@Insider2 said:
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.
I took a poll. We ALL agree.
Part B: There is rim weakness on the obverse opposite the partial letters.
@Insider2 said:
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.
I took a poll. We ALL agree.
Part B: There is rim weakness on the obverse opposite the partial letters.
You are getting way ahead of things. That's not part B so you can run the discussion from now on.
@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.
Yes, this could actually happen if the mint employee accidentally grabbed a reverse die. It is far fetched but could happen.
Unless someone went through a LOT of work to engrave those letters on the rim, I don't see a way to get this through PMD without leaving behind damage elsewhere. I think it is an off-center brockage that was re-coined. Re-coining was completely successful except for the small portion of the rim where some damage on the obverse did not provide enough metal for a full strike.
@Insider2 said:
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.
I took a poll. We ALL agree.
Part B: There is rim weakness on the obverse opposite the partial letters.
You are getting way ahead of things. That's not part B so you can run the discussion from now on.
I have no interest in running the discussion for a couple reasons:
1. I don't know what to make of the coin
2. I have no idea where you were going with this.
I was just trying to speed it along by listing what we know. While I am really interested in this discussion, I'd like to get somewhere before 2020.
@insider
I appreciate all your insight!! I do however agree that we need your guidance to move through your designed flow of thought.
Also I would not have started at your point A. That is obvious, requires no confirmation of legitimacy to move on to your next thought. But looking forward to learning from everyone!
@davids5104 said: @insider
I appreciate all your insight!! I do however agree that we need your guidance to move through your designed flow of thought.
Also I would not have started at your point A. That is obvious, requires no confirmation of legitimacy to move on to your next thought. But looking forward to learning from everyone!
I think at this point, you might be best served by getting the coin into the hands of an error expert, (or three). As good as the eyes, ideas, and theories are from posters here, I have a feeling that direct examination by a knowledgeable person is required to put all of the pieces together. Photos will only get you so far....
Got word from Mr. Feltner at PCGS. He said the experts he consulted all said "we would need to see coin in hand." He said PCGS will evaluate it for free, and reholder as mint error if that is what is determined, but could not guarantee it would remain in an MS66 holder if it is deemed PMD.
Way more upside if it's and error. If PMD I suspect some amount of PCGS guarantee will kick in.
@davids5104 said:
Got word from Mr. Feltner at PCGS. He said the experts he consulted all said "we would need to see coin in hand." He said PCGS will evaluate it for free, and reholder as mint error if that is what is determined, but could not guarantee it would remain in an MS66 holder if it is deemed PMD.
I don't have the slightest clue what to make of this coin but I sure like various points raised by all the thread participants. It's an excellent teaching example.
If it is an error its a windfall, if its PMD and if guarantee covers the majority of the cost, I would certainly choose to send it in. It is a Morgan, very few Morgans are irreplaceable.
@Aotearoa said:
I'm not so sure that anyone needs "to run the discussion". Just my two cents...
Well that's why there is so much confusion w/everyone posting OPINIONS all over the place. I have had very good success DISCUSSING ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING by keeping things on track and SIMPLE. First you get agreement on something and continue until someone disagrees. Then you take care of that and either continue on track OR THE TRACK changes because we all agree on the new track.
I have become interested in this characteristic that I never gave a flip about in the past because they are all over the place when you look at hundreds of coins a day! Due to this thread (I have an open mind) it may not be common PMD because I respect the opinion of all here.
I made an attempt to start a logical path to the answer (by asking questions) rather than shoot down a bunch of nonsense that was posted. For instance the letters were NOT ON THE PLANCHET!
Anyway, you folks can keep your 2c. I'll continue to read what you guys think as my "method" has been shot down right from the first post.
@davids5104 said: @insider
I appreciate all your insight!! I do however agree that we need your guidance to move through your designed flow of thought.
Also I would not have started at your point A. That is obvious, requires no confirmation of legitimacy to move on to your next thought. But looking forward to learning from everyone!
I think at this point, you might be best served by getting the coin into the hands of an error expert, (or three). As good as the eyes, ideas, and theories are from posters here, I have a feeling that direct examination by a knowledgeable person is required to put all of the pieces together. Photos will only get you so far....
The image is all that is needed. IMO, the flat rim under the date provides a very important point of interest.
There are clearly many people here who believe the letters were indeed on the hunk of metal (call it a planchet if you want) before it received its final strike.
To clarify..... my theory works like this:
A regular silver dollar planchet is struck in an irregular way to receive a mildly off-centered, obliquely applied brockage imprint that applies a reverse image to a portion of the of one side of the planchet (refer to the cent brockage posted by @TDN above) and simultaneously mildly deforms the metal on the opposite side of the planchet. The resulting, partially imprinted, slightly deformed brockage is then struck in a regular manner which effaces the prior strike except to the area on the upper reverse rim (opposite the area deficient in metal), resulting in what we see here. Obviously the initial deformity couldn't have been too extreme as it appears to have fit appropriately in the collar and between the dies for the second strike.
Unless this was somehow done outside the mint (possible, but unlikely IMO), there is no way that this coin didn't go through the press twice. If you look at my overlay, any rim imprint from the first strike would be far removed from the area in question and would explain why you don't see a rim imprint on the final coin.
