Damaged Error Coin?

ctf_error_coins

We all make mistakes....

A while ago I bought what I thought was an error coin but when I got it in I decided it was damaged and put it aside.

I was cleaning up my computer desk top and ran across the images of that coins and said WTF, I'll post it for you all to see and see if you agree with my assessment and or add your own comments.

I thought I was buying an obverse missing clad layer coin. After reviewing the obverse image, I concluded that it is missing the clad layer but the coin was damaged from perhaps a counting machine. Now the reverse looks like a slight broadstruck (which is why it got caught in the counting machine?) and also an improperly annealed planchet. A lot going on or a lot of damage?

I am seriously ready to throw this coin in the trash.

What say you?

gumby1234

Definitely looks like some post mint damage going on. Maybe went thru the dryer?

ctf_error_coins

@gumby1234 said:
Definitely looks like some post mint damage going on. Maybe went thru the dryer?

Can't be a dryer, odds are off the charts for an error coin to go thru a dryer, odds say a rolling or counting machine especially if broadstruck.

seanq

Looks chemically altered to me. I'd expect a bolder rim if the clad layer was missing before it was struck and weaker central design it it separated after the strike.

Sean Reynolds

ctf_error_coins

@seanq said:
Looks chemically altered to me. I'd expect a bolder rim if the clad layer was missing before it was struck and weaker central design it it separated after the strike.

Sean Reynolds

I wondered about that, but I do not think that's the case.

Both the undamaged part of the clad layer look correct as well as the coloring of an improperly anneal planchet.

Odd Coin, that is why I posted it.

seanq

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@seanq said:
Looks chemically altered to me. I'd expect a bolder rim if the clad layer was missing before it was struck and weaker central design it it separated after the strike.

Sean Reynolds

I wondered about that, but I do not think that's the case.

Both the undamaged part of the clad layer look correct as well as the coloring of an improperly anneal planchet.

Odd Coin, that is why I posted it.

My fist question should have been the weight, that would tell you right away if you have a missing clad layer. Given it's the Bicentennial year, do you think maybe it was encased and/or polished or plated?

Sean Reynolds

ctf_error_coins

@seanq said:

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@seanq said:
Looks chemically altered to me. I'd expect a bolder rim if the clad layer was missing before it was struck and weaker central design it it separated after the strike.

Sean Reynolds

I wondered about that, but I do not think that's the case.

Both the undamaged part of the clad layer look correct as well as the coloring of an improperly anneal planchet.

Odd Coin, that is why I posted it.

My fist question should have been the weight, that would tell you right away if you have a missing clad layer. Given it's the Bicentennial year, do you think maybe it was encased and/or polished or plated?

Sean Reynolds

I did wonder about encased and still do.

But "UNITED" has some some serious metal flow.

I did not weigh it, but it should be lite with the obverse edge being ground down.

ChrisH821

If I had to guess I'd say it also missed the rim upsetting process. That may explain the weakness around the edges and the partial collar strike.

jonathanb

Weight isn't always diagnostic for missing clad layers, depending on where in the process the clad layer started being missing.

In this case, though, the coin looks like a legit error and I bet the weight will be light.

BryceM

I have no idea, but before you toss it in the garbage, send it to me.

Oldhoopster

To me, the giveaway for damage is the remaining silver "clad" material that's visible. One of the causes of a missing clad layer is poor bonding which allows the layers to separate. Notice how the silver areas are flush and blend with the copper. In order for that to happen there would have to some bonding. Then, as the clad pulled away, there would have to be enough force to cause the clad layer to tear WITHIN the alloy layer and not at the interface.

In addition, it would be very unlikely that if there was an intralayer tear, ALL of the edges would be flush and smooth. There should be some distinct edge(s) like is seen on many partial clad errors. Look at those errors and notice that there are distinct edges, not the gradual blending seen on the OPs coin.

