
Jon Sullivan already jumped in so maybe you should contact JA and see if he wants to buy a neat beaned paperweight?
That was rude and oblique. Why didn't you just say "I hate CAC" ?
I think the lettering is too well formed to be "coin on coin" damage. There should be mutual deformation of this and the other coin, since they would be the same metal strength, and any impression should look more "squashed". Less sharp. That's not to say it wasn't made post mint. Just don't know where a harder-than-coin reverse impression "die" would come from.
It occurred to me that maybe the die itself is "damaged", and actually includes the lettering...but it's a pretty mind bending exercise to figure out how THAT could occur. (Plus, the obverse rim damage still needs to be explained).
Keep in mind that two knowledgeable people have seen it IN PERSON. One certified it, the other beaned it. (Granted, the one who certified it may have missed it....but I find that hard to believe).
Every once in a while we see something strange enough to generate 100 posts. This is one.
@tradedollarnut said:
Why wouldn’t any letters from a struck coin deform as pressure was applied? There’s no way this was formed from another coin being pressed against it
OK.
Do you agree that whatever made those marks had to be raised like a Morgan dollar hub?
If you agree to that, why would they be backwards on the tool?
@davids5104 said:
I received an email from Steven Feltner. He is the director of education and outreach. He said he is "intrigued by what this could be." He is going to contact the appropriate specialists.
Jon Sullivan already jumped in so maybe you should contact JA and see if he wants to buy a neat beaned paperweight?
That was rude and oblique. Why didn't you just say "I hate CAC" ?
Oh lighten up as I do not hate CAC and didn't take the sole Lord of this hobby's name in vain.
Gosh some of you guys do seem to get your panties instantly in bunch over these petty adhesive thingies.
Yet now PMD beaned if the OP wants someone to make him whole it should have a buy back.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
I just did a "wack job" with a hammer and the rim of the top coin prevented the letters from impacting the host coin so no luck. The letters would have appeared backwards (as the OP) if it would have worked. After several tries, I was able to get some very shallow dentical impressions into the rim. Nothing even close to the OP's coin. Unfortunately the folks at the mint who could explain this are probably dead,
IMHO, the ONLY way to prove this characteristic is a true mint error is to find MORE THAN ONE COIN OF THE SAME DATE AND MINT WITH THE IDENTICAL LETTERS IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE. However, by brainstorming, I cannot imagine any way in the minting process where this could have occurred.
@davids5104 said:
I received an email from Steven Feltner. He is the director of education and outreach. He said he is "intrigued by what this could be." He is going to contact the appropriate specialists.
Jon Sullivan already jumped in so maybe you should contact JA and see if he wants to buy a neat beaned paperweight?
That was rude and oblique. Why didn't you just say "I hate CAC" ?
Oh lighten up as I do not hate CAC and didn't take the sole Lord of this hobby's name in vain.
Gosh some of you guys do seem to get your panties instantly in bunch over these petty adhesive thingies.
Yet now PMD beaned if the OP wants someone to make him whole it should have a buy back.
Lol. Your petty elastic antiCAC panties are showing.
Why aren't you calling for PCGS to make him whole? CAC supplies no guarantee but PCGS does.
@davids5104 said:
I received an email from Steven Feltner. He is the director of education and outreach. He said he is "intrigued by what this could be." He is going to contact the appropriate specialists.
Jon Sullivan already jumped in so maybe you should contact JA and see if he wants to buy a neat beaned paperweight?
That was rude and oblique. Why didn't you just say "I hate CAC" ?
Oh lighten up as I do not hate CAC and didn't take the sole Lord of this hobby's name in vain.
Gosh some of you guys do seem to get your panties instantly in bunch over these petty adhesive thingies.
Yet now PMD beaned if the OP wants someone to make him whole it should have a buy back.
Lol. Your petty elastic antiCAC panties are showing.
Why aren't you calling for PCGS to make him whole? CAC supplies no guarantee but PCGS does.
Once beaned it's no longer PCGS's issue.
Some of you need to be visited by the ghost of Christmas past before CAC a time when collectors became numismatists gaining knowledge to become their own experts.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
@Broadstruck said: "Some of you need to be visited by the ghost of Christmas past before CAC a time when collectors became numismatists gaining knowledge to become their own experts."
