@fc said:
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.
NO. The letters are reversed.
The thing is, we always say "ask yourself how this could have happened at the Mint"...until we have some theory on that, it is rather hard to think of it as a Mint error even though it is also hard to see how it could have been done outside the Mint.
@blitzdude said:
maiden China, red dragon special IMO.
These days, with respect to coins, “made in China” has come to mean “counterfeit”. If that’s what you’re trying to say, you’re clearly wrong. And in my opinion, not the least bit funny.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@blitzdude said:
maiden China, red dragon special IMO.
These days, with respect to coins, “made in China” has come to mean “counterfeit”. If that’s what you’re trying to say, you’re clearly wrong. And in my opinion, not the least bit funny.
I believe the original morgan to be authentic but the "PMD" was intentional, a coin doctor out of the east (far east) if you will.
@blitzdude said:
maiden China, red dragon special IMO.
These days, with respect to coins, “made in China” has come to mean “counterfeit”. If that’s what you’re trying to say, you’re clearly wrong. And in my opinion, not the least bit funny.
I believe the original morgan to be authentic but the "PMD" was intentional, a coin doctor out of the east (far east) if you will.
While I think the strong odds are against the latter, I appreciate the clarification.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@blitzdude said:
maiden China, red dragon special IMO.
These days, with respect to coins, “made in China” has come to mean “counterfeit”. If that’s what you’re trying to say, you’re clearly wrong. And in my opinion, not the least bit funny.
I believe the original morgan to be authentic but the "PMD" was intentional, a coin doctor out of the east (far east) if you will.
While I think the strong odds are against the latter, I appreciate the clarification.
A variation of the trade dollar counterstamp, perhaps. Chinese have defaced US silver coinage for a century and a half. The idea may have some merit.
@blitzdude said:
maiden China, red dragon special IMO.
These days, with respect to coins, “made in China” has come to mean “counterfeit”. If that’s what you’re trying to say, you’re clearly wrong. And in my opinion, not the least bit funny.
I believe the original morgan to be authentic but the "PMD" was intentional, a coin doctor out of the east (far east) if you will.
While I think the strong odds are against the latter, I appreciate the clarification.
A variation of the trade dollar counterstamp, perhaps. Chinese have defaced US silver coinage for a century and a half. The idea may have some merit.
If that were the case for this coin, to what end? If what we’re seeing is believed to be damage, the alteration has diminished the value of the coin. And PCGS and CAC either ignored it or missed it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@blitzdude said:
maiden China, red dragon special IMO.
These days, with respect to coins, “made in China” has come to mean “counterfeit”. If that’s what you’re trying to say, you’re clearly wrong. And in my opinion, not the least bit funny.
I believe the original morgan to be authentic but the "PMD" was intentional, a coin doctor out of the east (far east) if you will.
While I think the strong odds are against the latter, I appreciate the clarification.
A variation of the trade dollar counterstamp, perhaps. Chinese have defaced US silver coinage for a century and a half. The idea may have some merit.
If that were the case for this coin, to what end? If what we’re seeing is believed to be damage, the alteration has diminished the value of the coin. And PCGS and CAC either ignored it or missed it.
I am reluctant to speculate the thoughts of professional graders. On my screen the truview in the first post blows up each image to a nine inch diameter. In a grader's hand, the coin is an inch and a half and the not too distracting damage (if it in fact so) is not particularly unattractive and may have gotten a pass, on a common date coin.
Now as JA is considered the final arbiter on condition, his explanation carries significant weight by many numismatists. His response communicated through the op that this was not PMD was an opinion that did not seem definitive.
Error specialist Jon Sullivan has concluded in his post that the coin was not a mint error. As did specialist Fred Weinberg in the previous thread on the subject.
As far as a motive if in fact this coin was intentionally altered, one can only guess. Could be a test coin to see if the quality would fool the top guys in the business. It sure has made for a memorable thread.
