What is going on with this 3 Cent?

RelicKING

Anyone care to to give thoughts on this 1852 3 C/S? Looks like more than just a single thing going on here. Hope pics are clear enough without taking it out of the 2x2.

Steve_in_Tampa

Flagged (wrong forum)

RelicKING

how is my question about us currency not a us currency forum question? i got confused when i saw 0 error sub categories and a billion others just like me asking these same sort of questions here?

ricko

Post mint damage (PMD) and a die crack by the date. Cheers, RickO

dcarr

The series of parallel grooves on the obverse and reverse are a planchet defect, similar to the "adjustment marks" seen on earlier US silver coinage. They are unusual on a 3-cent piece, but I don't think they add any value, nor does the die break at the date. The deep scratch across the "III" appears to be post-strike damage.

The deformity on some letters (such as UNITED STATES) is typical of a strike where there is a lot of radial movement of planchet metal during the strike. Although this coin is not broad-struck, the deformation of the letters is very similar to a broad-strike situation.

I also see some die clashing near UNITED (faint circles and diamond). That is also a little unusual for a 3-cent silver.

Definitely a lot going on with that one.

jmlanzaf

@dcarr said:
The series of parallel grooves on the obverse and reverse are a planchet defect, similar to the "adjustment marks" seen on earlier US silver coinage. They are unusual on a 3-cent piece, but I don't think they add any value, nor does the die break at the date. The deep scratch across the "III" appears to be post-strike damage.

The deformity on some letters (such as UNITED STATES) is typical of a strike where there is a lot of radial movement of planchet metal during the strike. Although this coin is not broad-struck, the deformation of the letters is very similar to a broad-strike situation.

I also see some die clashing near UNITED (faint circles and diamond). That is also a little unusual for a 3-cent silver.

Definitely a lot going on with that one.

Is that a scratch?

lilolme

@jmlanzaf said:

@dcarr said:
The series of parallel grooves on the obverse and reverse are a planchet defect, similar to the "adjustment marks" seen on earlier US silver coinage. They are unusual on a 3-cent piece, but I don't think they add any value, nor does the die break at the date. The deep scratch across the "III" appears to be post-strike damage.

The deformity on some letters (such as UNITED STATES) is typical of a strike where there is a lot of radial movement of planchet metal during the strike. Although this coin is not broad-struck, the deformation of the letters is very similar to a broad-strike situation.

I also see some die clashing near UNITED (faint circles and diamond). That is also a little unusual for a 3-cent silver.

Definitely a lot going on with that one.

Is that a scratch?

Initially that is what I thought but when I blew up the pictures I then thought - I don't know as it is kind of smooth and I don't see any raised metal.

RelicKING

i personally doubt its a scratch like everyone automatically assumes so quickly it almost reminds me of a struck through staple or metal debris maybe.

RelicKING

coins never look pretty so close under magnification but this one appears MS/UNC to the eyes.

Oldhoopster

@RelicKING said:
i personally doubt its a scratch like everyone automatically assumes so quickly it almost reminds me of a struck through staple or metal debris maybe.

Based on your pics, there looks like there is displaced, raised metal on both sides of the line. A strike through doesn't leave raised metal after the strike. However, a scratch does

PMD scratch IMO

FredWeinberg

IMO– it’s a scratch

RelicKING

Based on your pics, there looks like there is displaced, raised metal on both sides of the line. A strike through doesn't leave raised metal after the strike. However, a scratch does

PMD scratch IMO

this is the closest i can get without needing more equipment and i totally get what you are saying about how metal scratches but its not raised up or out but from what im seeing thats jut where it starts going in almost like a ridge then cliff.

RelicKING

went ahead and took it out of 2x2 scratch or not scratch so i could take a couple whole pictures without the glare. enjoy and thanks for help to all regardless of outcomes or who is right who is wrong just something ive been meaning to look at for a while now.

jmlanzaf

@RelicKING said:

Based on your pics, there looks like there is displaced, raised metal on both sides of the line. A strike through doesn't leave raised metal after the strike. However, a scratch does

PMD scratch IMO

this is the closest i can get without needing more equipment and i totally get what you are saying about how metal scratches but its not raised up or out but from what im seeing thats jut where it starts going in almost like a ridge then cliff.

Looks like a scratch in that photo.

jmlanzaf

@RelicKING said:
went ahead and took it out of 2x2 scratch or not scratch so i could take a couple whole pictures without the glare. enjoy and thanks for help to all regardless of outcomes or who is right who is wrong just something ive been meaning to look at for a while now.

Yup, it's a scratch.

telephoto1

Looks like a melange of minor die issues (die cracks, recut letters etc.) along with a big ol' scratch (and several lesser ones).

dcarr

If the horizontal line across the "III" was a struck-through wire or something, the width of the indentation would be exactly the same all the way across.

If it was a deep groove in the planchet prior to striking, then the gap would close up somewhat when struck, and the areas where the groove crosses over the "III" would be wider and the rest of the groove would be narrower (there is more force applied to the planchet in the fields than on the devices because the fields on the die penetrate deeper into the planchet than other parts of the die). This is why traditional "adjustment marks" are more evident when they cross over a raised device (such as a bust) on a coin.

But note that if there is circulation wear, that can erase such marks on the highest points of a coin.

But on the coin in question, the gash is wider on top of the "III" than it is in the fields. This is the opposite of what would happen if the gash existed pre-strike. However, some handling and wear could reduce the width of the gash on the higher points. I don't see much wear on the coin, though.

I see what looks like a very thin and small ridge of metal bordering the groove, between the first and second "I", and between the second and third.

crazyhounddog

Didn't the mint roll the material out and stamp the planchets? I'm pretty sure they did. So, if that's the case maybe they are roller marks. Just my thoughts.
Carry on