Hold on there! There are plenty of "Ex-Perts" around here who are experts in their own minds,
@Broadstruck said:
Once beaned it's no longer PCGS's issue.
CAC's approval voids PCGS's guarantee? I find that hard to believe.
That coin is a keeper to me. I'm still looking for a few images to post. I've been too slow sorting images of similar characteristics into separate folders such as edges, toning, strike thru's, etc.
@Broadstruck said:
Once beaned it's no longer PCGS's issue.
CAC's approval voids PCGS's guarantee? I find that hard to believe.
That coin is a keeper to me. I'm still looking for a few images to post. I've been too slow sorting images of similar characteristics into separate folders such as edges, toning, strike thru's, etc.
My intent is to retire off this coin. I will accept 1.3 mil. I am generous, I will pay the paypal fee.
I am in the PMD camp. I have a scenario that I think might explain what happened.
I think the coin was at the end of a roll, obverse side out, that was dropped on to the floor. The impact caused the rim disruption on the obverse and essentially created a sandwich job with the second coin in the roll. I have dropped a couple of rolls, and they will usually “blowout” if dropped, when the coins shift and rip the paper. This coin shifted upon impact relative to coin #2, causing a slightly “off center” impression of the lettering of coin #2 onto the edge of this coin.
@commoncents05 said:
I am in the PMD camp. I have a scenario that I think might explain what happened.
I think the coin was at the end of a roll, obverse side out, that was dropped on to the floor. The impact caused the rim disruption on the obverse and essentially created a sandwich job with the second coin in the roll. I have dropped a couple of rolls, and they will usually “blowout” if dropped, when the coins shift and rip the paper. This coin shifted upon impact relative to coin #2, causing a slightly “off center” impression of the lettering of coin #2 onto the edge of this coin.
@commoncents05 said:
I am in the PMD camp. I have a scenario that I think might explain what happened.
I think the coin was at the end of a roll, obverse side out, that was dropped on to the floor.
According to Alan Herbert in Coin Clinic 2, the striking pressure for silver dollars is 150 tons/sq. in.
FWIW...
edited to add... To put this another way, would you let someone drop a roll of silver dollars on your foot for $1,000? How about putting your foot in a silver dollar press for the same amount?
I don’t have a theory - I’m not an error guy. I just call bs on what I’ve heard so far. Based on my basic understanding of metallurgy and minting processes. YOU explain how it’s PMD.
Guys, please don’t let this devolve into a CAC slap-fight. It’s an interesting thread.
The definition of the letters on the rim are sharp and well-defined. Whatever did this occurred with pressure equal or nearly equal to a regular coin press. No way this happened in a vice or when something fell on something else. I’m inclined to think it happened during a regular strike, with the collar in-place. It might somehow have been a damage to the die...... but other examples should exist.
I’m trying to think how a partial brockage or “dropped letters” scenario could do this. So far, no plausible theory has emerged yet.
Coins didn't get slammed as they were on top of one another when something heavy hit the upper brockage coin edge hard enough to tip/pivot causing the collapsed rim. If something had fallen directly on the coins there would be major central damage.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
I don't understand how so much force was applied to a coin into another coin... and not show rim damage where the rims met.
Could someone overlay two Morgans to show the position please? There should be rim damage where the rims meet.
Otherwise someone cut a Morgan and then used the smaller piece with force on the coin we are discussing.
I am assuming the distances between letters match the exact distances of a minted coin.. and someone did not have mint punches for letters or something.
@Broadstruck said:
Once beaned it's no longer PCGS's issue.
CAC's approval voids PCGS's guarantee? I find that hard to believe.
There is no CAC guarantee. While it always makes offers as a courtesy, it is under no obligation to make an offer on a coin. It could close up shop tomorrow if JA retired and it wanted to do so (although I understand there is a succession plan).
