@BryceM said:
For those of you following along at home, interesting comments were made by Fred Weinberg in this thread. I don't see how coins rattling around in a bag could bump together hard enough to do this (his theory), but I'm open minded. I'm interested to hear his thoughts after he sees the coin.
It makes me want to try an "experiment" with a few cull Morgans I have at home. I already know exactly how to position them.........
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
Two questions for those who think this occurred post-strike:
First, look at the "S". Why is there a sharp line where the "S" is truncated in the denticle? Seems like any sort of press job should leave a gradual transition here. I have my explanation.
Second, how do you account for the deficiency of metal on the opposite side of the coin?
@davids5104 said:
This question to me, seems more than a question for customer service. How does pcgs address straight graded coins in their possession that are newly identified as PMD?
JA said to me he was not an error expert but did not think it was PMD. He said the letters had luster within them without moved metal
As I wrote before, until everyone in the world got on the "PMD bandwagon" every professional I knew disregarded this uncommon characteristic. Furthermore, none of us gave a second thought to how it occurred because it was considered to be the result of coins in contact and not some mint error or attempt to defraud by making an unusual coin on purpose. IMO, JA and PCGS have done the normal thing and put the coin in a slab w/sticker. No big deal!
However, the depth of the impression of the OP's coin IS VERY UNUSUAL. That's why this is an interesting coin that may eventually be proved to be a very unusual "true"mint error. However, several folks with "VERY HIGH STANDING" in the coin error field are going to need to explain the steps in the minting process to make this happen.
So far, IMHO none of us posting in this thread meets that level.
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "In either case, I don't think it can be PMD because the denticles are UNAFFECTED.
Perhaps you should take another look. The denticals ARE affected. They have partial letters stamped into them!
That's really not clear from the picture. The denticles appear to still be properly formed. I don't think that optical illusion can be letters on the denticles because then the denticles would be punched in and they don't appear to be.
Focus on the arched part of the denticle. If those were really continuations of the O or the S then how would the arches be formed?
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "In either case, I don't think it can be PMD because the denticles are UNAFFECTED.
Perhaps you should take another look. The denticals ARE affected. They have partial letters stamped into them!
P.S. There also appears to be an uninterrupted circle defining the end of the rim. How would that line exist if the letters had been punched through it?
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "In either case, I don't think it can be PMD because the denticles are UNAFFECTED.
Perhaps you should take another look. The denticals ARE affected. They have partial letters stamped into them!
That's really not clear from the picture. The denticles appear to still be properly formed. I don't think that optical illusion can be letters on the denticles because then the denticles would be punched in and they don't appear to be.
We'll just disagree. Those are excellent micrographs, some of the best I've seen on the internet. The several orientations in the light made everything very clear.
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "In either case, I don't think it can be PMD because the denticles are UNAFFECTED.
Perhaps you should take another look. The denticals ARE affected. They have partial letters stamped into them!
That's really not clear from the picture. The denticles appear to still be properly formed. I don't think that optical illusion can be letters on the denticles because then the denticles would be punched in and they don't appear to be.
We'll just disagree. Those are excellent micrographs, some of the best I've seen on the internet. The several orientations in the light made everything very clear.
Yes. It shows clearly formed arches on the denticles as well as an uninterrupted circle defining the edge of the rim. How would that be possible if the denticles had letters punched into them? I agree with @tradedollarnut on this piece of the puzzle: the letters stop short of the denticles.
The two VERY HIGH STANDING error experts are both on the PMD train. Fred Weinberg based on the photos on this forum (original thread) and Jon Sullivan who apparently saw the coin IN HAND.
And the one thing we should all be glad about is that some experts are going to see this coin in hand! The pictures, as good as they are, can play tricks. (Evidence: The disagreement on whether the lettering was incuse, or relief! The optical illusion is real, and with a little work, I can see them both ways).
Now, take that knowledge, and apply it to the denticles. Can we, with the photos, really say that they are, or are not, damaged by another coin? That they came first or second? I don't think so....
And BOTH sides need to explain the process. If the minting process that created and left a brockage impression needs to be explained....then the coin-to-coin contact that left ONLY the lettering, but no rim-to-rim impression needs to be explained.
Think we need to stop pretending we can solve the problem here, either by some mythical step by step process, or by individual presentation.
I like these mysteries. But the discussions eventually always lead to ego flaunting.
@davids5104
I was on the phone with the faux Deity at CAC today, and he called my attention to a mention in this thread. I observed "You know I don't know sh!t about this stuff ", to which he added "I evidently don't much either ".
I evaluate virtues and distractions.
I'd rather use a 5x, but any detractions I can't see clearly enough at 10x don't occur and matter very much or very often.
Over-rated as some think him to be, JA sees things on coins and considers their relevance better than do I or many others. John told me in general terms that the note was a heads up on something "extra" he noticed that didn't affect his evaluation either way.
My take on that is "Yup". I'd pay $100 raw. That's an anonymous poll I'd like to see.
I suggest a path that will afford you the same expertise without the possibility that the coin will lose value being reclassified "mint error" on the label. Even though the manifestation of that is "really cool" per JA, it cools off the desirability for 99 % of people. And he doesn't sticker errors. I'd talk to @BrettPCGS about whether PCGS may be ethically or legally required to change/add that "Mint Error" qualifier if officially submitted and then classified as such.
