Options
Need help identifying this Eisenhower dollar error
wrthtuppence
Posts: 29 ✭
Recently purchased on Ebay. This coin has two parallel 'gouges' running through the date. They were definitely in place before striking (see distortion along numbers on obverse and lack of physical disruption of edge or reverse design). The upper one is deeper and better inscribed than the lower one and both have faint striations inside, suggesting they were made by some sawing action rather than shearing, clipping, punching, etc. I'm generally familiar with clipping errors, strike throughs, and planchet flaws but this one has had me stumped since I got it. Any help would be greatly appreciated! 
Tagged:
0
Comments
It strikes me (pun intended) as a strike through error as the rims don’t seem to be affected much. @FredWeinberg will probably be along to give us the correct answer.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
I'm thinking that's post mint damage
HAPPY COLLECTING
I'm in the post mint damage camp
The parallel valleys are so sharp, and the design rim is formed on both ends.
There’s no corresponding damage on the reverse and there are no pressure ridges or metal burrs/flakes along their length.
Could it be pre-strike planchet damage?
I'm also in the PMD camp.
I don't think it can be a pre-strike planchet defect, as I don't think the date would have struck up with the sharp edges as it shows.
It could be a strike through, but the odds are long the strike through would be that deep and not have effect on the rim or anything else.
Finally, I think I see the most minor of disturbance in the form of bulging directly behind that area, which would be about at "STATES OF" on the reverse.
I'll be interested to see what the real experts have to say.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
It's definitely not pmd as there's no effect on the rim or reverse and the edges of the 'gouges' (as I'm calling them for now) were clearly distorted by the design of the obverse die. The images don't show it well but there is absolutely no raised metal along the edges of the features, in the field or along the numbers, as would be expected if that amount of mechanical damage were inflicted on the coin after it was minted. So my reckoning is that it's something that happened to the planchet but it doesn't seem to be as simple as an incomplete clip because of the width of the 'gouges' and because of the striations in their interiors. It also doesn't strike me (pun also intended) as a strike through because that wouldn't explain the coinciding parallel 'gouge' and again, the striations on the inside imply some sort of sawing action, rather than the impression of foreign material. I'm not familiar enough with the full process of the manufacture of the planchets themselves but maybe it's due to sawing of the end of the strip of metal that was used to make them? I just don't know of any trimming saw, etc. that is used at the mint that would produce gouges like these with the micro-striations on their interior surfaces?
advice send it into a grading company and see what they say that will give you a expert opinion to go by instead of guessing at what you may or may not have
https://sites.google.com/view/coins-for-sale/home
OK
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
I'm in the PMD camp - while I'm not an errors expert I have trouble thinking of something that could be struck through and so neatly end at the edge.
However, this is also the kind of thread that I drop and often put the poster on ignore. Why? Because you showed up, asked for our help and then have done nothing but argue with the advice given. So I'm out.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Error?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Ah, sweet honey boo-boo, NO.
Seems playing Devil's advocate here is taken as disregarding peoples' advice. I'm new to this forum and didn't mean to shoot down anyone's comment by arguing for what I can see in the actual coin. But I guess the idea is I'm supposed to just take your word as gospel and be on my way. So I'll do that.
Welcome to the forum!
Looks like there might be some slightly pushed up metal.
I have to agree on PMD.
I too lean towards pmd.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
@ifthevamzarockin
nice pickup on that
Debate is always good. Good debate is better. If you have a thin skin, okay. If not, I am hoping you'll still be here long enough in case a few of the real error experts that frequent these boards chime in. If they do, you should consider what they say.
There are many, many tons of experience here.
Anyway, welcome ... if you stay. Good luck either way.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
@ifthevamzarockin You mean the flaring at the edges of the numbers? Yeah I can see that being problematic for the pre-mint error argument. So now I'm confused about what could have caused this kind of damage to the coin post minting? The gouges are so precise and are isolated, for the most part, to the design of the coin. The best I can come up with is someone took a graver to it - practicing their inlaying skills and whatnot.
Not knowing exactly what was used on your coin I was able to come up with something close.
This was a quick attempt but notice there is not a lot of pushed up metal or distortion on the reverse.
@pursuitofliberty Thanks for the welcome! Stupid question but how does one spot an expert on this forum? A lot of people have said to wait for an expert to weigh in but I'm not familiar enough with the users here to know the difference.
"how does one spot an expert on this forum?"
Best question ever asked.
I guess I'm in the minority here, I don't think it's PMD- hear me out...
Look at this area, it appears that the metal was pushed over the valley during striking
It also looks like the grooves were on the planchet before the upsetting operation is we look at where the grooves meet the rim.
The intersection of the numbers with the grooves are not sharp as they would be if this was cut into the coin after production. The numbers appear to flow into them.
I think @GoldenEgg is correct
Collector, occasional seller
My initial reaction is a grinding or cutting tool, based on the look of it (excellent pics, by the way).
I am a little confused that it mostly stops before it hits the rim, but it also appears to impact the numbers as a rounded grinding bit might do.
Let's hear some more opinions.
I'm thinking PMD!
Good question. There are so many!