That's why I think that the appearance of flush, fully blended layers are not a likely occurance from a metallurgy or mechanics standpoint.

jonathanb

Another of the causes of a missing clad layer is when the ends of the three layers are out of alignment. That can result in a planchet that never had a clad layer to start with. In a case like that, there is nothing nothing to pull away, and no tearing involved.

ctf_error_coins

@Oldhoopster said:
To me, the giveaway for damage is the remaining silver "clad" material that's visible. One of the causes of a missing clad layer is poor bonding which allows the layers to separate. Notice how the silver areas are flush and blend with the copper. In order for that to happen there would have to some bonding. Then, as the clad pulled away, there would have to be enough force to cause the clad layer to tear WITHIN the alloy layer and not at the interface.

In addition, it would be very unlikely that if there was an intralayer tear, ALL of the edges would be flush and smooth. There should be some distinct edge(s) like is seen on many partial clad errors. Look at those errors and notice that there are distinct edges, not the gradual blending seen on the OPs coin.

That's why I think that the appearance of flush, fully blended layers are not a likely occurance from a metallurgy or mechanics standpoint.

There are many missing clad layer coins that have silver streaks. Here is an certified example of one ...

Since I am loading photos, here is a certified example of a improperly annealed planchet error ...

MedalCollector

@ErrorsOnCoins said:
Now the reverse looks like a slight broadstruck (which is why it got caught in the counting machine?) and also an improperly annealed planchet.

Does it have reeding? If so, it’s not broadstruck.

If I had to guess, based on the photos, it is as you speculate: a missing obverse clad layer and improperly annealed.

To me, everything appears Mint-made, but the real question is just, how? Mike Diamond will give you the best answer. I recommend reaching out to him. He is THE best in error attribution.

jmlanzaf

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@seanq said:
Looks chemically altered to me. I'd expect a bolder rim if the clad layer was missing before it was struck and weaker central design it it separated after the strike.

Sean Reynolds

I wondered about that, but I do not think that's the case.

Both the undamaged part of the clad layer look correct as well as the coloring of an improperly anneal planchet.

Odd Coin, that is why I posted it.

Chemical stripping usually won't leave the surfaces so smooth or the features that sharp.

jmlanzaf

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@seanq said:

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@seanq said:
Looks chemically altered to me. I'd expect a bolder rim if the clad layer was missing before it was struck and weaker central design it it separated after the strike.

Sean Reynolds

I wondered about that, but I do not think that's the case.

Both the undamaged part of the clad layer look correct as well as the coloring of an improperly anneal planchet.

Odd Coin, that is why I posted it.

My fist question should have been the weight, that would tell you right away if you have a missing clad layer. Given it's the Bicentennial year, do you think maybe it was encased and/or polished or plated?

Sean Reynolds

I did wonder about encased and still do.

But "UNITED" has some some serious metal flow.

I did not weigh it, but it should be lite with the obverse edge being ground down.

But it should be very light without the layer

ctf_error_coins

@jmlanzaf said:

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@seanq said:

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@seanq said:
Looks chemically altered to me. I'd expect a bolder rim if the clad layer was missing before it was struck and weaker central design it it separated after the strike.

Sean Reynolds

I wondered about that, but I do not think that's the case.

Both the undamaged part of the clad layer look correct as well as the coloring of an improperly anneal planchet.

Odd Coin, that is why I posted it.

My fist question should have been the weight, that would tell you right away if you have a missing clad layer. Given it's the Bicentennial year, do you think maybe it was encased and/or polished or plated?

Sean Reynolds

I did wonder about encased and still do.

But "UNITED" has some some serious metal flow.

I did not weigh it, but it should be lite with the obverse edge being ground down.

But it should be very light without the layer

Missing clad layer can be any thickness even normal, it all depends on how it was rolled out.

Oldhoopster

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@Oldhoopster said:
To me, the giveaway for damage is the remaining silver "clad" material that's visible. One of the causes of a missing clad layer is poor bonding which allows the layers to separate. Notice how the silver areas are flush and blend with the copper. In order for that to happen there would have to some bonding. Then, as the clad pulled away, there would have to be enough force to cause the clad layer to tear WITHIN the alloy layer and not at the interface.

