1887 Off-Center Brockage Morgan Dollar!

Zoins

Morgan13

That is one cool error coin. I'd love to own it.

Rampage

@Zoins

Is that your new addition? It’s wonderful.

FredWeinberg

Fantastic error – must be a new discovery. I’m not aware of it.
(was this pictured in the Don Taxay book 50 yrs. Ago?)

jfriedm56

Wonder error. I’m sure it’s as rare as hen’s teeth!

CaptHenway

Double DANG!

oldabeintx

Not an error guy here, but that is exceptional. Must be extremely rare for a coin that size and that dramatic an error to make it out of the mint.

messydesk

johnny9434

😎

Byers

Mint Error News published this new discovery on Sept 9th in issue 73 of the magazine, and as an article.

Mint Error News has the exclusive images of the coin raw, prior to being submitted to PCGS. It had very heavy toning.

https://minterrornews.com/discoveries-9-9-24-pcgs-certifies-1887-morgan-dollar-struck-off-center-with-a-brockage-reverse-ms-63.html

Byers

It is being auctioned today at SB:

https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-1DU6GQ/1887-morgan-silver-dollar-brockage-struck-55-off-center-ms-63-pcgs-cmq

Shurke

Absolutely wild!

PROMETHIUS88

First off...amazing coin!
Couple questions on areas that I'm admittedly an extreme novice.
The 63 seems generous. I'm not at all familiar with grading mint errors. Does seem accurate?
Also, how does a coin that previously had heavy toning get a straight grade? I would assume some "conservation" was done on this coin as opposed to "cleaning"?

Thanks for the clarification from the experts!

WinLoseWin

I give it an MS-63 obverse and Negative MS-63 reverse.

Byers

@PROMETHIUS88 said:
First off...amazing coin!
Couple questions on areas that I'm admittedly an extreme novice.
The 63 seems generous. I'm not at all familiar with grading mint errors. Does seem accurate?
Also, how does a coin that previously had heavy toning get a straight grade? I would assume some "conservation" was done on this coin as opposed to "cleaning"?

Thanks for the clarification from the experts!

Tons of coins with very heavy toning are conserved at PCGS and NGC, and straight graded.

PROMETHIUS88

@Byers said:

@PROMETHIUS88 said:
First off...amazing coin!
Couple questions on areas that I'm admittedly an extreme novice.
The 63 seems generous. I'm not at all familiar with grading mint errors. Does seem accurate?
Also, how does a coin that previously had heavy toning get a straight grade? I would assume some "conservation" was done on this coin as opposed to "cleaning"?

Thanks for the clarification from the experts!

Tons of coins with very heavy toning are conserved at PCGS and NGC, and straight graded.

Yeah, I get that. I had been out of the numismatic hobby for a few years and it was a hard concept to wrap my head around coming back in. On the sports card side of things, "conservation" would be considered altering which is highly frowned upon Within numismatics, art, etc, it is a widely accepted practice.
I wasn't sure if all conserved coins are straight graded with no reference to the prior conservation. Would make sense if it was somehow referenced on a slab when encapsulated.

Appreciate the response!

jacrispies

Remarkable! If coins could talk, this one would probably start off with "ouch" then continue with its story.

@Byers said:
Mint Error News published this new discovery on Sept 9th in issue 73 of the magazine, and as an article.

Mint Error News has the exclusive images of the coin raw, prior to being submitted to PCGS. It had very heavy toning.

https://minterrornews.com/discoveries-9-9-24-pcgs-certifies-1887-morgan-dollar-struck-off-center-with-a-brockage-reverse-ms-63.html

Is the heavy toning noted in your photos? I see the light toning on the obverse matching the auction photos, but perhaps the reverse (incuse side) is slightly darker on the left half of the unstruck portion. Is that the heavy toning you are referring to?

Byers

@jacrispies said:
Remarkable! If coins could talk, this one would probably start off with "ouch" then continue with its story.

@Byers said:
Mint Error News published this new discovery on Sept 9th in issue 73 of the magazine, and as an article.

Mint Error News has the exclusive images of the coin raw, prior to being submitted to PCGS. It had very heavy toning.

https://minterrornews.com/discoveries-9-9-24-pcgs-certifies-1887-morgan-dollar-struck-off-center-with-a-brockage-reverse-ms-63.html

Is the heavy toning noted in your photos? I see the light toning on the obverse matching the auction photos, but perhaps the reverse (incuse side) is slightly darker on the left half of the unstruck portion. Is that the heavy toning you are referring to?

It was completely original with heavy toning on both sides. The comparison photos side by side show the difference.

jacrispies

@Byers
I don't mean to oppose and defend the coin, I am more curious than anything. I also held this coin raw in hand before certification and the coin looks exactly the same. It looks like a lighting difference between the Stack's photos and your photos. Stack's photos can tend to be bright sometimes, which may add to the change in appearance.

Byers

@jacrispies said:
@Byers
I don't mean to oppose and defend the coin, I am more curious than anything. I also held this coin raw in hand before certification and the coin looks exactly the same. It looks like a lighting difference between the Stack's photos and your photos. Stack's photos can tend to be bright sometimes, which may add to the change in appearance.

I have not viewed it in the PCGS holder. Anything is possible. Maybe you are correct.

ChrisH821

Not that it really matters, but how was this identified as an 1887, rather than an 1887-S or 1887-O?
I think the holder should read 1887( )
Again, it doesn't really matter.

CaptHenway

@ChrisH821 said:
Not that it really matters, but how was this identified as an 1887, rather than an 1887-S or 1887-O?
I think the holder should read 1887( )
Again, it doesn't really matter.