@Insider2 , If this seems to be "nonsense" to you, I'd like to know why and I'd like to hear a better idea. In truth, I'm happy to be wrong, and I'm happy to be shown why. Please, if possible, try to not answer this question with another question.
If you want everyone to agree on everything before moving forward, we better start with this. "It's mostly round, mostly silver, and mostly looks like a Morgan." Beyond that, I doubt we'll see universal agreement, and as @jmlanzaf says, we won't get anywhere this year.
@Aotearoa said:
I'm not so sure that anyone needs "to run the discussion". Just my two cents...
Well that's why there is so much confusion w/everyone posting OPINIONS all over the place. I have had very good success DISCUSSING ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING by keeping things on track and SIMPLE. First you get agreement on something and continue until someone disagrees. Then you take care of that and either continue on track OR THE TRACK changes because we all agree on the new track.
I have become interested in this characteristic that I never gave a flip about in the past because they are all over the place when you look at hundreds of coins a day! Due to this thread (I have an open mind) it may not be common PMD because I respect the opinion of all here.
I made an attempt to start a logical path to the answer (by asking questions) rather than shoot down a bunch of nonsense that was posted. For instance the letters were NOT ON THE PLANCHET!
Anyway, you folks can keep your 2c. I'll continue to read what you guys think as my "method" has been shot down right from the first post.
@davids5104 said: @insider
I appreciate all your insight!! I do however agree that we need your guidance to move through your designed flow of thought.
Also I would not have started at your point A. That is obvious, requires no confirmation of legitimacy to move on to your next thought. But looking forward to learning from everyone!
I think at this point, you might be best served by getting the coin into the hands of an error expert, (or three). As good as the eyes, ideas, and theories are from posters here, I have a feeling that direct examination by a knowledgeable person is required to put all of the pieces together. Photos will only get you so far....
The image is all that is needed. IMO, the flat rim under the date provides a very important point of interest.
@Aotearoa said:
I'm not so sure that anyone needs "to run the discussion". Just my two cents...
Well that's why there is so much confusion w/everyone posting OPINIONS all over the place. I have had very good success DISCUSSING ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING by keeping things on track and SIMPLE. First you get agreement on something and continue until someone disagrees. Then you take care of that and either continue on track OR THE TRACK changes because we all agree on the new track.
I have become interested in this characteristic that I never gave a flip about in the past because they are all over the place when you look at hundreds of coins a day! Due to this thread (I have an open mind) it may not be common PMD because I respect the opinion of all here.
I made an attempt to start a logical path to the answer (by asking questions) rather than shoot down a bunch of nonsense that was posted. For instance the letters were NOT ON THE PLANCHET!
Anyway, you folks can keep your 2c. I'll continue to read what you guys think as my "method" has been shot down right from the first post.
Good Luck.
Why not simply share your opinion?
He has far more to lose than to gain by stating his opinion, if he is wrong. Thus, if you are not playing his game, he will not play at all.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
if the letters were on the planchet before being struck, I would think the letters would be deformed (smooshed inward) a bit when struck in a collar so my vote would be that it happened post-strike.
I asked Steven Feltner if the PCGS guarentee would still be in force although, I would choose to keep the coin in a genuine slab over not having the coin. I think my plan will be to submit to PCGS in his care and go from there. I think this piece has a story and it is worth more than the $250 I have in it. If it is a mint error, as I said 1.2million with fees paid by me.
A very cool and interesting thread! However, parts of this thread make me think if we ask certain posters how to get to Sesame St, most would give a straight answer, some might not know and others would tell you to go ask the pink elephant behind the talking dinosaur unless you pay the toll.
@clarkbar04 said:
if the letters were on the planchet before being struck, I would think the letters would be deformed (smooshed inward) a bit when struck in a collar so my vote would be that it happened post-strike.
Maybe. If I had the coin in-hand, I'd like to take close-up photos of the regular letters and the rim imprint to see if die characteristics match exactly. If they don't it would more easily support a PMD theory. A bit of deformity wouldn't be so surprising, but if it was mild it might be hard to see. I'd also like to know if the letters at the center of the rim impression are imprinted more deeply (less effaced) than letters at the sides.
@clarkbar04 said:
if the letters were on the planchet before being struck, I would think the letters would be deformed (smooshed inward) a bit when struck in a collar so my vote would be that it happened post-strike.
Unless the brockage was slightly recessed and there wasn’t enough metal for the letters to be fully brought up to the level of the collar. As in the picture of the cent that I posted and supported by the incomplete obverse rim
Mr. Keltner assured me the guarentee would be in force... they will pay me the difference and put the coin in a genuine if it comes to that. I will be sending this to PCGS sometime this week.
@davids5104 said:
Mr. Keltner assured me the guarentee would be in force... they will pay me the difference and put the coin in a genuine if it comes to that. I will be sending this to PCGS sometime this week.
Awesome news. Please update the thread as you find out answers.
@BryceM Your diagnostic approach is spot on. But an improvement to a photographic approach would be to use a 3D scanner to capture a 3D image of the "brockage" and a 3D image of the obverse letters in question that created that brockage..
@BryceM said:
There are clearly many people here who believe the letters were indeed on the hunk of metal (call it a planchet if you want) before it received its final strike.