In addition, it would be very unlikely that if there was an intralayer tear, ALL of the edges would be flush and smooth. There should be some distinct edge(s) like is seen on many partial clad errors. Look at those errors and notice that there are distinct edges, not the gradual blending seen on the OPs coin.

That's why I think that the appearance of flush, fully blended layers are not a likely occurance from a metallurgy or mechanics standpoint.

There are many missing clad layer coins that have silver streaks. Here is an certified example of one ...

Since I am loading photos, here is a certified example of a improperly annealed planchet error ...

That is nothing like the coin in the OP. Just some very light areas where the nickel has diffused into the copper. This type of diffusion wouldn't be subject to intralayer tearing.

ricko

I will be following this thread closely. Already learned something. Cheers, RickO

Treashunt

@ricko said:
I will be following this thread closely. Already learned something. Cheers, RickO

agreed, I learned that we can disagree about anything

ctf_error_coins

I think we all agree that this coin would not straight grade at a TPG.

That is all that matters to me.

MedalCollector

@ErrorsOnCoins said:
I think we all agree that this coin would not straight grade at a TPG.

That is all that matters to me.

I’m not trying to be a jerk, but what damage are you talking about? I don’t see any.

seanq

@GoldenEgg said:

@ErrorsOnCoins said:
I think we all agree that this coin would not straight grade at a TPG.

That is all that matters to me.

I’m not trying to be a jerk, but what damage are you talking about? I don’t see any.

Personally I think the obverse rim was worn down artificially. If the strike was that weak you would expect the elements along the rim on the reverse to be just as poorly struck, which they are not.

Sean Reynolds

ctf_error_coins

@GoldenEgg said:

@ErrorsOnCoins said:
I think we all agree that this coin would not straight grade at a TPG.

That is all that matters to me.

I’m not trying to be a jerk, but what damage are you talking about? I don’t see any.

The obverse rim was ground down after the strike and not before, right?

jonathanb

The obverse rim was ground down after the strike and not before, right?

Based on the picture alone, I wouldn't be so sure.

ChrisH821

@ErrorsOnCoins said:

@GoldenEgg said:

@ErrorsOnCoins said:
I think we all agree that this coin would not straight grade at a TPG.

That is all that matters to me.

I’m not trying to be a jerk, but what damage are you talking about? I don’t see any.

The obverse rim was ground down after the strike and not before, right?

I don't think it was. It has a look... see the same sort of texture in the high areas of the hair.
Could the planchet have been damaged before striking? That's what it looks like to me.

ChrisH821

If the obverse rim was ground down after striking then the reverse peripheral details, mainly the rim that's missing yet has a square-ish edge, would be stronger. The fact they are also weak/missing indicates that the planchet was thin around the edge prior to striking.
What does the edge look like?
Is the reverse die the hammer die for these?

MedalCollector

@seanq said:

@GoldenEgg said:

@ErrorsOnCoins said:
I think we all agree that this coin would not straight grade at a TPG.

That is all that matters to me.

I’m not trying to be a jerk, but what damage are you talking about? I don’t see any.

Personally I think the obverse rim was worn down artificially. If the strike was that weak you would expect the elements along the rim on the reverse to be just as poorly struck, which they are not.

Sean Reynolds

The reverse design rim is completely absent, and the outside portion of the reverse lettering is weak. As @ChrisH821 indicates above, that indicates that the thickness of the proto-rim was not enough to strike up details on either face of the coin along the edge.

The obverse lettering also shows strong metal flow lines, as if the metal was flowing outward to where it was absent during strike. This type of metal flow is not typically seen on an in-collar strike in the modern era.

Additionally, If the obverse was damaged, one would expect there be hairlines or polishing marks. Instead, this area along the obverse rim looks like an unstruck planchet would, exactly what it should look like if it did not make full contact with the dies during striking.

gumby1234

Does the coin have a reeded edge?