This is undoubtedly not PMD and is a mint error. How exactly it was created, I am not sure. Looking at the characteristics of the metal flow in the large TrueView images sells me on it. There is no way that could be created outside of the mint.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I initially believed the issue to be created by the Mint. But I am now of the belief that the rim issue is due to PMD and it was done intentionally to create an interesting error coin. The following issues have led me to this conclusion:
The imprint on the rim shows T T spaced closely together. Two T's spaced next to each other does not exist on Morgan dollars or any other coin produced by the Mint.
The image of the rim imprint seems to be incused and to be stamped into the coin, consistent with a PMD stamp.
The serif of the rim letters seems to be consistent with the serif of Morgan dollars.
I cannot find a coin with the correct serif with two T's spaced closely the could cause this error. Oddly this error was created, not minted.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
I initially believed the issue to be created by the Mint. But I am now of the belief that the rim issue is due to PMD and it was done intentionally to create an interesting error coin. The following issues have led me to this conclusion:
The imprint on the rim shows T T spaced closely together. Two T's spaced next to each other does not exist on Morgan dollars or any other coin produced by the Mint.
The image of the rim imprint seems to be incused and to be stamped into the coin, consistent with a PMD stamp.
The serif of the rim letters seems to be consistent with the serif of Morgan dollars.
I cannot find a coin with the correct serif with two T's spaced closely the could cause this error. Oddly this error was created, not minted.
OINK
It is not two T's. It is TE. As in STATES.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
OK, Here's an overlay. The image on the rim is spaced and sized precisely as the reverse image of the host coin, offset and rotated only a little:
Finally, the huge issue along the rim at the 6 o'clock position of the obverse is directly opposite the 12 o'clock rim in question. Clearly, something happened to this coin, and I don't think the issue was with the host dies.
Yes, the letter to the right is definitely a T. The one between the T and S is an E. They are all backwards.
I missed that they are backwards. But that would imply that the Mint's die was an inverse die used to make production dies. This creates the possibility that this was a Mint experiment with a pattern die and then the experimental planchet was reused for a production coin.
If this were the case then the strike axis would be different than a production coin. But hold on to the coin........it may be one of the best ever error coins.
I'm starting to think the final coin was struck on a damaged planchet.
Perhaps it had been struck against another coin at a goofy angle that imparted the reverse image to the planchet and simultaneously bent the planchet slightly at what would become the obverse part of the coin near the date. On the subsequent strike, the dies effaced the previous image everywhere but at the upper reverse rim. The rims and dentils would be the LOWEST parts of the die, and would not impart much pressure here, especially if the planchet was already partially deficient on the opposite side in the same area.
Just a quick cartoon of what could have happened the first time....... I'm not sure what would cause the planchet to receive the image in a limited area.... debris maybe?
Just musing....... still not quite right....... too tired to think on it more tonight.
@BryceM said:
If that's too confusing, try this one:
Thanks to @BryceM for his excellent photographic evidence, it would seem that the imprint on the OP coin most likely was Mint error, but using another coin as a die in a hydraulic press might have achieved this result, but given the hardness of the coin and planchet seems unlikely.
Comments
I received an email from Steven Feltner. He is the director of education and outreach. He said he is "intrigued by what this could be." He is going to contact the appropriate specialists.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
It is PMD in my opinion. I've seen similar coins. A normally struck silver dollar was somehow "pressed" into this coin. On the obverse side opposite the "fake brockage", there should be minute or perhaps not so minute disturbances in the metal.
There are very minor "bulges" in the rim it appears to me, which are from the metal getting pushed outwards when the brockage maker was "struck" into this coin's rim.
Jon Sullivan already jumped in so maybe you should contact JA and see if he wants to buy a neat beaned paperweight?
Why wouldn’t any letters from a struck coin deform as pressure was applied? There’s no way this was formed from another coin being pressed against it
Immediately after Jon posted this, my friend that took it to Baltimore texted me and said that Jon Sullivan is who he had look at it.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
It seems to me that if you lay a coin on top of another and align them in the exact same manner, that if pressure where applied there would be other damage. Based on the location of the letters the (2) coins would essentially be laying almost entirely over each other with a very small overlap. I don't see how the damage could be done post-minting.
That was rude and oblique. Why didn't you just say "I hate CAC" ?
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
That is what caught my eye first, but it is an interesting coin, and I like it!