To clarify..... my theory works like this:
A regular silver dollar planchet is struck in an irregular way to receive a mildly off-centered, obliquely applied brockage imprint that applies a reverse image to a portion of the of one side of the planchet (refer to the cent brockage posted by @TDN above) and simultaneously mildly deforms the metal on the opposite side of the planchet. The resulting, partially imprinted, slightly deformed brockage is then struck in a regular manner which effaces the prior strike except to the area on the upper reverse rim (opposite the area deficient in metal), resulting in what we see here. Obviously the initial deformity couldn't have been too extreme as it appears to have fit appropriately in the collar and between the dies for the second strike.
Unless this was somehow done outside the mint (possible, but unlikely IMO), there is no way that this coin didn't go through the press twice. If you look at my overlay, any rim imprint from the first strike would be far removed from the area in question and would explain why you don't see a rim imprint on the final coin.
@Insider2 , If this seems to be "nonsense" to you, I'd like to know why and I'd like to hear a better idea. In truth, I'm happy to be wrong, and I'm happy to be shown why. Please, if possible, try to not answer this question with another question.
If you want everyone to agree on everything before moving forward, we better start with this. "It's mostly round, mostly silver, and mostly looks like a Morgan." Beyond that, I doubt we'll see universal agreement, and as @jmlanzaf says, we won't get anywhere this year.
Excellent observations. Actually, the bold part of your last paragraph SHOULD HAVE been "my" Part "A," then we could have gone from there.
You guys can figure it out. You can start by telling us how anything on a planchet can REMAIN on a struck coin besides the original planchet impact marks seen on weak strikes or adjustment marks. Then post an image to prove your opinion.
PS Has anyone ever told you "It's my way or the highway?"
Nope! Too far down the list of the simple progressive questions I was going to ask. OMG, we've got very knowledgeable folks here who think the letters were on the original planchet!
What caught my eye about this particular coin was that it looks (almost) like the rim (or more precisely, the die that made it), has had some work done(???),
Just for your consideration....and because we've run out of things to argue about.
Added:
By way of explanation as to why I'm looking at other coins:
One of only people to see the coin in person was JA at CAC.
OP reports that his discussion with JA about the coin included the comment, "He said that there was cartwheel luster throughout and the depressions had mint luster in them."
My reading of this is that he is implying that the rim lettering was the result of a coinage die strike(?)
One (very?) longshot is that the lettering was on the die to begin with(?)
If that's the case, other coins should exist....or maybe other coins from the same die that has been repaired.
Long shot...very speculative...probably wrong. But this coin at least says the wide rim isn't all that odd, if nothing else.
You guys can figure it out. You can start by telling us how anything on a planchet can REMAIN on a struck coin besides the original planchet impact marks seen on weak strikes or adjustment marks. Then post an image to prove your opinion
@tradedollarnut said:
_ You guys can figure it out. You can start by telling us how anything on a planchet can REMAIN on a struck coin besides the original planchet impact marks seen on weak strikes or adjustment marks. Then post an image to prove your opinion_
LOL, Nice try but BIG FAIL! NOT EVEN CLOSE to the characteristic we were discussing.
However your example SHOULD GIVE a big clue to what happens when a coin is struck. Thus changing some opinions posted previously. It is something I was trying to "pull" out of members by my questions.
There’s a basic problem with what you appear to be asserting (does anybody really know what that is?). See the following two pictures:
On one side of the coin - the lower reverse - the rim area is higher than the denticles. Yes, any details here would have been struck out of the coin. But where the letters are on the upper rim, the rim area is lower than the denticles. There was insufficient metal in this area to raise the letters up to the level where they would have been obliterated by the strike. Why? Because the previous mirror brockage lowered the metal in this area as shown on the cent I posted a few pages back.
Now, since you are dancing around issues without really addressing them - tell me how any letters added to this coin post strike didn’t affect the denticles that clearly indicate they were struck into the letters.
@tradedollarnut said:
_ You guys can figure it out. You can start by telling us how anything on a planchet can REMAIN on a struck coin besides the original planchet impact marks seen on weak strikes or adjustment marks. Then post an image to prove your opinion_
LOL, Nice try but BIG FAIL! NOT EVEN CLOSE to the characteristic we were discussing.
However your example SHOULD GIVE a big clue to what happens when a coin is struck. Thus changing some opinions posted previously. It is something I was trying to "pull" out of members by my questions.
Big fail? You challenged anyone to show how anything can remain on a struck coin. I clearly did just that.
@tradedollarnut said:
There’s a basic problem with what you appear to be asserting
(does anybody really know what that is?). See the following two pictures:
On one side of the coin - the lower reverse - the rim area is higher than the denticles. Yes, any details here would have been struck out of the coin. But where the letters are on the upper rim, the rim area is lower than the denticles. There was insufficient metal in this area to raise the letters up to the level where they would have been obliterated by the strike. Why? Because the previous mirror brockage lowered the metal in this area as shown on the cent I posted a few pages back.
Now, since you are dancing around issues without really addressing them - tell me how any letters added to this coin post strike didn’t affect the denticles that clearly indicate they were struck into the letters.
I wish you would have left out your opinion so we could try to figure out the answer w/o being influenced. I don't consider that "dancing around."