This is exactly what happened: Here is what the coin looked like prior to the final strike. Then the coin was struck again very slightly off center. The thinness of the brockage area didn’t allow the metal to completely fill the space between the dies on the subsequent strike giving the appearance of damage to the obverse.
@BryceM i agree. Seems most likely that the blank planchet got squeezed against a struck coin hard enough to impart lettering detail on the rim (and damage the obverse rim). Subsequently that planchet was struck by dies and the rim “detail” was not effaced outside of the dentils.
There are still a couple problems with this theory but it seems more likely than any of the others except for the original PMD diagnosis.
@tradedollarnut said:
This is exactly what happened: Here is what the coin looked like prior to the final strike. Then the coin was struck again very slightly off center. The thinness of the brockage area didn’t allow the metal to completely fill the space between the dies on the subsequent strike giving the appearance of damage to the obverse.
I am not a coin anything, except a collector. I obviously have no idea what this coin represents. All I know are the following facts....
1. Some believe it is PMD
2. Some believe it represents a mint error
3. Opinions have changed on which it is
4. No one has explanation for a mint-error process - although one may exist (unknown)
5. No one has an explanation for a post-mint damage process - although one may exist (unknown)
6. Regarding the specialists that have weighed in.... In my work, I come to conclusions rapidly, that those not trained in what I do, may ponder and go back and forth. But at times what I thought was correct on first glance and my own bias may not be the correct answer. Most errors/damage have a defined process of how it occurred. You all know loads more about every aspect of coins than I. I just wonder how this is a coin that there is no "known" process on how it was generated. I feel the "known" ways PMD damages coins occur are more known, than all the stuff that could have happened in 1899 in New Orleans.
@blitzdude said:
maiden China, red dragon special IMO.
These days, with respect to coins, “made in China” has come to mean “counterfeit”. If that’s what you’re trying to say, you’re clearly wrong. And in my opinion, not the least bit funny.
I believe the original morgan to be authentic but the "PMD" was intentional, a coin doctor out of the east (far east) if you will.
While I think the strong odds are against the latter, I appreciate the clarification.
A variation of the trade dollar counterstamp, perhaps. Chinese have defaced US silver coinage for a century and a half. The idea may have some merit.
If that were the case for this coin, to what end? If what we’re seeing is believed to be damage, the alteration has diminished the value of the coin. And PCGS and CAC either ignored it or missed it.
I would have no issue owning the coin altho the rim issue on the obverse would be of more concern than the reverse, but since PCGS and CAC gave it their blessing who am I to argue. If I was to resell it who could refute my claim that the reverse was a mint error?
@blitzdude said:
maiden China, red dragon special IMO.
These days, with respect to coins, “made in China” has come to mean “counterfeit”. If that’s what you’re trying to say, you’re clearly wrong. And in my opinion, not the least bit funny.
I believe the original morgan to be authentic but the "PMD" was intentional, a coin doctor out of the east (far east) if you will.
While I think the strong odds are against the latter, I appreciate the clarification.
A variation of the trade dollar counterstamp, perhaps. Chinese have defaced US silver coinage for a century and a half. The idea may have some merit.
If that were the case for this coin, to what end? If what we’re seeing is believed to be damage, the alteration has diminished the value of the coin. And PCGS and CAC either ignored it or missed it.
I would have no issue owning the coin altho the rim issue on the obverse would be of more concern than the reverse, but since PCGS and CAC gave it their blessing who am I to argue. If I was to resell it who could refute my claim that the reverse was a mint error?
But many others would have a problem owning it a problem-free price. And its lack of conspicuousness to many potential observers doesn’t strike me as a concocted “error”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BryceM said:
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.
Nope, the letters came on to the coin AFTER the coin was struck. Furthermore, I don't think this was done on purpose as over the years I've seen about a dozen Saints with only one star impressed on the rim. These are the most common coins with this characteristic. Gold is soft. The stars on their rims are NOT AS DEEP as these.