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,...
Some thoughts:
I think the lettering is too well formed to be "coin on coin" damage. There should be mutual deformation of this and the other coin, since they would be the same metal strength, and any impression should look more "squashed". Less sharp. That's not to say it wasn't made post mint. Just don't know where a harder-than-coin reverse impression "die" would come from.
It occurred to me that maybe the die itself is "damaged", and actually includes the lettering...but it's a pretty mind bending exercise to figure out how THAT could occur. (Plus, the obverse rim damage still needs to be explained).
Keep in mind that two knowledgeable people have seen it IN PERSON. One certified it, the other beaned it. (Granted, the one who certified it may have missed it....but I find that hard to believe).
Every once in a while we see something strange enough to generate 100 posts. This is one.
OK.
Do you agree that whatever made those marks had to be raised like a Morgan dollar hub?
If you agree to that, why would they be backwards on the tool?
Oh lighten up as I do not hate CAC and didn't take the sole Lord of this hobby's name in vain.
Gosh some of you guys do seem to get your panties instantly in bunch over these petty adhesive thingies.
Yet now PMD beaned if the OP wants someone to make him whole it should have a buy back.
I just did a "wack job" with a hammer and the rim of the top coin prevented the letters from impacting the host coin so no luck. The letters would have appeared backwards (as the OP) if it would have worked. After several tries, I was able to get some very shallow dentical impressions into the rim. Nothing even close to the OP's coin. Unfortunately the folks at the mint who could explain this are probably dead,
IMHO, the ONLY way to prove this characteristic is a true mint error is to find MORE THAN ONE COIN OF THE SAME DATE AND MINT WITH THE IDENTICAL LETTERS IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE. However, by brainstorming, I cannot imagine any way in the minting process where this could have occurred.
This is a very neat coin. I don't see how it could be 2 Morgan's squeezed together.
Lol. Your petty elastic antiCAC panties are showing.
Why aren't you calling for PCGS to make him whole? CAC supplies no guarantee but PCGS does.
Once beaned it's no longer PCGS's issue.
Some of you need to be visited by the ghost of Christmas past before CAC a time when collectors became numismatists gaining knowledge to become their own experts.
CAC's approval voids PCGS's guarantee? I find that hard to believe.
@Broadstruck said: "Some of you need to be visited by the ghost of Christmas past before CAC a time when collectors became numismatists gaining knowledge to become their own experts."
Hold on there! There are plenty of "Ex-Perts" around here who are experts in their own minds,
I'm thought of as one of them.
That coin is a keeper to me. I'm still looking for a few images to post. I've been too slow sorting images of similar characteristics into separate folders such as edges, toning, strike thru's, etc.
PCGS's isn't void but once CAC'd it's their guarantee.
My intent is to retire off this coin. I will accept 1.3 mil. I am generous, I will pay the paypal fee.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
I am in the PMD camp. I have a scenario that I think might explain what happened.
I think the coin was at the end of a roll, obverse side out, that was dropped on to the floor. The impact caused the rim disruption on the obverse and essentially created a sandwich job with the second coin in the roll. I have dropped a couple of rolls, and they will usually “blowout” if dropped, when the coins shift and rip the paper. This coin shifted upon impact relative to coin #2, causing a slightly “off center” impression of the lettering of coin #2 onto the edge of this coin.
-Paul
I don't know why there is so much debate on how this was created. The answer is simple:
Heh
According to Alan Herbert in Coin Clinic 2, the striking pressure for silver dollars is 150 tons/sq. in.
FWIW...
edited to add... To put this another way, would you let someone drop a roll of silver dollars on your foot for $1,000? How about putting your foot in a silver dollar press for the same amount?
No way, no how is this transfer damage. I defy anyone to replicate it
So let’s hear your theory. I also don’t understand your persistence about the space between the denticles in the S.
-Paul
I don’t have a theory - I’m not an error guy. I just call bs on what I’ve heard so far. Based on my basic understanding of metallurgy and minting processes. YOU explain how it’s PMD.
If you slam a minted coin against another minted coin, the letters will deform faster than the field will impress. I see no sign of that
Guys, please don’t let this devolve into a CAC slap-fight. It’s an interesting thread.