Actually, it appears the partial letters DID affect the denticals! That's why they are still visible. See, with a slight correction you ALMOST answered your own question: "... that clearly indicate they [the letters] were struck into the [the rim] letters.
PS Many collectors can ID the mint where a Morgan dollar was struck by just looking at its obverse rim (I'm not one of them). Anyway, I just examined several rolls of BU Morgans from the P, O, and S Mints. What I found was the denticals can be higher, lower, or even with the rim so I don't think your observation adds a clue.
I have become curious as to the cause of this characteristic. I've seen many examples over the years and until a few days ago I could care less. Unfortunately, my attempt to get us on perhaps a track to the answer was derailed immediately. IMO, any brockage would have been obliterated in such a way that it would not resemble the OP's coin. Anyway, w/o ALL of us + the error experts starting from the basics as suggested previously (a round Morgan dollar) I'm unable to figure out the cause. All I can do is refute opinions and that's getting nowhere!
@tradedollarnut said:
There’s a basic problem with what you appear to be asserting (does anybody really know what that is?). See the following two pictures:
(deleted photos to save space)
On one side of the coin - the lower reverse - the rim area is higher than the denticles. Yes, any details here would have been struck out of the coin. But where the letters are on the upper rim, the rim area is lower than the denticles. There was insufficient metal in this area to raise the letters up to the level where they would have been obliterated by the strike. Why? Because the previous mirror brockage lowered the metal in this area as shown on the cent I posted a few pages back.
Now, since you are dancing around issues without really addressing them - tell me how any letters added to this coin post strike didn’t affect the denticles that clearly indicate they were struck into the letters.
I see where you are going.
And to add to it: The absence of full metal on this area of the coin, as evidenced by the un-completed rim on the obverse side, would further allow any previous impression to remain.
There is probably still an issue to overcome:
If a partial strike occurred, (by brockage or otherwise), it would seem odd that the planchet remained round enough to fit into the coining collar again. (It might be useful to examine the full edge to see if it was partially out of the collar??)
Added: Or, the coin never actually left the collar to begin with....(But then, I'm not sure if the thickness of that area of the coin would be significantly affected)…
I'm thinking in circles now. But agree, there are some circumstances where a strike might NOT remove much, if any, of a previous strike.
Leaning strongly to a mint error because of attributes including luster within impressions and 180 deg opposite rim issues, and other rim issues. Likely a double struck off-center brockage but the PCGS experts may have a different explanation not mentioned here, when they see the coin in hand. One item not mentioned yet is that any double strike in silver will become strain (work) hardened on the first strike, to a considerable degree (why double strikes remain identifiable), which can explain why the rim lettering is not greatly deformed by the second strike (if dbl struck brkg). Overstruck coins also generally retain some of the first strike details because the second strike is not usually on a planchet that has been re-annealed. Anyone who has done silversmithing (me) knows how much struck or hammered silver becomes work hardened. Brockages exist because the stuck coin has been work hardened from the strike, and the coin can act as a die against an annealed planchet.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Against my better judgement, I'll try to defend my position and refute what basically amounts to name-calling by @Insider2 .
Apparently, he is convinced that an overstrike will ALWAYS obliterate EVERYTHING on the host coin. Even though he hasn't shared a single idea about how the OP's coin might have been created, our suggestion that a second strike might not efface everything on the host coin apparently makes us imbeciles.
In many cases, an overstrike will efface all evidence of the host design...... but not always. Dan Carr frequently uses genuine US coins as hosts for his fantasy designs and sometimes a few details of the host coin remain. Of course this can be done quite deliberately (or accidentally) with reduced striking pressure. I stole this image from a 2018 overstrike/undertype discussion in another thread on the forum:
This can happen in other instances too, either deliberately or unintentionally. Evaluating the undertype of an overstruck coin is perhaps an activity that our friend has never considered:
Finally, look at many normally struck Ike and Peace dollars (especially the 1921). In the center of the portrait there are often marks on the coin that were on the planchet before striking. Those small parts of the planchet never made contact with the die at all due to insufficient striking pressure.
On the OP's coin, what could have caused a weak strike in the vicinity of the upper, reverse rim? Gee, uh, I dunno..... maybe a deficiency of metal on the corresponding obverse rim of the host coin caused from the first brockage strike.
In areas where the die is raised (fields of the coin) there was enough pressure to efface the brockage. The deepest, most recessed, (most difficult to fill with metal) part of the die would the most elevated part of the finished coin - THE RIM! If the host coin already has an imprint here, and there isn't enough metal thickness to completely fill the dies in this limited area, the rim won't be completely effaced by the strike pressure and whatever was there before the second strike will still be there! .
Now, to be fair, I don't really know if this is how the OP's coin came to be. I just know that the idea is plausible and not as ridiculous as @Insider2 apparently seems to think it is. Again, I'm happy to modify or abandon my position if someone can actually come up with a better explanation.
Why is there a reverse image - a brockage makes the most sense.
Why is there remaining evidence of a brockage on only a small part of the coin? Focal strike weakness from deficiency of metal opposite the rim in question. This makes the most sense (to me, at least).
Why are the dentils on the obverse, 5 o'clock rim perfectly formed? They were imparted by the second (regular) strike but the rims could not be fully brought up due to damage produced during the brockage formation.