Just as our hosts would send the coin to @FredWeinberg for expertization, so you might privately. My guess after watching him work is that seeing something this weird in-hand will light him up . I think you can find him in the Yellow pages.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@TommyType said: "I'm completely on the fence at this point."
So are many of us. Until proven differently, I've always thought these letters happened to the coin AFTER it left the press as a normal coin. However, I've NEVER considered it to be "damage!"
"And the one thing we should all be glad about is that some experts are going to see this coin in hand! The pictures, as good as they are, can play tricks. (Evidence: The disagreement on whether the lettering was incuse, or relief! The optical illusion is real, and with a little work, I can see them both ways)."
While I know what you are saying, most folks who examine coins closely should not be having any problem determining the marks are partial letters in a backward orientation, sunk into the coin's rim.
"Now, take that knowledge, and apply it to the denticles. Can we, with the photos, really say that they are, or are not, damaged by another coin? That they came first or second? I don't think so...."
Fortunately, I think many of us who look at coins closely can determine EXACTLY what we are seeing and the order it occurred. I'm one of the posters who is certain that the letters on the rime occurred AFTER the coin was struck. That's because I personally cannot imagine any way this could have happened when the coin was being made!" BTW, that has been the answer to these characteristics for several decades. Additionally, It will be the answer UNTIL it is proven to be incorrect.
"And BOTH sides need to explain the process. If the minting process that created and left a brockage impression needs to be explained....then the coin-to-coin contact that left ONLY the lettering, but no rim-to-rim impression needs to be explained."
I agree.
"Think we need to stop pretending we can solve the problem here, either by some mythical step by step process, or by individual presentation.
I disagree!
"I like these mysteries. But the discussions eventually always lead to ego flaunting."
That's complete nonsense. Please back up your statement and you should be very careful so you don't get flamed.
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
OK, errors are not my thing, but I do know a bit about physics. It seems the prevailing theory is that there was more than a single strike. The first one impressed the incuse letters onto the rim area, and the second (final) one generated the coin as it appears now. Based on following the discussion, that is what makes the most sense to me.
So YES, I believe the incuse letters were on the "planchet" (or brockage error) before the final strike. The letters "bleeding" into the denticles is fully consistent with that theory to me.
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
OK, errors are not my thing, but I do know a bit about physics. It seems the prevailing theory is that there was more than a single strike. The first one impressed the incuse letters onto the rim area, and the second (final) one generated the coin as it appears now. Based on following the discussion, that is what makes the most sense to me.
So YES, I believe the incuse letters were on the "planchet" (or brockage error) before the final strike. The letters "bleeding" into the denticles is fully consistent with that theory to me.
Again, I am no expert, and could well be wrong.
Think about why some might disagree with your post. What would the letters look like on the planchet and what would the planchet look like as soon as it was struck?
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
I disagree that the area in question came after the coin was struck.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
OK, errors are not my thing, but I do know a bit about physics. It seems the prevailing theory is that there was more than a single strike. The first one impressed the incuse letters onto the rim area, and the second (final) one generated the coin as it appears now. Based on following the discussion, that is what makes the most sense to me.
So YES, I believe the incuse letters were on the "planchet" (or brockage error) before the final strike. The letters "bleeding" into the denticles is fully consistent with that theory to me.
Again, I am no expert, and could well be wrong.
Think about why some might disagree with your post. What would the letters look like on the planchet and what would the planchet look like as soon as it was struck?
I lean insider's way here. While a second strike might not completely obliterate the first strike, it would move metal. Those letters appear too perfectly formed.
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
I disagree that the area in question came after the coin was struck.
Okay, how do you explain the fact that the letters are perfect and with no deformation when the two dies (incuse designs) came together and SMASHED a planchet with those incuse letters near the edge at one side?
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
OK, errors are not my thing, but I do know a bit about physics. It seems the prevailing theory is that there was more than a single strike. The first one impressed the incuse letters onto the rim area, and the second (final) one generated the coin as it appears now. Based on following the discussion, that is what makes the most sense to me.
So YES, I believe the incuse letters were on the "planchet" (or brockage error) before the final strike. The letters "bleeding" into the denticles is fully consistent with that theory to me.
Again, I am no expert, and could well be wrong.
Think about why some might disagree with your post. What would the letters look like on the planchet and what would the planchet look like as soon as it was struck?
I lean insider's way here. While a second strike might not completely obliterate the first strike, it would move metal. Those letters appear too perfectly formed.
It did move metal. That metal became the denticles. If a flat surface is pushing down on incuse letters, I'm not convinced those letters would deform, especially since the path of least resistance for the metal is upward (counter to the direction of force) into the die cavities which formed the denticles.
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
OK, errors are not my thing, but I do know a bit about physics. It seems the prevailing theory is that there was more than a single strike. The first one impressed the incuse letters onto the rim area, and the second (final) one generated the coin as it appears now. Based on following the discussion, that is what makes the most sense to me.
So YES, I believe the incuse letters were on the "planchet" (or brockage error) before the final strike. The letters "bleeding" into the denticles is fully consistent with that theory to me.
Again, I am no expert, and could well be wrong.
Think about why some might disagree with your post. What would the letters look like on the planchet and what would the planchet look like as soon as it was struck?
I lean insider's way here. While a second strike might not completely obliterate the first strike, it would move metal. Those letters appear too perfectly formed.