The definition of the letters on the rim are sharp and well-defined. Whatever did this occurred with pressure equal or nearly equal to a regular coin press. No way this happened in a vice or when something fell on something else. I’m inclined to think it happened during a regular strike, with the collar in-place. It might somehow have been a damage to the die...... but other examples should exist.
I’m trying to think how a partial brockage or “dropped letters” scenario could do this. So far, no plausible theory has emerged yet.
Coins didn't get slammed as they were on top of one another when something heavy hit the upper brockage coin edge hard enough to tip/pivot causing the collapsed rim. If something had fallen directly on the coins there would be major central damage.
Might need to build a Rube Goldberg device to replicate the PMD
It's ridiculous. So if I peel off the sticker with my fingernail, the guarantee is restored?
LMFAO
Peel a few off as you might actually feel the guarantee transfer back
I don't understand how so much force was applied to a coin into another coin... and not show rim damage where the rims met.
Could someone overlay two Morgans to show the position please? There should be rim damage where the rims meet.
Otherwise someone cut a Morgan and then used the smaller piece with force on the coin we are discussing.
I am assuming the distances between letters match the exact distances of a minted coin.. and someone did not have mint punches for letters or something.
There is no CAC guarantee. While it always makes offers as a courtesy, it is under no obligation to make an offer on a coin. It could close up shop tomorrow if JA retired and it wanted to do so (although I understand there is a succession plan).
This is undoubtedly not PMD and is a mint error. How exactly it was created, I am not sure. Looking at the characteristics of the metal flow in the large TrueView images sells me on it. There is no way that could be created outside of the mint.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I initially believed the issue to be created by the Mint. But I am now of the belief that the rim issue is due to PMD and it was done intentionally to create an interesting error coin. The following issues have led me to this conclusion:
I cannot find a coin with the correct serif with two T's spaced closely the could cause this error. Oddly this error was created, not minted.
OINK
It is not two T's. It is TE. As in STATES.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Please look again at the pic. The second T cannot be an E, it is clearly a T.
OINK
No, it is TE. The letters look different and you can see the middle serif of the E.
The T further to the right is clearly a T......not an E. There should be no serif to the left of the second T for an E.
From left to right you're looking at: O Ƨ Ǝ T
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Yes, the letter to the right is definitely a T. The one between the T and S is an E. They are all backwards.
OK, Here's an overlay. The image on the rim is spaced and sized precisely as the reverse image of the host coin, offset and rotated only a little:
Finally, the huge issue along the rim at the 6 o'clock position of the obverse is directly opposite the 12 o'clock rim in question. Clearly, something happened to this coin, and I don't think the issue was with the host dies.
If that's too confusing, try this one:
I missed that they are backwards. But that would imply that the Mint's die was an inverse die used to make production dies. This creates the possibility that this was a Mint experiment with a pattern die and then the experimental planchet was reused for a production coin.
If this were the case then the strike axis would be different than a production coin. But hold on to the coin........it may be one of the best ever error coins.
OINK
I'm starting to think the final coin was struck on a damaged planchet.
Perhaps it had been struck against another coin at a goofy angle that imparted the reverse image to the planchet and simultaneously bent the planchet slightly at what would become the obverse part of the coin near the date. On the subsequent strike, the dies effaced the previous image everywhere but at the upper reverse rim. The rims and dentils would be the LOWEST parts of the die, and would not impart much pressure here, especially if the planchet was already partially deficient on the opposite side in the same area.
Just a quick cartoon of what could have happened the first time....... I'm not sure what would cause the planchet to receive the image in a limited area.... debris maybe?
Just musing....... still not quite right....... too tired to think on it more tonight.
Thanks to @BryceM for his excellent photographic evidence, it would seem that the imprint on the OP coin most likely was Mint error, but using another coin as a die in a hydraulic press might have achieved this result, but given the hardness of the coin and planchet seems unlikely.
Couldn't it just be a dollar struck about 15% off center... thrown back into the mix and struck again?
Or would their be obvious signs of such a thing in more places.
You would probably see more of the original strike.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."