Are we all nerds? Yes, of course.
@BryceM said:
Against my better judgement, I'll try to defend my position and refute what basically amounts to name-calling by @Insider2 .
Apparently, he is convinced that an overstrike will ALWAYS obliterate EVERYTHING on the host coin. Even though he hasn't shared a single idea about how the OP's coin might have been created, our suggestion that a second strike might not efface everything on the host coin apparently makes us imbeciles.
In many cases, an overstrike will efface all evidence of the host design...... but not always. Dan Carr frequently uses genuine US coins as hosts for his fantasy designs and sometimes a few details of the host coin remain. Of course this can be done quite deliberately (or accidentally) with reduced striking pressure. I stole this image from a 2018 overstrike/undertype discussion in another thread on the forum:
Finally, look at many normally struck Ike and Peace dollars (especially the 1921). In the center of the portrait there are often marks on the coin that were on the planchet before striking. Those small parts of the planchet never made contact with the die at all due to insufficient striking pressure.
On the OP's coin, what could have caused a weak strike in the vicinity of the upper, reverse rim? Gee, uh, I dunno..... maybe a deficiency of metal on the corresponding obverse rim of the host coin caused from the first brockage strike.
In areas where the die is raised (fields of the coin) there was enough pressure to efface the brockage. The deepest, most recessed, (most difficult to fill with metal) part of the die would the most elevated part of the finished coin - THE RIM! If the host coin already has an imprint here, and there isn't enough metal thickness to completely fill the dies in this limited area, the rim won't be completely effaced by the strike pressure and whatever was there before the second strike will still be there! .
Now, to be fair, I don't really know if this is how the OP's coin came to be. I just know that the idea is plausible and not as ridiculous as @Insider2 apparently seems to think it is. Again, I'm happy to modify or abandon my position if someone can actually come up with a better explanation.
Why is there a reverse image - a brockage makes the most sense.
Why is there remaining evidence of a brockage on only a small part of the coin? Focal strike weakness from deficiency of metal opposite the rim in question. This makes the most sense (to me, at least).
Why are the dentils on the obverse, 5 o'clock rim perfectly formed? They were imparted by the second (regular) strike but the rims could not be fully brought up due to damage produced during the brockage formation.
Are we all nerds? Yes, of course.
Thanks for taking the time to educate us. I'm sorry I didn't include every possibility BESIDES adjustment marks which I added to avoid posts as this. Nothing you posted has any relation to the OP's coin! I already refuted one such post before yours above. Additionally, OPSI on a planchet was included in my comment as something on a coin that may not be struck outI
Look, the OP's coin IS NOT an overstrike. OBVIOUSLY, overstrikes are neat and exist on coins from many countries and eras! Done my way, we all would have agreed to eliminate any form of overstrike before "Part 5."
I've PM'ed the OP for permission to post his coin in a new discussion in a way that we can all finally go STEP-by-STEP in agreement to find out how the letters appeared as they are on the rim. As I wrote before, for over 45 years, this characteristic has been considered an "artifact" from contact with another coin! I have an open mind. Now, that view MAY NOT BE correct. A brockage of some kind is the ONLY way the letters could be in this orientation.
IMO, a Step-by-Step discussion (with agreement) is a simple way to figure out how it occurred.
OK, I’ll bite....... Why can it not be an over strike? If not, how can you get both a limited brockage and a regular strike at the same time?
Finally, you’ve previously described seeing stars along the rims of gold coins. I’m not so sure that has anything to do with what we’re seeing in this coin. I can imagine a few different ways that could happen. I doubt those coins show a large rim defect opposite the star.
@tradedollarnut said: As I wrote before, for over 45 years, this characteristic has been considered an "artifact" from contact with another coin!
And for a thousand years the Earth was considered flat...
Yes, sometimes it takes new info and research to challenge the status quo. Change for the better is a good thing. Unfortunately, even when a change is finally made there are always some "flat-earther's" who resist.
I've been given permission to use the images to start a brand new SERIES of poll questions about the OP's dollar.
IMO, using a step-by-step poll with agree or disagree choices should keep us in agreement. I hope you and others will participate tomorrow and in the days following. I plan to learn a lot from the poll questions/replies..
I'll bet we ARE going to solve this to everyone's satisfaction by taking baby steps in 100% agreement.
Disagree. I don’t think the letters continue onto the denticles at all [that’s pmd on the circled S]. What’s telling is the opening between the denticles being carried into the letter. That’s what I circled. Those denticles are raised, the rim field above them recessed. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to transfer those letters to that rim field after striking without smushing the raised denticles.
Comments
I took a poll. We ALL agree.
Part B: There is rim weakness on the obverse opposite the partial letters.
You are getting way ahead of things. That's not part B so you can run the discussion from now on.
.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I'm not so sure that anyone needs "to run the discussion". Just my two cents...
Smitten with DBLCs.
That's the coolest thing i've seen here in a long time. I seriously doubt its PMD.
very cool coin.
for what its worth, the denticles appear intact at the letters in question.
Yes, this could actually happen if the mint employee accidentally grabbed a reverse die. It is far fetched but could happen.