Posted January 5, 2005
A VAM specialist could certainly help with your coin. Die cracks are very common on New Orleans dollars because the Mint did not have an annealing furnace capable of bringing blanks to the correct temperature and holding them there long enough so they would become soft enough for coinage. This meant that blanks were too hard and that caused the dies to crack and fail prematurely. The Philadelphia Mint sent an engineer to New Orleans in 1900 for two months to help correct the problem. He was only partially successful because the New Orleans Mint was ordered to produce more silver dollars than they actually had the capacity to make correctly.
@ms70 said:
An offset brockage on a blank planchet that got thrown back in for a regular strike?
These letters were NOT on the planchet. Rather than blurt out the reason, think about it.
Question: Why did the letters (and anyone who cannot tell what they are.... ) appear on the coin EITHER while it was struck or after it was struck AND NOT BEFORE?
@ms70 said:
An offset brockage on a blank planchet that got thrown back in for a regular strike?
These letters were NOT on the planchet. Rather than blurt out the reason, think about it.
Question: Why did the letters (and anyone who cannot tell what they are.... ) appear on the coin EITHER while it was struck or after it was struck AND NOT BEFORE?
That wide squared off rim on the reverse is not very common for a business strike Morgan. I know that is common on proofs. But what would cause that on a normal business strike. Extra pressure?
@GoldenEgg said:
I’m surprised that this has garnered so much debate. I am thinking that if this was posted without JA’s opinion being revealed, it would not have.
The design rim is damaged on the opposite face of the incuse lettering. This is post strike damage.
If that was post strike, meaning after it left the mint, why is it slabbed then?
@GoldenEgg said:
I’m surprised that this has garnered so much debate. I am thinking that if this was posted without JA’s opinion being revealed, it would not have.
The design rim is damaged on the opposite face of the incuse lettering. This is post strike damage.
Post strike damage doesn't necessarily mean post mint damage.
It is not post strike damage on the obverse. There wasn’t enough metal to square the rim because of the brockage that caused the letters on the reverse. And because of the slight off center strike
I’m not really a fan of your “Nope, you’re wrong........ I’m not going to say why, but guess what I’m thinking” game. If you have a different theory, why not share it? Truly, I’m happy to learn how this could possibly have happened after striking.
IF it were post mint damage, where did the silver go? You drop a coin on an edge, it’s displaced somewhere- not compressed away. So where is the fin of displaced metal? There is none as the edge is smooth to the denticles
@tradedollarnut said:
It is not post strike damage on the obverse. There wasn’t enough metal to square the rim because of the brockage that caused the letters on the reverse. And because of the slight off center strike.
A previous brockage would not prevent the normal flow of metal upon a subsequent, normal strike. Further, any off-center strike large enough to prevent proper metal flow upon another strike, would also likely not fit back into the collar, to complete a second, full, in-collar strike anyway.
While the effective striking pressure is relatively low at the design rim, which would increase the odds that a pre-existing design would remain after another full strike, so too is the striking pressure in the design elements of the coin.
If it was struck over an off-center brockage, why does so little of the brockage design remain along the design rim? And why are there no other existing details of the brockage in other areas of the design that would also typically experience relatively low pressure during striking?
Additionally, a strong coin-to-coin impact that leaves such sharp letters into another coin, could have potentially warped, compressed, or sheared off some of the metal on the obverse rim.
Possibly a die clash from a severely misaligned die is about the only thing that I can really think of. I know it does not really explain the obverse "rim issue" but it is about the only think that makes sense to me.
@morgandollar1878 said:
Possibly a die clash from a severely misaligned die is about the only thing that I can really think of. I know it does not really explain the obverse "rim issue" but it is about the only think that makes sense to me.
Possibly a die clash from a severely misaligned die is about the only thing that I can really think of. I know it does not really explain the obverse "rim issue" but it is about the only think that makes sense to me.
@morgandollar1878 said:
Possibly a die clash from a severely misaligned die is about the only thing that I can really think of. I know it does not really explain the obverse "rim issue" but it is about the only think that makes sense to me.
But a clashed die would be a obv die hitting a rev die. Not a rev hitting a rev.