Look at you evolving from a flat earther to a round earther right before our eyes. I'm proud of you. Congrats!
Because the planchet at the rim is/was abnormally thin in this area (perhaps as an artifact of the brockage strike). Look at the obverse rim. Metal is missing. There’s not enough metal to completely fill the dies, let alone efface a prior impression. If the metal doesn’t even fill the dies it certainly isn’t going to be “smashed together.” It might bend a little - maybe even enough to make denticles, but the closer to the edge you get the more metal is missing on the opposite side. Maybe there was enough metal to fill up a part of the “S” but not all of it. Understanding this concept is the key to what I’ve been saying. I think I understand the argument that a strike normally obliterates whatever was on the planchet prior to striking. Sure, yes, almost always it does....... except when it doesn’t! I don’t think @insider2 understands why I think striking pressure in that part of the coin was really, really low.
Try to strike a coin on an abnormally thin planchet and it will come out looking weakly struck. Try to strike a coin on a planchet that is abnormally thin in a small area and that small area will come out looking weakly struck - perhaps so weakly struck that it won’t form a normal rim on one side and won’t efface a brockage on the other side.
Honestly, at this point we’re probably talking in circles. @Insider2 knows a great deal about coins and I know a great deal about metallurgy, metal flow, stresses, and material properties. I honestly don’t know if the truth about what happened to produce this coin is knowable. I have 100% confidence that one view will not prevail even if we hash it out here for the next 1000 years.
In the end, I think it’s an interesting coin, I don’t care if I’m right, and it’s probably worth about $100.
It may very well be PMD. I just think there’s also a possibility that it could be as-minted. If you want me to put all my money on red or black I’ll probably take the safe bet and go PMD. I was just trying to hypothesize one scenario that could explain what we’re seeing.
"Okay, how do you explain the fact that the letters are perfect and with no deformation when the two dies (incuse designs) came together and SMASHED a planchet with those incuse letters near the edge at one side?"
@insider2, here's a question for you. Where are the denticles located on a coin die?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
with due respect, thats just a conclusion, not a thought. Why do you reason that conclusion? That conclusion has been suggested by several others, and theres been discussion on why it is wrong/correct. What piece of evidence weighs on your mind to come to that conclusion?
with due respect, thats just a conclusion, not a thought. Why do you reason that conclusion? That conclusion has been suggested by several others, and theres been discussion on why it is wrong/correct. What piece of evidence weighs on your mind to come to that conclusion?
Thanks-
I have seen similar damage before, with the design of one Coin impressed into another coin. I have even seen it on an early 20th Century Proof set, where the coins must have been jammed into a safety deposit box or the like. No bag drop there.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
OK, errors are not my thing, but I do know a bit about physics. It seems the prevailing theory is that there was more than a single strike. The first one impressed the incuse letters onto the rim area, and the second (final) one generated the coin as it appears now. Based on following the discussion, that is what makes the most sense to me.
So YES, I believe the incuse letters were on the "planchet" (or brockage error) before the final strike. The letters "bleeding" into the denticles is fully consistent with that theory to me.
Again, I am no expert, and could well be wrong.
Think about why some might disagree with your post. What would the letters look like on the planchet and what would the planchet look like as soon as it was struck?
I lean insider's way here. While a second strike might not completely obliterate the first strike, it would move metal. Those letters appear too perfectly formed.
It did move metal. That metal became the denticles. If a flat surface is pushing down on incuse letters, I'm not convinced those letters would deform, especially since the path of least resistance for the metal is upward (counter to the direction of force) into the die cavities which formed the denticles.
WHAT WAS PUSHING DOWN on the planchet was a die with an incuse design that would caused plantchet metal to move into the die recesses (denticals in this case) and virtually obliterate anything that was there. If there was no metal (due to a brockage) opposite where the die hit - there would still be dedormation as the planchet tried to fill the empty space of the die.
@scubafuel said:
"Okay, how do you explain the fact that the letters are perfect and with no deformation when the two dies (incuse designs) came together and SMASHED a planchet with those incuse letters near the edge at one side?"
@insider2, here's a question for you. Where are the denticles located on a coin die?
Right where you have shown them!
PS It has been 47 years since I held several obsolete dies (Morgan included) in the Engraving Dept.at the Philly Mint and that piece you posted does not look like anything I remember. Is this something on display at Carson City?
I posted that this characteristic either happened during the minting process (mint error) or after the coin was struck (PMD). Only one person disagreed with those two options. I refuted his disagreement.
Now, does anyone else disagree with those two options before we move on...
Does anyone STILL believe that a planchet with a brockage was struck by the dies to cause this effect?
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
OK, errors are not my thing, but I do know a bit about physics. It seems the prevailing theory is that there was more than a single strike. The first one impressed the incuse letters onto the rim area, and the second (final) one generated the coin as it appears now. Based on following the discussion, that is what makes the most sense to me.
So YES, I believe the incuse letters were on the "planchet" (or brockage error) before the final strike. The letters "bleeding" into the denticles is fully consistent with that theory to me.
Again, I am no expert, and could well be wrong.
Think about why some might disagree with your post. What would the letters look like on the planchet and what would the planchet look like as soon as it was struck?
I lean insider's way here. While a second strike might not completely obliterate the first strike, it would move metal. Those letters appear too perfectly formed.