Unless someone went through a LOT of work to engrave those letters on the rim, I don't see a way to get this through PMD without leaving behind damage elsewhere. I think it is an off-center brockage that was re-coined. Re-coining was completely successful except for the small portion of the rim where some damage on the obverse did not provide enough metal for a full strike.
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
I have no interest in running the discussion for a couple reasons:
1. I don't know what to make of the coin
2. I have no idea where you were going with this.
I was just trying to speed it along by listing what we know. While I am really interested in this discussion, I'd like to get somewhere before 2020.
@insider
I appreciate all your insight!! I do however agree that we need your guidance to move through your designed flow of thought.
Also I would not have started at your point A. That is obvious, requires no confirmation of legitimacy to move on to your next thought. But looking forward to learning from everyone!
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
I think at this point, you might be best served by getting the coin into the hands of an error expert, (or three). As good as the eyes, ideas, and theories are from posters here, I have a feeling that direct examination by a knowledgeable person is required to put all of the pieces together. Photos will only get you so far....
Got word from Mr. Feltner at PCGS. He said the experts he consulted all said "we would need to see coin in hand." He said PCGS will evaluate it for free, and reholder as mint error if that is what is determined, but could not guarantee it would remain in an MS66 holder if it is deemed PMD.
What would you all do?!?
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Way more upside if it's and error. If PMD I suspect some amount of PCGS guarantee will kick in.
I don't have the slightest clue what to make of this coin but I sure like various points raised by all the thread participants. It's an excellent teaching example.
This coin wasn't discovered anywhere near Oak Island, was it?
If it is an error its a windfall, if its PMD and if guarantee covers the majority of the cost, I would certainly choose to send it in. It is a Morgan, very few Morgans are irreplaceable.
Latin American Collection
Well that's why there is so much confusion w/everyone posting OPINIONS all over the place. I have had very good success DISCUSSING ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING by keeping things on track and SIMPLE. First you get agreement on something and continue until someone disagrees. Then you take care of that and either continue on track OR THE TRACK changes because we all agree on the new track.
I have become interested in this characteristic that I never gave a flip about in the past because they are all over the place when you look at hundreds of coins a day! Due to this thread (I have an open mind) it may not be common PMD because I respect the opinion of all here.
I made an attempt to start a logical path to the answer (by asking questions) rather than shoot down a bunch of nonsense that was posted. For instance the letters were NOT ON THE PLANCHET!
Anyway, you folks can keep your 2c.
I'll continue to read what you guys think as my "method" has been shot down right from the first post. 
Good Luck.
The image is all that is needed. IMO, the flat rim under the date provides a very important point of interest.
There are clearly many people here who believe the letters were indeed on the hunk of metal (call it a planchet if you want) before it received its final strike.
To clarify..... my theory works like this:
A regular silver dollar planchet is struck in an irregular way to receive a mildly off-centered, obliquely applied brockage imprint that applies a reverse image to a portion of the of one side of the planchet (refer to the cent brockage posted by @TDN above) and simultaneously mildly deforms the metal on the opposite side of the planchet. The resulting, partially imprinted, slightly deformed brockage is then struck in a regular manner which effaces the prior strike except to the area on the upper reverse rim (opposite the area deficient in metal), resulting in what we see here. Obviously the initial deformity couldn't have been too extreme as it appears to have fit appropriately in the collar and between the dies for the second strike.
Unless this was somehow done outside the mint (possible, but unlikely IMO), there is no way that this coin didn't go through the press twice. If you look at my overlay, any rim imprint from the first strike would be far removed from the area in question and would explain why you don't see a rim imprint on the final coin.
@Insider2 , If this seems to be "nonsense" to you, I'd like to know why and I'd like to hear a better idea. In truth, I'm happy to be wrong, and I'm happy to be shown why. Please, if possible, try to not answer this question with another question.
If you want everyone to agree on everything before moving forward, we better start with this. "It's mostly round, mostly silver, and mostly looks like a Morgan." Beyond that, I doubt we'll see universal agreement, and as @jmlanzaf says, we won't get anywhere this year.
Why not simply share your opinion?
Smitten with DBLCs.
And yet you didn't like that as point #2????
He has far more to lose than to gain by stating his opinion, if he is wrong. Thus, if you are not playing his game, he will not play at all.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
if the letters were on the planchet before being struck, I would think the letters would be deformed (smooshed inward) a bit when struck in a collar so my vote would be that it happened post-strike.
I asked Steven Feltner if the PCGS guarentee would still be in force although, I would choose to keep the coin in a genuine slab over not having the coin. I think my plan will be to submit to PCGS in his care and go from there. I think this piece has a story and it is worth more than the $250 I have in it. If it is a mint error, as I said 1.2million with fees paid by me.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
A very cool and interesting thread! However, parts of this thread make me think if we ask certain posters how to get to Sesame St, most would give a straight answer, some might not know and others would tell you to go ask the pink elephant behind the talking dinosaur unless you pay the toll.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Maybe. If I had the coin in-hand, I'd like to take close-up photos of the regular letters and the rim imprint to see if die characteristics match exactly. If they don't it would more easily support a PMD theory. A bit of deformity wouldn't be so surprising, but if it was mild it might be hard to see. I'd also like to know if the letters at the center of the rim impression are imprinted more deeply (less effaced) than letters at the sides.
