@ms70 said:
Is there a way to tell if those are the middle two digits or the last two? From the reverse alignment I would suppose you could figure it out.
It's the middle two, not the last two, based on the punches used in the 70s vs 90s.
@MWallace said:
If it was in my collection in a 2x2 or a flip, I would "Date" it "X97X"
I would have dated it 197X since the first digit is obviously a one.
I get what you're saying, but in the old days (before slabs), we would label a coin with the numbers of the date that are present, use an "X" for those that aren't present, and put the numbers in ( ) that are known but not present. So in the case of this coin either "X97X" or (1)97X would work. I preferred "X97X". Lets say that a 90% silver Half or a Bicentennial Half were struck off center with none of the date showed, it would be "dated" on the label as (1964) or (1976) respectively.
Any old time error collectors out there that want to back me up? Please?
Interesting, but don't you go by the full date? 1973, 1979, and 1997 are all prime numbers. 1971, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1977, and 1978 are not. We can rule out 1970 (not 40%) and 1975 (no dated pieces that year).
Interesting, but don't you go by the full date? 1973, 1979, and 1997 are all prime numbers. 1971, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1977, and 1978 are not. We can rule out 1970 (not 40%) and 1975 (no dated pieces that year).
Yes, I go by the full date, and the date has to be full. This coin would go into the oddball appendix of an already admittedly oddball collection.
while you are at it, do an overlay to find the normal round edge where the error is at and you'll find this o/c is closer to 97% than 90%. that extra metal is squeezed out quite a bit.
@LanceNewmanOCC said:
while you are at it, do an overlay to find the normal round edge where the error is at and you'll find this o/c is closer to 97% than 90%. that extra metal is squeezed out quite a bit.
@LanceNewmanOCC said:
while you are at it, do an overlay to find the normal round edge where the error is at and you'll find this o/c is closer to 97% than 90%. that extra metal is squeezed out quite a bit.
I have a Type-2 clad quarter o/c probably 98%. Only area showing is the curved rim. Much like the red circled area in the above photo. It has a hint of the copper core showing. Wonder if it is worth the cost of submission.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
I have a Type-2 clad quarter o/c probably 98%. Only area showing is the curved rim. Much like the red circled area in the above photo. It has a hint of the copper core showing. Wonder if it is worth the cost of submission.
I'm afraid I don't know, but would also be interested in knowing the answer!
@MWallace said:
If it was in my collection in a 2x2 or a flip, I would "Date" it "X97X"
I would have dated it 197X since the first digit is obviously a one.
I get what you're saying, but in the old days (before slabs), we would label a coin with the numbers of the date that are present, use an "X" for those that aren't present, and put the numbers in ( ) that are known but not present. So in the case of this coin either "X97X" or (1)97X would work. I preferred "X97X". Lets say that a 90% silver Half or a Bicentennial Half were struck off center with none of the date showed, it would be "dated" on the label as (1964) or (1976) respectively.
Any old time error collectors out there that want to back me up? Please?
I've seen well worn one year type coins such as the chain cent without any trace of the date in PCGS slabs with the date 1793 rather than No Date or XXXX. I just wish they would be consistent.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
@MWallace said:
If it was in my collection in a 2x2 or a flip, I would "Date" it "X97X"
I would have dated it 197X since the first digit is obviously a one.
I get what you're saying, but in the old days (before slabs), we would label a coin with the numbers of the date that are present, use an "X" for those that aren't present, and put the numbers in ( ) that are known but not present. So in the case of this coin either "X97X" or (1)97X would work. I preferred "X97X". Lets say that a 90% silver Half or a Bicentennial Half were struck off center with none of the date showed, it would be "dated" on the label as (1964) or (1976) respectively.
Any old time error collectors out there that want to back me up? Please?
I've seen well worn one year type coins such as the chain cent without any trace of the date in PCGS slabs with the date 1793 rather than No Date or XXXX. I just wish they would be consistent.
A slick chain cent was struck with a full date, so using 1793 would be consistent.