It did move metal. That metal became the denticles. If a flat surface is pushing down on incuse letters, I'm not convinced those letters would deform, especially since the path of least resistance for the metal is upward (counter to the direction of force) into the die cavities which formed the denticles.
WHAT WAS PUSHING DOWN on the planchet was a die with an incuse design that would caused plantchet metal to move into the die recesses (denticals in this case) and virtually obliterate anything that was there. If there was no metal (due to a brockage) opposite where the die hit - there would still be dedormation as the planchet tried to fill the empty space of the die.
I'm going to bow out after this post and leave it to people with more expertise than myself to continue the debate. My final thought in reviewing the image is this: The incuse lettering appears undistorted along the rim (area of LEAST pressure during strike) and somewhat distorted where it continues into the denticles (area of next lowest pressure during strike). It's not visible anywhere else, having been "obliterated" in high pressure areas (or non-existent there in the first place). All of this is consistent in my mind with the incuse letters being present before the final strike. YMMV.
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
OK, errors are not my thing, but I do know a bit about physics. It seems the prevailing theory is that there was more than a single strike. The first one impressed the incuse letters onto the rim area, and the second (final) one generated the coin as it appears now. Based on following the discussion, that is what makes the most sense to me.
So YES, I believe the incuse letters were on the "planchet" (or brockage error) before the final strike. The letters "bleeding" into the denticles is fully consistent with that theory to me.
Again, I am no expert, and could well be wrong.
Think about why some might disagree with your post. What would the letters look like on the planchet and what would the planchet look like as soon as it was struck?
I lean insider's way here. While a second strike might not completely obliterate the first strike, it would move metal. Those letters appear too perfectly formed.
Look at you evolving from a flat earther to a round earther right before our eyes. I'm proud of you. Congrats!
LOL. That's not really accurate. I've been treading down the middle on this throughout this thread.
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
OK, errors are not my thing, but I do know a bit about physics. It seems the prevailing theory is that there was more than a single strike. The first one impressed the incuse letters onto the rim area, and the second (final) one generated the coin as it appears now. Based on following the discussion, that is what makes the most sense to me.
So YES, I believe the incuse letters were on the "planchet" (or brockage error) before the final strike. The letters "bleeding" into the denticles is fully consistent with that theory to me.
Again, I am no expert, and could well be wrong.
Think about why some might disagree with your post. What would the letters look like on the planchet and what would the planchet look like as soon as it was struck?
I lean insider's way here. While a second strike might not completely obliterate the first strike, it would move metal. Those letters appear too perfectly formed.
It did move metal. That metal became the denticles. If a flat surface is pushing down on incuse letters, I'm not convinced those letters would deform, especially since the path of least resistance for the metal is upward (counter to the direction of force) into the die cavities which formed the denticles.
That isn't the way that works. You don't get the entire metal surface moving upward in unison. By your own analysis, the "path of least resistance" is initially into the letter void as the surface rises up. You are squeezing the metal into a narrow channel. It will rise into the void of the channel, but it will also tend to fill the void. Look at coins we know to be actually overstruck.
@BryceM said:
Because the planchet at the rim is/was abnormally thin in this area (perhaps as an artifact of the brockage strike). Look at the obverse rim. Metal is missing. There’s not enough metal to completely fill the dies, let alone efface a prior impression. If the metal doesn’t even fill the dies it certainly isn’t going to be “smashed together.” It might bend a little - maybe even enough to make denticles, but the closer to the edge you get the more metal is missing on the opposite side. Maybe there was enough metal to fill up a part of the “S” but not all of it. Understanding this concept is the key to what I’ve been saying. I think I understand the argument that a strike normally obliterates whatever was on the planchet prior to striking. Sure, yes, almost always it does....... except when it doesn’t! I don’t think @insider2 understands why I think striking pressure in that part of the coin was really, really low.
Try to strike a coin on an abnormally thin planchet and it will come out looking weakly struck. Try to strike a coin on a planchet that is abnormally thin in a small area and that small area will come out looking weakly struck - perhaps so weakly struck that it won’t form a normal rim on one side and won’t efface a brockage on the other side.
Honestly, at this point we’re probably talking in circles. @Insider2 knows a great deal about coins and I know a great deal about metallurgy, metal flow, stresses, and material properties. I honestly don’t know if the truth about what happened to produce this coin is knowable. I have 100% confidence that one view will not prevail even if we hash it out here for the next 1000 years.
In the end, I think it’s an interesting coin, I don’t care if I’m right, and it’s probably worth about $100.
It may very well be PMD. I just think there’s also a possibility that it could be as-minted. If you want me to put all my money on red or black I’ll probably take the safe bet and go PMD. I was just trying to hypothesize one scenario that could explain what we’re seeing.
The problem with that is that if there is so much missing metal on the edge as to affect the strike and such low striking pressure in that region, WHY IS THE RIM ON THE REVERSE NOT WEAKLY STRUCK?
with due respect, thats just a conclusion, not a thought. Why do you reason that conclusion? That conclusion has been suggested by several others, and theres been discussion on why it is wrong/correct. What piece of evidence weighs on your mind to come to that conclusion?
Thanks-
I have seen similar damage before, with the design of one Coin impressed into another coin. I have even seen it on an early 20th Century Proof set, where the coins must have been jammed into a safety deposit box or the like. No bag drop there.