Unless the brockage was slightly recessed and there wasn’t enough metal for the letters to be fully brought up to the level of the collar. As in the picture of the cent that I posted and supported by the incomplete obverse rim
Mr. Keltner assured me the guarentee would be in force... they will pay me the difference and put the coin in a genuine if it comes to that. I will be sending this to PCGS sometime this week.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Awesome news. Please update the thread as you find out answers.
@BryceM Your diagnostic approach is spot on. But an improvement to a photographic approach would be to use a 3D scanner to capture a 3D image of the "brockage" and a 3D image of the obverse letters in question that created that brockage..
OINK
Excellent observations. Actually, the bold part of your last paragraph SHOULD HAVE been "my" Part "A," then we could have gone from there.
You guys can figure it out. You can start by telling us how anything on a planchet can REMAIN on a struck coin besides the original planchet impact marks seen on weak strikes or adjustment marks. Then post an image to prove your opinion.
PS Has anyone ever told you "It's my way or the highway?"
@jmlanzaf said:
And yet you didn't like that as point #2????
Nope! Too far down the list of the simple progressive questions I was going to ask. OMG, we've got very knowledgeable folks here who think the letters were on the original planchet!
Call me bored....
But I've been scanning through the 1899-O Morgans on CoinFacts. One of the things that seemed odd to some was the very wide rim on the subject coin.
But there seems to be a subset of coins on CoinFacts that have this characteristic:
Link to the coin cert page: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/35559284
What caught my eye about this particular coin was that it looks (almost) like the rim (or more precisely, the die that made it), has had some work done(???),
Just for your consideration....and because we've run out of things to argue about.
Added:
By way of explanation as to why I'm looking at other coins:
You guys can figure it out. You can start by telling us how anything on a planchet can REMAIN on a struck coin besides the original planchet impact marks seen on weak strikes or adjustment marks. Then post an image to prove your opinion
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1851-1-Restrike-Liberty-Seated-Dollar-PCGS-PR63/401967506476?hash=item5d9721642c:g:ZDgAAOSwR8hd1xGB
LOL, Nice try but BIG FAIL! NOT EVEN CLOSE to the characteristic we were discussing.
However your example SHOULD GIVE a big clue to what happens when a coin is struck. Thus changing some opinions posted previously. It is something I was trying to "pull" out of members by my questions.
There’s a basic problem with what you appear to be asserting (does anybody really know what that is?). See the following two pictures:
On one side of the coin - the lower reverse - the rim area is higher than the denticles. Yes, any details here would have been struck out of the coin. But where the letters are on the upper rim, the rim area is lower than the denticles. There was insufficient metal in this area to raise the letters up to the level where they would have been obliterated by the strike. Why? Because the previous mirror brockage lowered the metal in this area as shown on the cent I posted a few pages back.
Now, since you are dancing around issues without really addressing them - tell me how any letters added to this coin post strike didn’t affect the denticles that clearly indicate they were struck into the letters.
Big fail? You challenged anyone to show how anything can remain on a struck coin. I clearly did just that.
(does anybody really know what that is?). See the following two pictures:
I wish you would have left out your opinion so we could try to figure out the answer w/o being influenced. I don't consider that "dancing around."
Actually, it appears the partial letters DID affect the denticals! That's why they are still visible. See, with a slight correction you ALMOST answered your own question: "... that clearly indicate they [the letters] were struck into the [the rim] letters.
PS Many collectors can ID the mint where a Morgan dollar was struck by just looking at its obverse rim (I'm not one of them). Anyway, I just examined several rolls of BU Morgans from the P, O, and S Mints. What I found was the denticals can be higher, lower, or even with the rim so I don't think your observation adds a clue.
I have become curious as to the cause of this characteristic. I've seen many examples over the years and until a few days ago I could care less. Unfortunately, my attempt to get us on perhaps a track to the answer was derailed immediately. IMO, any brockage would have been obliterated in such a way that it would not resemble the OP's coin. Anyway, w/o ALL of us + the error experts starting from the basics as suggested previously (a round Morgan dollar) I'm unable to figure out the cause. All I can do is refute opinions and that's getting nowhere!
I see where you are going.
And to add to it: The absence of full metal on this area of the coin, as evidenced by the un-completed rim on the obverse side, would further allow any previous impression to remain.
There is probably still an issue to overcome:
If a partial strike occurred, (by brockage or otherwise), it would seem odd that the planchet remained round enough to fit into the coining collar again. (It might be useful to examine the full edge to see if it was partially out of the collar??)
Added: Or, the coin never actually left the collar to begin with....(But then, I'm not sure if the thickness of that area of the coin would be significantly affected)…
I'm thinking in circles now. But agree, there are some circumstances where a strike might NOT remove much, if any, of a previous strike.
Leaning strongly to a mint error because of attributes including luster within impressions and 180 deg opposite rim issues, and other rim issues. Likely a double struck off-center brockage but the PCGS experts may have a different explanation not mentioned here, when they see the coin in hand. One item not mentioned yet is that any double strike in silver will become strain (work) hardened on the first strike, to a considerable degree (why double strikes remain identifiable), which can explain why the rim lettering is not greatly deformed by the second strike (if dbl struck brkg). Overstruck coins also generally retain some of the first strike details because the second strike is not usually on a planchet that has been re-annealed. Anyone who has done silversmithing (me) knows how much struck or hammered silver becomes work hardened. Brockages exist because the stuck coin has been work hardened from the strike, and the coin can act as a die against an annealed planchet.