One case that isn't covered is if the date is known only because of the context of the coin's find. If the OP coin had been added to a collection first in 1971, it would be known to be a 1971 half. In 1971, (1)97(1) would have made sense, but in 1972, it would have needed additional explanation. I have a (2007-D) MEL Washington $1, known to be a D because it was in an original roll and is now in a "First Day" slab. Were it pulled from circulation, it would be a (2007-X)... or (2007)-X.
I realized that, with the image in hand, there is a far easier and more accurate way to calculate the percentage off center of the strike - by using the measuring tool in a photo editing program. I used GIMP, but you can use Photoshop or whatever.
First, draw a line from one end of the coin to the other, passing directly through the middle of the struck area. Use the measuring tool to confirm that this is, in fact, the longest line you can draw through the coin. Record the measurement - in this case, it is 583 pixels. Now, measure the segment going through only the struck area - in this case, 58.3 pixels.
The struck area corresponds to exactly 10% of the total distance from one end of the coin to the other, meaning that it was struck 90% off center, on the dot (or as close to the dot as I can measure, anyway ).
@IkesT said:
The struck area corresponds to exactly 10% of the total distance from one end of the coin to the other, meaning that it was struck 90% off center, on the dot (or as close to the dot as I can measure, anyway ).
well done!
so much for eyeballin' it.
edited to add: your post also helped my brain to answer a long un-answered question. do dies (from this period have preset distances the dies travel. in this case, no. the dies come all the way together. allowing for a little thin piece to be fully struck.
now i think about it, that question should have already been answered by clashed dies.
so NOW the question is, where did i pick up that dies have a preset distance. die adjustment strikes/weak strikes? different machines for different eras?
so then weak/die adjustment have some sort of pressure/hydraulic/weight issue.
The explanation of weak strikes on error-ref.com refers to striking pressure and die clearance as both being contributing factors, which would indicate that both of them are adjustable:
It does appear that, under normal settings, dies are able to clash and undersized pieces of metal can still be struck up, at least to some degree. Both of these are variable, of course. You can have slight to very strong die clashes. Coins struck on undersized planchets can come out looking very differently from each other. Quarters struck on 10c stock, for example, can be very weakly struck or practically fully struck, in some cases.
ctf_error_coins
Posts: 15,433 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
How can they call that no date? Nice piece btw.
Thanks, can you tell me the date?
I did include the reverse image.
Neat!
I can be a 1971-1979. It looks to be a stronger strike which would place it in the 70's not '97.
Young Numismatist/collector
75 Positive BST transactions buying and selling with 45 members and counting!
instagram.com/klnumismatics
Nice error!
It's at least a partial date. With that said, I didn't think about the ambiguity suggested by the other poster.
Very nice! For some reasons, these remind me of guitar picks
Pretty dang cool!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Definitely cool!
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
It's definitely a 1970s "P" clad coin.
Not a 1997 as it uses a different punch for the "9".
Wow... That is a unique partial strike...No way to be sure of the date...Thanks for showing us... Cheers, RickO
Well it's clad and it's a 50¢ planchet, so I'd get it corrected before 2097 rolls around.
Is there a way to tell if those are the middle two digits or the last two? From the reverse alignment I would suppose you could figure it out.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Imagine if we're making plastic coins in 2097 and the Mint makes a nostalgic clad version
It's the middle two, not the last two, based on the punches used in the 70s vs 90s.
It's also a no mintmark "P" coin.
Obviously struck in the year 97.
I call em as I see em, unencumbered by the thought process.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I think it's a 1975!
That's a good one!
If it was in my collection in a 2x2 or a flip, I would "Date" it "X97X"
I would have dated it 197X since the first digit is obviously a one.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I get what you're saying, but in the old days (before slabs), we would label a coin with the numbers of the date that are present, use an "X" for those that aren't present, and put the numbers in ( ) that are known but not present. So in the case of this coin either "X97X" or (1)97X would work. I preferred "X97X". Lets say that a 90% silver Half or a Bicentennial Half were struck off center with none of the date showed, it would be "dated" on the label as (1964) or (1976) respectively.