Shipping coin to pcgs tomorrow. I also wrote a letter asking for explanation regarding what their findings were. I appreciate everyone's knowledge and input. I am going to create a poll for final guesses of what the pcgs will deem this coin to represent.
@Insider2
Like most on this thread, my opinion has changed ........I now longer believe that this is intentional PMD. And from my knowledge of metallurgy, I dismiss Fred Weinberg's theory that the incused letters on the OP's coin could be caused due to gravity in a bag of coins. The incused letters are also reversed, which could only be created from a master die or another coin.
In the Beginning........the Mint was producing a run of 1899 Morgan dollars. But then a coin press became jammed and shut down. An operator intervened and discovered that a coin had become lodged in the die and when a new planchet was introduced into the press a brockard image was created on the new planchet which turned out to be an offset and incuse image of the the lodged coin's reverse.
The Mint operator simply just cleared the jam in the press and simply recycled the brockard image. But the brockard image was offset, and when restruck, only the offset portion was retained on the OP's coin.
Dan Carr overstrikes mint produced coining and little or no details of the original coin remain. But if the original coin was an offset strike, detail from the original off struct coin will remain.
This coin is a reprocessed brockade that was produced by the Mint. This coin did not pass once through the press........it went through the press twice, and it was likely refed into the press by Mint personnel.
@BryceM said:
Two questions for those who think this occurred post-strike:
First, look at the "S". Why is there a sharp line where the "S" is truncated in the denticle? Seems like any sort of press job should leave a gradual transition here. I have my explanation.
Second, how do you account for the deficiency of metal on the opposite side of the coin?
Why does the issue on the obverse necessarily need to be connected to that on the reverse?
Would it be possible that the coin was damaged by getting jammed with another coin in a coin counting or rolling machine?
@OldIndianNutKase said: @Insider2
Like most on this thread, my opinion has changed ........I now longer believe that this is intentional PMD. And from my knowledge of metallurgy, I dismiss Fred Weinberg's theory that the incused letters on the OP's coin could be caused due to gravity in a bag of coins. The incused letters are also reversed, which could only be created from a master die or another coin.
In the Beginning........the Mint was producing a run of 1899 Morgan dollars. But then a coin press became jammed and shut down. An operator intervened and discovered that a coin had become lodged in the die and when a new planchet was introduced into the press a brockard image was created on the new planchet which turned out to be an offset and incuse image of the the lodged coin's reverse.
The Mint operator simply just cleared the jam in the press and simply recycled the brockard image. But the brockard image was offset, and when restruck, only the offset portion was retained on the OP's coin.
Dan Carr overstrikes mint produced coining and little or no details of the original coin remain. But if the original coin was an offset strike, detail from the original off struct coin will remain.
This coin is a reprocessed brockade that was produced by the Mint. This coin did not pass once through the press........it went through the press twice, and it was likely refed into the press by Mint personnel.
OINK
This is the exact theory my friend has regarding this coin.
@davids5104 said:
Shipping coin to pcgs tomorrow. I also wrote a letter asking for explanation regarding what their findings were. I appreciate everyone's knowledge and input. I am going to create a poll for final guesses of what the pcgs will deem this coin to represent.
I will be interested to hear what they say, but there is still no doubt in my mind that this is post-strike damage.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I don't think we said it was Intentional Post Minting Damage
I didn't say it was 'gravity' that caused the incused lettering,
just impact from another coin.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "In either case, I don't think it can be PMD because the denticles are UNAFFECTED.
Perhaps you should take another look. The denticals ARE affected. They have partial letters stamped into them!
>
Do you think this is post-mint damage or an error?
If you are asking me, I lean toward "error" but I haven't completely ruled out some kind of PMD. It's hard to get a complete feel from just the photos, as good as they are. How deep are the letters? Is the opposite rim damaged or just not fully formed?
Well, I think we all agree (maybe???) that it’s an impact from another coin. The question is when & how. I can see potential problems with any scenario that has been presented.
A careful observation of the obverse rim would be revealing. If metal in that area was simply displaced by a good solid rim hit there should be a visible accumulation of metal and maybe deformation of the dentils. If it just looks like metal is actually missing, it’s harder to explain how an impact that happened after a normal strike did that.
@scubafuel said: @Insider2 so if the incuse letters in question are outside of the denticles, what exactly is smashing them during the strike?
They are ON the denticals (a void in the die to make the tooth design) SO if the partial, backward letters were on the planchet before the strike, they would have bee sucked into the die voids of the denticals and been badly distorted or obliterated,
@OldIndianNutKase said: @Insider2
Like most on this thread, my opinion has changed ........I now longer believe that this is intentional PMD. And from my knowledge of metallurgy, I dismiss Fred Weinberg's theory that the incused letters on the OP's coin could be caused due to gravity in a bag of coins. The incused letters are also reversed, which could only be created from a master die or another coin.
In the Beginning........the Mint was producing a run of 1899 Morgan dollars. But then a coin press became jammed and shut down. An operator intervened and discovered that a coin had become lodged in the die and when a new planchet was introduced into the press a brockard image was created on the new planchet which turned out to be an offset and incuse image of the the lodged coin's reverse.
The Mint operator simply just cleared the jam in the press and simply recycled the brockard image. But the brockard image was offset, and when restruck, only the offset portion was retained on the OP's coin.