Against my better judgement, I'll try to defend my position and refute what basically amounts to name-calling by @Insider2 .
Apparently, he is convinced that an overstrike will ALWAYS obliterate EVERYTHING on the host coin. Even though he hasn't shared a single idea about how the OP's coin might have been created, our suggestion that a second strike might not efface everything on the host coin apparently makes us imbeciles.
In many cases, an overstrike will efface all evidence of the host design...... but not always. Dan Carr frequently uses genuine US coins as hosts for his fantasy designs and sometimes a few details of the host coin remain. Of course this can be done quite deliberately (or accidentally) with reduced striking pressure. I stole this image from a 2018 overstrike/undertype discussion in another thread on the forum:
This can happen in other instances too, either deliberately or unintentionally. Evaluating the undertype of an overstruck coin is perhaps an activity that our friend has never considered:
Finally, look at many normally struck Ike and Peace dollars (especially the 1921). In the center of the portrait there are often marks on the coin that were on the planchet before striking. Those small parts of the planchet never made contact with the die at all due to insufficient striking pressure.
On the OP's coin, what could have caused a weak strike in the vicinity of the upper, reverse rim? Gee, uh, I dunno..... maybe a deficiency of metal on the corresponding obverse rim of the host coin caused from the first brockage strike.
In areas where the die is raised (fields of the coin) there was enough pressure to efface the brockage. The deepest, most recessed, (most difficult to fill with metal) part of the die would the most elevated part of the finished coin - THE RIM! If the host coin already has an imprint here, and there isn't enough metal thickness to completely fill the dies in this limited area, the rim won't be completely effaced by the strike pressure and whatever was there before the second strike will still be there! .
Now, to be fair, I don't really know if this is how the OP's coin came to be. I just know that the idea is plausible and not as ridiculous as @Insider2 apparently seems to think it is. Again, I'm happy to modify or abandon my position if someone can actually come up with a better explanation.
Why is there a reverse image - a brockage makes the most sense.
Why is there remaining evidence of a brockage on only a small part of the coin? Focal strike weakness from deficiency of metal opposite the rim in question. This makes the most sense (to me, at least).
Why are the dentils on the obverse, 5 o'clock rim perfectly formed? They were imparted by the second (regular) strike but the rims could not be fully brought up due to damage produced during the brockage formation.
Are we all nerds? Yes, of course.
Thanks for taking the time to educate us. I'm sorry I didn't include every possibility BESIDES adjustment marks which I added to avoid posts as this. Nothing you posted has any relation to the OP's coin! I already refuted one such post before yours above. Additionally, OPSI on a planchet was included in my comment as something on a coin that may not be struck outI
Look, the OP's coin IS NOT an overstrike. OBVIOUSLY, overstrikes are neat and exist on coins from many countries and eras! Done my way, we all would have agreed to eliminate any form of overstrike before "Part 5."
I've PM'ed the OP for permission to post his coin in a new discussion in a way that we can all finally go STEP-by-STEP in agreement to find out how the letters appeared as they are on the rim. As I wrote before, for over 45 years, this characteristic has been considered an "artifact" from contact with another coin! I have an open mind. Now, that view MAY NOT BE correct. A brockage of some kind is the ONLY way the letters could be in this orientation.
IMO, a Step-by-Step discussion (with agreement) is a simple way to figure out how it occurred.
As I wrote before, for over 45 years, this characteristic has been considered an "artifact" from contact with another coin!
And for a thousand years the Earth was considered flat...
Part A is correct, lets not get > @tradedollarnut said:
Hell some still think the earth is flat, those of us who have evolved know all about the Red Dragon. Regards.
OK, I’ll bite....... Why can it not be an over strike? If not, how can you get both a limited brockage and a regular strike at the same time?
Finally, you’ve previously described seeing stars along the rims of gold coins. I’m not so sure that has anything to do with what we’re seeing in this coin. I can imagine a few different ways that could happen. I doubt those coins show a large rim defect opposite the star.
Yes, sometimes it takes new info and research to challenge the status quo. Change for the better is a good thing. Unfortunately, even when a change is finally made there are always some "flat-earther's" who resist.
I've been given permission to use the images to start a brand new SERIES of poll questions about the OP's dollar.
I plan to learn a lot from the poll questions/replies..
IMO, using a step-by-step poll with agree or disagree choices should keep us in agreement. I hope you and others will participate tomorrow and in the days following.
I'll bet we ARE going to solve this to everyone's satisfaction by taking baby steps in 100% agreement.
What's the Red Dragon?
You will NEVER convince me that those letters came onto the coin after the denticles were struck
The "E" and the "O" also, to me, have some degree of ???(continuation) on the denticles
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Disagree. I don’t think the letters continue onto the denticles at all [that’s pmd on the circled S]. What’s telling is the opening between the denticles being carried into the letter. That’s what I circled. Those denticles are raised, the rim field above them recessed. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to transfer those letters to that rim field after striking without smushing the raised denticles.