Any old time error collectors out there that want to back me up? Please?
Nice error.
.
Isn't the mint mark usually higher? How can you tell it is a P or plain versus a branch mint? Not my series...
It's a Carr fantasy error!
There could also be an issue with rotated dies so the position relative to the reverse wouldn't necessarily be 100% conclusive...
Hmmm.... 97 is a prime number...
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Interesting, but don't you go by the full date? 1973, 1979, and 1997 are all prime numbers. 1971, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1977, and 1978 are not. We can rule out 1970 (not 40%) and 1975 (no dated pieces that year).
Yes, I go by the full date, and the date has to be full. This coin would go into the oddball appendix of an already admittedly oddball collection.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Well done IkesT!
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
while you are at it, do an overlay to find the normal round edge where the error is at and you'll find this o/c is closer to 97% than 90%. that extra metal is squeezed out quite a bit.
@LanceNewmanOCC
Edit: Sorry, I got mixed up up the first time!
If it is more than 90% off, then you should be able to line up more than 10 of those segments in the coin.
Since you can line up slightly less than 10 segments in the coin, that indicates the strike is in fact less than 90% off center (but not much less).
I have a Type-2 clad quarter o/c probably 98%. Only area showing is the curved rim. Much like the red circled area in the above photo. It has a hint of the copper core showing. Wonder if it is worth the cost of submission.
I'm afraid I don't know, but would also be interested in knowing the answer!
I've seen well worn one year type coins such as the chain cent without any trace of the date in PCGS slabs with the date 1793 rather than No Date or XXXX. I just wish they would be consistent.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
A slick chain cent was struck with a full date, so using 1793 would be consistent.
One case that isn't covered is if the date is known only because of the context of the coin's find. If the OP coin had been added to a collection first in 1971, it would be known to be a 1971 half. In 1971, (1)97(1) would have made sense, but in 1972, it would have needed additional explanation. I have a (2007-D) MEL Washington $1, known to be a D because it was in an original roll and is now in a "First Day" slab. Were it pulled from circulation, it would be a (2007-X)... or (2007)-X.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
@LanceNewmanOCC
I realized that, with the image in hand, there is a far easier and more accurate way to calculate the percentage off center of the strike - by using the measuring tool in a photo editing program. I used GIMP, but you can use Photoshop or whatever.
First, draw a line from one end of the coin to the other, passing directly through the middle of the struck area. Use the measuring tool to confirm that this is, in fact, the longest line you can draw through the coin. Record the measurement - in this case, it is 583 pixels. Now, measure the segment going through only the struck area - in this case, 58.3 pixels.
The struck area corresponds to exactly 10% of the total distance from one end of the coin to the other, meaning that it was struck 90% off center, on the dot (or as close to the dot as I can measure, anyway
).
well done!
so much for eyeballin' it.
edited to add: your post also helped my brain to answer a long un-answered question. do dies (from this period have preset distances the dies travel. in this case, no. the dies come all the way together. allowing for a little thin piece to be fully struck.
now i think about it, that question should have already been answered by clashed dies.
so NOW the question is, where did i pick up that dies have a preset distance. die adjustment strikes/weak strikes? different machines for different eras?
so then weak/die adjustment have some sort of pressure/hydraulic/weight issue.
@LanceNewmanOCC
The explanation of weak strikes on error-ref.com refers to striking pressure and die clearance as both being contributing factors, which would indicate that both of them are adjustable:
http://www.error-ref.com/weak_strikesinsufficientrampressure/#:~:text=Definition: A weak strike results,(excessive minimum die clearance).&text=Insufficient die approximation refers to,the absence of a planchet.
It does appear that, under normal settings, dies are able to clash and undersized pieces of metal can still be struck up, at least to some degree. Both of these are variable, of course. You can have slight to very strong die clashes. Coins struck on undersized planchets can come out looking very differently from each other. Quarters struck on 10c stock, for example, can be very weakly struck or practically fully struck, in some cases.