Dan Carr overstrikes mint produced coining and little or no details of the original coin remain. But if the original coin was an offset strike, detail from the original off struct coin will remain.
This coin is a reprocessed brockade that was produced by the Mint. This coin did not pass once through the press........it went through the press twice, and it was likely refed into the press by Mint personnel.
OINK
This could be possible EXCEPT for the fact that the letters show absolutely NO damage or distortion from the normal strike on that planchet with a brockage. Perhaps Mr. Carr would make a new product to commemorate this unusual coin!
Forget the letters in the reverse rim for a minute. By itself, wouldn’t the obverse rim deficiency be an error on its own? Any easy was to explain how that happened?
Comments
What about my Angry Mint Gorilla Theory?
@tradedollarnut said: "Doesn’t look like PMD to me."
AFAIK, anything that happens to a coin AFTER it is struck is called "P" (POST) "MD." Post mint damage. I take exception to this when the "damage" happened as a result of some unusual circumstance we classify as a mint error.
So, I think we can agree that those marks came to be on the rim either after the coin was struck or sometime in the minting process itself.
Is there anyone in this discussion that disagrees with that? The ONLY disagreement could come from someone who thinks the backward, incuse letters were on the planchet PRE-STRIKE! Hopefully we can all agree that is not the case.
Two questions for those who think this occurred post-strike:
First, look at the "S". Why is there a sharp line where the "S" is truncated in the denticle? Seems like any sort of press job should leave a gradual transition here. I have my explanation.
Second, how do you account for the deficiency of metal on the opposite side of the coin?
As I wrote before, until everyone in the world got on the "PMD bandwagon" every professional I knew disregarded this uncommon characteristic. Furthermore, none of us gave a second thought to how it occurred because it was considered to be the result of coins in contact and not some mint error or attempt to defraud by making an unusual coin on purpose. IMO, JA and PCGS have done the normal thing and put the coin in a slab w/sticker. No big deal!
However, the depth of the impression of the OP's coin IS VERY UNUSUAL. That's why this is an interesting coin that may eventually be proved to be a very unusual "true"mint error. However, several folks with "VERY HIGH STANDING" in the coin error field are going to need to explain the steps in the minting process to make this happen.
So far, IMHO none of us posting in this thread meets that level.
That's really not clear from the picture. The denticles appear to still be properly formed. I don't think that optical illusion can be letters on the denticles because then the denticles would be punched in and they don't appear to be.
Focus on the arched part of the denticle. If those were really continuations of the O or the S then how would the arches be formed?
P.S. There also appears to be an uninterrupted circle defining the end of the rim. How would that line exist if the letters had been punched through it?
We'll just disagree. Those are excellent micrographs, some of the best I've seen on the internet. The several orientations in the light made everything very clear.
Yes. It shows clearly formed arches on the denticles as well as an uninterrupted circle defining the edge of the rim. How would that be possible if the denticles had letters punched into them? I agree with @tradedollarnut on this piece of the puzzle: the letters stop short of the denticles.
The two VERY HIGH STANDING error experts are both on the PMD train. Fred Weinberg based on the photos on this forum (original thread) and Jon Sullivan who apparently saw the coin IN HAND.
I'm completely on the fence at this point.
And the one thing we should all be glad about is that some experts are going to see this coin in hand! The pictures, as good as they are, can play tricks. (Evidence: The disagreement on whether the lettering was incuse, or relief! The optical illusion is real, and with a little work, I can see them both ways).
Now, take that knowledge, and apply it to the denticles. Can we, with the photos, really say that they are, or are not, damaged by another coin? That they came first or second? I don't think so....
And BOTH sides need to explain the process. If the minting process that created and left a brockage impression needs to be explained....then the coin-to-coin contact that left ONLY the lettering, but no rim-to-rim impression needs to be explained.
Think we need to stop pretending we can solve the problem here, either by some mythical step by step process, or by individual presentation.
I like these mysteries. But the discussions eventually always lead to ego flaunting.
@davids5104
", to which he added "I evidently don't much either 
".
I was on the phone with the faux Deity at CAC today, and he called my attention to a mention in this thread. I observed "You know I don't know sh!t about this stuff
I evaluate virtues and distractions.
I'd rather use a 5x, but any detractions I can't see clearly enough at 10x don't occur and matter very much or very often.
Over-rated as some think him to be, JA sees things on coins and considers their relevance better than do I or many others. John told me in general terms that the note was a heads up on something "extra" he noticed that didn't affect his evaluation either way.
My take on that is "Yup". I'd pay $100 raw. That's an anonymous poll I'd like to see.
I suggest a path that will afford you the same expertise without the possibility that the coin will lose value being reclassified "mint error" on the label. Even though the manifestation of that is "really cool" per JA, it cools off the desirability for 99 % of people. And he doesn't sticker errors. I'd talk to @BrettPCGS about whether PCGS may be ethically or legally required to change/add that "Mint Error" qualifier if officially submitted and then classified as such.
Just as our hosts would send the coin to @FredWeinberg for expertization, so you might privately. My guess after watching him work is that seeing something this weird in-hand will light him up
. I think you can find him in the Yellow pages. 
Oh come on Colonel, now you're bringing reason and sense to this infinitely esoteric discussion. As I said on another thread, good to see you again.