The first thing I thought of when browsing this thread
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......
I’m not really a fan of your “Nope, you’re wrong........ I’m not going to say why, but guess what I’m thinking” game. If you have a different theory, why not share it? Truly, I’m happy to learn how this could possibly have happened after striking.
I'm not a fan of "Spoon Feeding" folks who are not paying me for an opinion. I personally like to be challenged by my instructors/mentors/ and forum members. So, rather than blurt out an opinion or refute one already stated, I believe all of us (including me) will learn more when we are asked to think why what we have written cannot be the answer.
This place is supposed to be a free forum of flowing ideas and discussion. Lots of good stuff in this thread. I'm still thinking about the coin. I the meantime, I simply asked WHY a posted opinion CANNOT be correct. It is an easy answer.
Question: Why did the letters appear on the coin EITHER while it was struck or after it was struck AND NOT BEFORE? Just so I'm hated less...Hint: Think what happens to a planchet when it is struck. Now, look at the OP's coin.
If we put our heads together we MAY solve this mystery to everyone's satisfaction. As I wrote, this characteristic has been seen before BUT NO ONE CARED as we all considered it PMD. Some good arguments have been made to dispute this belief; however, they can only work if we can describe how it's possible.
first of all, i like the coin. i think it's very cool. second, this thread is tldr.
i think it was a planchet that was partially struck by an off center brockage maker. they pulled the brockage maker and then this coin was struck fully again.
OK, let's break this discussion down into parts right from the beginning - "A" to Whatever it takes ("Z"?) to determine how this characteristic happened.
DO YOU AGREE? If not, give your reason so we can all discuss it and move on.
Part A: The rim of the OP's dollar has distinct (backward facing) partial letters ("TATES OF") INTO its surface.
If there is only agreement with this statement/post, I'll ask part B next.
Comments
Sure, but that would't cause a reverse image.
Also the letters would not be in reverse.... it would be more like a doubling thing. The letters would all read in the same direction.
Sigh. Getting late.
What bugs me is no disruption on the rim where the rims overlap.
Thank u for the overlay.
You would have to cut up a morgan dollar and then squeeze it together.
At the mint during that time is it possible for fragments of coin to get into the press? Just enough to cause that? A lamination problem piece.
Just enough metal to raise the opposite side to cause the rim disturbance on the far side, on the other side of the coin?
Then that lamination piece falls out later...
NO. The letters are reversed.
The thing is, we always say "ask yourself how this could have happened at the Mint"...until we have some theory on that, it is rather hard to think of it as a Mint error even though it is also hard to see how it could have been done outside the Mint.
maiden China, red dragon special IMO.
These days, with respect to coins, “made in China” has come to mean “counterfeit”. If that’s what you’re trying to say, you’re clearly wrong. And in my opinion, not the least bit funny.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I believe the original morgan to be authentic but the "PMD" was intentional, a coin doctor out of the east (far east) if you will.
While I think the strong odds are against the latter, I appreciate the clarification.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is amazing. You are basically tony stark
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
An offset brockage on a blank planchet that got thrown back in for a regular strike?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
A variation of the trade dollar counterstamp, perhaps. Chinese have defaced US silver coinage for a century and a half. The idea may have some merit.
If that were the case for this coin, to what end? If what we’re seeing is believed to be damage, the alteration has diminished the value of the coin. And PCGS and CAC either ignored it or missed it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yeah..... that's it....... compared to me, quite economical with the words.
I am reluctant to speculate the thoughts of professional graders. On my screen the truview in the first post blows up each image to a nine inch diameter. In a grader's hand, the coin is an inch and a half and the not too distracting damage (if it in fact so) is not particularly unattractive and may have gotten a pass, on a common date coin.
Now as JA is considered the final arbiter on condition, his explanation carries significant weight by many numismatists. His response communicated through the op that this was not PMD was an opinion that did not seem definitive.
Error specialist Jon Sullivan has concluded in his post that the coin was not a mint error. As did specialist Fred Weinberg in the previous thread on the subject.