Well, a couple guys are pretty obvious if you know the numismatic game. Fred Weinberg posts here, for one. In most circles that talk about errors, he doesn't need an introduction.
Another way is to watch and see what people are saying, and how they respond to certain posters. Some of us have been around the block for years (and years) and while we may not be experts on everything, many of us have tons of eyes and hands on experience.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
There is also corresponding weakness in STATES OF A on the reverse, directly opposite of the grooves.
Collector, occasional seller
@ifthevamzarockin I agree your experimental results are a close match. I am still a little held up on the irregularity of the edges of the gouges in my coin where they approach the design elements (still just playing Devil's advocate here). Obviously a dremel tool would have no problem cutting straight though the relieved parts of the coin but I wish I had experience enough to know whether to expect this kind of "morphological irregularity" (or whatever:/) from gouges caused by engraving and other such practices.
Fred Weinberg is THE expert on mint errors
Circulation after the coin was cut could change the looks, it could clean small burrs off and push metal close to the rim back in place.
If we tag @FredWeinberg I'm sure he would be happy to help.
Another thing that I find kind of strange is that the deeper of the two gouges hasn't hit copper anywhere along its length. Is the cladding of Eisenhower dollars really that thick (I mostly mess around with pennies)? The gouge is, I would say, a tiny bit deeper than the height of the letters, but is fully just in the clad layer.
@ChrisH821 Yeah I noticed that particular part of the lower gouge too. What is suspicious to me is the fact that the striations on the opposite side of the gouge (visible in the image) are straight, despite the inward bowing of the other side. If this were the result of some tool being deflected near the limb of the 9, I would expect there to be evidence of that in the resulting scratches (the striations that is). I wonder if these gouges are some kind of weird strike through or something and then somebody afterwards came in and tried to clean them out, causing the scratches on the inside?
I think something was rolled into the flat stock before the blanks were punched and was freed at some point before striking, The grooves were on the blank from the beginning. That would explain the appearance at the rim(upsetting operation), it would explain the metal flow into the grooves, it would explain the corresponding weakness on the reverse letters.
Collector, occasional seller
@ChrisH821 Ah I hadn't thought of that. That might also explain the gouges being essentially parallel - very unlikely if they're the result of loose foreign objects struck into the coin but not inconceivable as pieces of closely-spaced foreign metal extruded into the planchet strip - I should think. In any case, I enjoy a good puzzle!
"Is the cladding of Eisenhower dollars really that thick"
Yes, it can be quite thick on Ike dollars.
The copper core may not be exactly centered and one side may have a slightly thicker layer.
Notice how my quick test also shows the scratches/striations?
If it is struck thru, what was it struck through?
What would have long straight lines?
If it was a string you would see the twist or weave.
If it was wire it would be smooth.
i'm quite late to the party but here is the link to rather larger images. -
Yes, I don't see how it could be a strike through, unless it was smooth and then someone scraped it up trying to clean out the indentations (bit of a stretch, I know, but not impossible).
Okay, let's assume that is the case. Do you think you could scrape or clean out the grove and make that even of
scratches that all line up & are parallel to each other?
Sorry, I'm gonna have to go with impossible.
I mean, I don't think it's that improbable; you would just need to run your cleaning tool up and down the length of the features using them as a guide to get that pattern of scratch marks. But anyway, it's just one way to explain the evidence. And I think by Occam's Razor alone you could safely rule out this rather convoluted explanation for what's happened to this coin. I'm still leaning toward it being an actual error (trying my best not to be biased as the owner of the coin) on the basis of the evidence for the gouges having been in place prior to striking.
By Occam's Razor, it's PMD, but if you want to insist otherwise, knock yourself out.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
I am wrong all the time.
And I do mean all the time.....I have never been right once yet. 
I am not an expert.
But I did get you thinking about other possibilities.
You are however in luck because an expert will be along to tell us we are both wrong.
When his name rhymes with Iceberg.
+1 fwiw
Good morning – it’s PMD in my opinion – was not on the planchet before it was struck and it did not leave the US Mint like that
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Welcome to the forums. You can take solace, knowing I spent my first five years here , fending off insults from others Insisting there are more than Twosides2acoin, while trying my hardest to not respond with "duh".
@FredWeinberg Thanks for the help! Pmd it is.
tuppence, It is good to see you accept Fred's opinion gracefully. Mr Weinberg is THE expert on errors. Several of the posters who responded to you are quite knowledgeable also. I am glad to see someone who accepts the answer they did not want with some grace.
Thanks for the nice words but I’m not THE Expert – just one of many who has dealt in Mint error Coins for a long time
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
@wrthtuppence I would like to see this coin. You have a PM.
Collector, occasional seller
Sorry, no one is buying that.
IMO, if those cuts were on the planchet before the coin was struck, you would’ve expected to see some “ghost like” image of the digit inside of the canyon area - and all we see is flat thin parallel lines inside the Grooves,With no hint of the digit
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
@FredWeinberg What about the idea that there was foreign metal inside the grooves during striking, which later popped out (a la strike through that isn't retained)? If something like that were the case, would you still expect to see ghost digits inside the grooves? Again, I'm only assuming mint error here for the sake of discussion - not because I want it not to be pmd.
PMD without question.
That’s my vote.