At the same time, it's somehow intriguing to think that diety-level beings would pay attention.....
@TommyType said: "I'm completely on the fence at this point."
So are many of us. Until proven differently, I've always thought these letters happened to the coin AFTER it left the press as a normal coin. However, I've NEVER considered it to be "damage!"
"And the one thing we should all be glad about is that some experts are going to see this coin in hand! The pictures, as good as they are, can play tricks. (Evidence: The disagreement on whether the lettering was incuse, or relief! The optical illusion is real, and with a little work, I can see them both ways)."
While I know what you are saying, most folks who examine coins closely should not be having any problem determining the marks are partial letters in a backward orientation, sunk into the coin's rim.
"Now, take that knowledge, and apply it to the denticles. Can we, with the photos, really say that they are, or are not, damaged by another coin? That they came first or second? I don't think so...."
Fortunately, I think many of us who look at coins closely can determine EXACTLY what we are seeing and the order it occurred. I'm one of the posters who is certain that the letters on the rime occurred AFTER the coin was struck. That's because I personally cannot imagine any way this could have happened when the coin was being made!" BTW, that has been the answer to these characteristics for several decades. Additionally, It will be the answer UNTIL it is proven to be incorrect.
"And BOTH sides need to explain the process. If the minting process that created and left a brockage impression needs to be explained....then the coin-to-coin contact that left ONLY the lettering, but no rim-to-rim impression needs to be explained."
I agree.
"Think we need to stop pretending we can solve the problem here, either by some mythical step by step process, or by individual presentation.
I disagree!
"I like these mysteries. But the discussions eventually always lead to ego flaunting."
That's complete nonsense. Please back up your statement and you should be very careful so you don't get flamed.
OK, errors are not my thing, but I do know a bit about physics. It seems the prevailing theory is that there was more than a single strike. The first one impressed the incuse letters onto the rim area, and the second (final) one generated the coin as it appears now. Based on following the discussion, that is what makes the most sense to me.
So YES, I believe the incuse letters were on the "planchet" (or brockage error) before the final strike. The letters "bleeding" into the denticles is fully consistent with that theory to me.
Again, I am no expert, and could well be wrong.
Think about why some might disagree with your post. What would the letters look like on the planchet and what would the planchet look like as soon as it was struck?
I disagree that the area in question came after the coin was struck.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I lean insider's way here. While a second strike might not completely obliterate the first strike, it would move metal. Those letters appear too perfectly formed.
Okay, how do you explain the fact that the letters are perfect and with no deformation when the two dies (incuse designs) came together and SMASHED a planchet with those incuse letters near the edge at one side?
It did move metal. That metal became the denticles. If a flat surface is pushing down on incuse letters, I'm not convinced those letters would deform, especially since the path of least resistance for the metal is upward (counter to the direction of force) into the die cavities which formed the denticles.
Look at you evolving from a flat earther to a round earther right before our eyes. I'm proud of you. Congrats!
Because the planchet at the rim is/was abnormally thin in this area (perhaps as an artifact of the brockage strike). Look at the obverse rim. Metal is missing. There’s not enough metal to completely fill the dies, let alone efface a prior impression. If the metal doesn’t even fill the dies it certainly isn’t going to be “smashed together.” It might bend a little - maybe even enough to make denticles, but the closer to the edge you get the more metal is missing on the opposite side. Maybe there was enough metal to fill up a part of the “S” but not all of it. Understanding this concept is the key to what I’ve been saying. I think I understand the argument that a strike normally obliterates whatever was on the planchet prior to striking. Sure, yes, almost always it does....... except when it doesn’t! I don’t think @insider2 understands why I think striking pressure in that part of the coin was really, really low.
Try to strike a coin on an abnormally thin planchet and it will come out looking weakly struck. Try to strike a coin on a planchet that is abnormally thin in a small area and that small area will come out looking weakly struck - perhaps so weakly struck that it won’t form a normal rim on one side and won’t efface a brockage on the other side.
Honestly, at this point we’re probably talking in circles. @Insider2 knows a great deal about coins and I know a great deal about metallurgy, metal flow, stresses, and material properties. I honestly don’t know if the truth about what happened to produce this coin is knowable. I have 100% confidence that one view will not prevail even if we hash it out here for the next 1000 years.
In the end, I think it’s an interesting coin, I don’t care if I’m right, and it’s probably worth about $100.
It may very well be PMD. I just think there’s also a possibility that it could be as-minted. If you want me to put all my money on red or black I’ll probably take the safe bet and go PMD. I was just trying to hypothesize one scenario that could explain what we’re seeing.
"Okay, how do you explain the fact that the letters are perfect and with no deformation when the two dies (incuse designs) came together and SMASHED a planchet with those incuse letters near the edge at one side?"
@insider2, here's a question for you. Where are the denticles located on a coin die?
My thoughts posted here:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1022145/great-morgan-with-rim-hit#latest
with due respect, thats just a conclusion, not a thought. Why do you reason that conclusion? That conclusion has been suggested by several others, and theres been discussion on why it is wrong/correct. What piece of evidence weighs on your mind to come to that conclusion?
Thanks-
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
I've seen plenty of nasty rim hits and they always result in a thick pile-up of metal somewhere. This one just looks like the metal is missing.