As far as a motive if in fact this coin was intentionally altered, one can only guess. Could be a test coin to see if the quality would fool the top guys in the business. It sure has made for a memorable thread.
And the letters wouldn’t be backwards
This is exactly what happened: Here is what the coin looked like prior to the final strike. Then the coin was struck again very slightly off center. The thinness of the brockage area didn’t allow the metal to completely fill the space between the dies on the subsequent strike giving the appearance of damage to the obverse.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/873155/error-folks-decipher-this-brockage-counterbrockage-other
I know... I know.. it was 2am.. of course the letters would read the same direction in my pathetic guess above. Trying again...
But what at the mint could possibly do something like that in a press except another piece of a coin?
Like a lamination error fragment? And that rim opposite on the obverse has to be a clue as well right?
@BryceM i agree. Seems most likely that the blank planchet got squeezed against a struck coin hard enough to impart lettering detail on the rim (and damage the obverse rim). Subsequently that planchet was struck by dies and the rim “detail” was not effaced outside of the dentils.
There are still a couple problems with this theory but it seems more likely than any of the others except for the original PMD diagnosis.
I think now might be an appropriate time to bring this comment up again. /eyeroll
Did the mint's press during the 1890s even allow for something like that more modern cent to even happen back then?
I limber up my eyes in the morning by reading blitzys comments.
I am not a coin anything, except a collector. I obviously have no idea what this coin represents. All I know are the following facts....
1. Some believe it is PMD
2. Some believe it represents a mint error
3. Opinions have changed on which it is
4. No one has explanation for a mint-error process - although one may exist (unknown)
5. No one has an explanation for a post-mint damage process - although one may exist (unknown)
6. Regarding the specialists that have weighed in.... In my work, I come to conclusions rapidly, that those not trained in what I do, may ponder and go back and forth. But at times what I thought was correct on first glance and my own bias may not be the correct answer. Most errors/damage have a defined process of how it occurred. You all know loads more about every aspect of coins than I. I just wonder how this is a coin that there is no "known" process on how it was generated. I feel the "known" ways PMD damages coins occur are more known, than all the stuff that could have happened in 1899 in New Orleans.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
No one has explanation for a mint-error process
Au contraire
I would have no issue owning the coin altho the rim issue on the obverse would be of more concern than the reverse, but since PCGS and CAC gave it their blessing who am I to argue. If I was to resell it who could refute my claim that the reverse was a mint error?
But many others would have a problem owning it a problem-free price. And its lack of conspicuousness to many potential observers doesn’t strike me as a concocted “error”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
L: laugh?
M: my?
F: fat?
A: you know.
O: off?
I was under the impression that you are slim!
Nope, the letters came on to the coin AFTER the coin was struck. Furthermore, I don't think this was done on purpose as over the years I've seen about a dozen Saints with only one star impressed on the rim. These are the most common coins with this characteristic. Gold is soft. The stars on their rims are NOT AS DEEP as these.
Nope, the letters came on to the coin AFTER the coin was struck
au contraire
Since page 4 of thread accused the Chinese it may have been done by aliens when it reaches page 5
It's starting to feel like a bunch of Smurfs trying to trace their family tree on Ancestry.com
I found this ATS
Posted January 5, 2005
A VAM specialist could certainly help with your coin. Die cracks are very common on New Orleans dollars because the Mint did not have an annealing furnace capable of bringing blanks to the correct temperature and holding them there long enough so they would become soft enough for coinage. This meant that blanks were too hard and that caused the dies to crack and fail prematurely. The Philadelphia Mint sent an engineer to New Orleans in 1900 for two months to help correct the problem. He was only partially successful because the New Orleans Mint was ordered to produce more silver dollars than they actually had the capacity to make correctly.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
These letters were NOT on the planchet. Rather than blurt out the reason, think about it.
Question: Why did the letters (and anyone who cannot tell what they are....
) appear on the coin EITHER while it was struck or after it was struck AND NOT BEFORE?
Answer: ________________________________________________________________!
I disagree with your opinion.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I’m surprised that this has garnered so much debate. I am thinking that if this was posted without JA’s opinion being revealed, it would not have.
The design rim is damaged on the opposite face of the incuse lettering. This is post strike damage.
That wide squared off rim on the reverse is not very common for a business strike Morgan. I know that is common on proofs. But what would cause that on a normal business strike. Extra pressure?
YAHTZEE!
If that was post strike, meaning after it left the mint, why is it slabbed then?
Multiple graders and etc.. cant miss that.
Post strike damage doesn't necessarily mean post mint damage.
It is not post strike damage on the obverse. There wasn’t enough metal to square the rim because of the brockage that caused the letters on the reverse. And because of the slight off center strike
Someone let me know when someone tries reproducing this as a squeeze job and posts results.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
@Insider2
I’m not really a fan of your “Nope, you’re wrong........ I’m not going to say why, but guess what I’m thinking” game. If you have a different theory, why not share it? Truly, I’m happy to learn how this could possibly have happened after striking.
IF it were post mint damage, where did the silver go? You drop a coin on an edge, it’s displaced somewhere- not compressed away. So where is the fin of displaced metal? There is none as the edge is smooth to the denticles
A previous brockage would not prevent the normal flow of metal upon a subsequent, normal strike. Further, any off-center strike large enough to prevent proper metal flow upon another strike, would also likely not fit back into the collar, to complete a second, full, in-collar strike anyway.
While the effective striking pressure is relatively low at the design rim, which would increase the odds that a pre-existing design would remain after another full strike, so too is the striking pressure in the design elements of the coin.
If it was struck over an off-center brockage, why does so little of the brockage design remain along the design rim? And why are there no other existing details of the brockage in other areas of the design that would also typically experience relatively low pressure during striking?
Additionally, a strong coin-to-coin impact that leaves such sharp letters into another coin, could have potentially warped, compressed, or sheared off some of the metal on the obverse rim.
Possibly a die clash from a severely misaligned die is about the only thing that I can really think of. I know it does not really explain the obverse "rim issue" but it is about the only think that makes sense to me.
D> @morgandollar1878 said:
But a clashed die would be a obv die hitting a rev die. Not a rev hitting a rev.
I've considered the brockage. That's why I was wondering about the depth of the reversed letters.
The first thing I thought of when browsing this thread
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'm not a fan of "Spoon Feeding" folks who are not paying me for an opinion. I personally like to be challenged by my instructors/mentors/ and forum members. So, rather than blurt out an opinion or refute one already stated, I believe all of us (including me) will learn more when we are asked to think why what we have written cannot be the answer.
This place is supposed to be a free forum of flowing ideas and discussion. Lots of good stuff in this thread. I'm still thinking about the coin. I the meantime, I simply asked WHY a posted opinion CANNOT be correct. It is an easy answer.
Question: Why did the letters appear on the coin EITHER while it was struck or after it was struck AND NOT BEFORE? Just so I'm hated less...Hint: Think what happens to a planchet when it is struck. Now, look at the OP's coin.
If we put our heads together we MAY solve this mystery to everyone's satisfaction. As I wrote, this characteristic has been seen before BUT NO ONE CARED as we all considered it PMD. Some good arguments have been made to dispute this belief; however, they can only work if we can describe how it's possible.
first of all, i like the coin. i think it's very cool. second, this thread is tldr.
i think it was a planchet that was partially struck by an off center brockage maker. they pulled the brockage maker and then this coin was struck fully again.
i don't think it's pmd. that seems weird to me.
OK, let's break this discussion down into parts right from the beginning - "A" to Whatever it takes ("Z"?) to determine how this characteristic happened.
DO YOU AGREE? If not, give your reason so we can all discuss it and move on.
Part A: The rim of the OP's dollar has distinct (backward facing) partial letters ("TATES OF") INTO its surface.
If there is only agreement with this statement/post, I'll ask part B next.