I have seen similar damage before, with the design of one Coin impressed into another coin. I have even seen it on an early 20th Century Proof set, where the coins must have been jammed into a safety deposit box or the like. No bag drop there.
WHAT WAS PUSHING DOWN on the planchet was a die with an incuse design that would caused plantchet metal to move into the die recesses (denticals in this case) and virtually obliterate anything that was there. If there was no metal (due to a brockage) opposite where the die hit - there would still be dedormation as the planchet tried to fill the empty space of the die.
Right where you have shown them!
PS It has been 47 years since I held several obsolete dies (Morgan included) in the Engraving Dept.at the Philly Mint and that piece you posted does not look like anything I remember. Is this something on display at Carson City?
NOTE
I posted that this characteristic either happened during the minting process (mint error) or after the coin was struck (PMD). Only one person disagreed with those two options. I refuted his disagreement.
Now, does anyone else disagree with those two options before we move on...
Does anyone STILL believe that a planchet with a brockage was struck by the dies to cause this effect?
I'm going to bow out after this post and leave it to people with more expertise than myself to continue the debate. My final thought in reviewing the image is this: The incuse lettering appears undistorted along the rim (area of LEAST pressure during strike) and somewhat distorted where it continues into the denticles (area of next lowest pressure during strike). It's not visible anywhere else, having been "obliterated" in high pressure areas (or non-existent there in the first place). All of this is consistent in my mind with the incuse letters being present before the final strike. YMMV.
LOL. That's not really accurate. I've been treading down the middle on this throughout this thread.
That isn't the way that works. You don't get the entire metal surface moving upward in unison. By your own analysis, the "path of least resistance" is initially into the letter void as the surface rises up. You are squeezing the metal into a narrow channel. It will rise into the void of the channel, but it will also tend to fill the void. Look at coins we know to be actually overstruck.
The problem with that is that if there is so much missing metal on the edge as to affect the strike and such low striking pressure in that region, WHY IS THE RIM ON THE REVERSE NOT WEAKLY STRUCK?
thank you
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
Shipping coin to pcgs tomorrow. I also wrote a letter asking for explanation regarding what their findings were. I appreciate everyone's knowledge and input. I am going to create a poll for final guesses of what the pcgs will deem this coin to represent.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
@Insider2 so if the incuse letters in question are outside of the denticles, what exactly is smashing them during the strike?
@Insider2
Like most on this thread, my opinion has changed ........I now longer believe that this is intentional PMD. And from my knowledge of metallurgy, I dismiss Fred Weinberg's theory that the incused letters on the OP's coin could be caused due to gravity in a bag of coins. The incused letters are also reversed, which could only be created from a master die or another coin.
In the Beginning........the Mint was producing a run of 1899 Morgan dollars. But then a coin press became jammed and shut down. An operator intervened and discovered that a coin had become lodged in the die and when a new planchet was introduced into the press a brockard image was created on the new planchet which turned out to be an offset and incuse image of the the lodged coin's reverse.
The Mint operator simply just cleared the jam in the press and simply recycled the brockard image. But the brockard image was offset, and when restruck, only the offset portion was retained on the OP's coin.
Dan Carr overstrikes mint produced coining and little or no details of the original coin remain. But if the original coin was an offset strike, detail from the original off struct coin will remain.
This coin is a reprocessed brockade that was produced by the Mint. This coin did not pass once through the press........it went through the press twice, and it was likely refed into the press by Mint personnel.
OINK
Why does the issue on the obverse necessarily need to be connected to that on the reverse?
Would it be possible that the coin was damaged by getting jammed with another coin in a coin counting or rolling machine?
This is the exact theory my friend has regarding this coin.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
@davids5104 You could have made that $1.2 to $1.3 million you seek just selling popcorn for this thread
I will be interested to hear what they say, but there is still no doubt in my mind that this is post-strike damage.
TD
>
Do you think this is post-mint damage or an error?
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I don't think we said it was Intentional Post Minting Damage
I didn't say it was 'gravity' that caused the incused lettering,
just impact from another coin.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
If you are asking me, I lean toward "error" but I haven't completely ruled out some kind of PMD. It's hard to get a complete feel from just the photos, as good as they are. How deep are the letters? Is the opposite rim damaged or just not fully formed?
Or someone expertly cut out a narrow slice of those letters to fool us all..
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Well, I think we all agree (maybe???) that it’s an impact from another coin. The question is when & how. I can see potential problems with any scenario that has been presented.
A careful observation of the obverse rim would be revealing. If metal in that area was simply displaced by a good solid rim hit there should be a visible accumulation of metal and maybe deformation of the dentils. If it just looks like metal is actually missing, it’s harder to explain how an impact that happened after a normal strike did that.
It’s hard to be sure from the photos.
They are ON the denticals (a void in the die to make the tooth design) SO if the partial, backward letters were on the planchet before the strike, they would have bee sucked into the die voids of the denticals and been badly distorted or obliterated,
This could be possible EXCEPT for the fact that the letters show absolutely NO damage or distortion from the normal strike on that planchet with a brockage. Perhaps Mr. Carr would make a new product to commemorate this unusual coin!
Forget the letters in the reverse rim for a minute. By itself, wouldn’t the obverse rim deficiency be an error on its own? Any easy was to explain how that happened?
I am guessing you will be one of the people that will be able to see the coin up close. Arriving on Monday via registered mail!
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!