Good question. VAM variety perhaps?

messydesk

There's a non-zero chance the mint could be attributed from the date. There are several repunched and misplaced dates in 1887 that could indicate which mint made it.

Overdate

@messydesk said:
There's a non-zero chance the mint could be attributed from the date. There are several repunched and misplaced dates in 1887 that could indicate which mint made it.

I like to think it's the one and only 1887-CC.

RobertScotLover

Flippin phenomenal Morgan error

EXOJUNKIE

Shurke

I’m just checking up on my error knowledge here.

So for this coin occur, there had to be two consecutive, nearly identical off center strikes, right? The first one became a die cap, which then struck the coin we’re all admiring here.

Have I got that correct?

CaptHenway

@Overdate said:

@messydesk said:
There's a non-zero chance the mint could be attributed from the date. There are several repunched and misplaced dates in 1887 that could indicate which mint made it.

I like to think it's the one and only 1887-CC.

Ali will have them next week.

CaptHenway

@Shurke said:
I’m just checking up on my error knowledge here.

So for this coin occur, there had to be two consecutive, nearly identical off center strikes, right? The first one became a die cap, which then struck the coin we’re all admiring here.

Have I got that correct?

No. The first strike is normal, centered between the dies, but the coin did not exit the dies. The second planchet came in partly overlapping the first coin, and directly underneath the part of the obverse die that struck the area being covered, and the obverse die descended, striking this coin between part of the obverse die and the corresponding part of the previously struck coin. The previously struck coin sank the covered part of its design into the second coin.

Shurke

@CaptHenway

Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated! Guess that shows how much work my error knowledge needs.

CaptHenway

@EXOJUNKIE said:

Sounds cheap!

MrEureka

If you know your series well, it’s pretty easy to identify the mint of most coins without flipping them over to see the mintmark, and it’s even easier with mint state coins. In the case of this brockage, I think any Morgan Dollar expert would instantly know it’s a Philly product.

Also, I saw the coin in hand and don’t think the toning has been lightened in any way. Maybe some residue was removed and that affected the look - I don’t know about that - but the toning and luster seemed very natural.

Byers

@MrEureka said:
If you know your series well, it’s pretty easy to identify the mint of most coins without flipping them over to see the mintmark, and it’s even easier with mint state coins. In the case of this brockage, I think any Morgan Dollar expert would instantly know it’s a Philly product.

Also, I saw the coin in hand and don’t think the toning has been lightened in any way. Maybe some residue was removed and that affected the look - I don’t know about that - but the toning and luster seemed very natural.

Andy- a distinction needs to be made between ‘coin in hand’ and ‘slab in hand’.

I saw the coin in hand, you saw the slab in hand.

Only SB saw the coin in hand and the slab in hand.

You state that “ I saw the coin in hand and don’t think the toning has been lightened in any way”.

So does it look like the Mint Error News image or the SB image, with the slab in your hand???

Byers

@CaptHenway said:

@EXOJUNKIE said:

Sounds cheap!

Yes!

My guess was 100k.

MrEureka

@Byers said:

@MrEureka said:
If you know your series well, it’s pretty easy to identify the mint of most coins without flipping them over to see the mintmark, and it’s even easier with mint state coins. In the case of this brockage, I think any Morgan Dollar expert would instantly know it’s a Philly product.

Also, I saw the coin in hand and don’t think the toning has been lightened in any way. Maybe some residue was removed and that affected the look - I don’t know about that - but the toning and luster seemed very natural.

Andy- a distinction needs to be made between ‘coin in hand’ and ‘slab in hand’.

I saw the coin in hand, you saw the slab in hand.

Only SB saw the coin in hand and the slab in hand.

You state that “ I saw the coin in hand and don’t think the toning has been lightened in any way”.

So does it look like the Mint Error News image or the SB image, with the slab in your hand???

Correct. I never saw the coin out of the holder. Anyway, I think the coin looks most like the PCGS photo above.

Byers

It’s definitely an amazing mint error!

CaptHenway

@Byers said:
It’s definitely an amazing mint error!

Absolutely!

jt88

WOW, nice mint error. I think every collector should has some kind of mint error in his/her collection.

jt88

US mint error always gets the top dollar compared to other country’s mint error. This gold coin sold for 18k this month at ha. If is US or Chinese coin it should be 100k or higher

lilolme

Not sure it helps but I put together the pictures a little better. The Mint error news one is not as refined and I think a little out of focus(?).

Here are MEN and TV and then TV and Stacks (these two are more similar but can note some lighting type shifting).

.
.

messydesk

@MrEureka said:
If you know your series well, it’s pretty easy to identify the mint of most coins without flipping them over to see the mintmark, and it’s even easier with mint state coins. In the case of this brockage, I think any Morgan Dollar expert would instantly know it’s a Philly product.

All I can tell myself is that it's not flashy enough for an S coin. Regarding strike, all bets are off when you're dealing with errors. Anyone looking for a 45 Mercury dime with full bands that opts for a broadstrike will attest to that.

Byers

@jt88 said:
US mint error always gets the top dollar compared to other country’s mint error. This gold coin sold for 18k this month at ha. If is US or Chinese coin it should be 100k or higher

It’s the furthest known off center KR. I have handled a 5% off-center, (2) broadstrucks and (2) partial collars. But this one blows away everything else!

Zoins

Amazing coin and wonderful result! I'm glad our hosts and @homerunhall like it!

Great article from Mint Error News, Mike @Byers ! Love the tracking of other Morgan off centers in the article!

And wonderful Krugerrand @jt88! Amazing to see one so OC in gold!

dcarr

The error coin in question would not have come out like that if it occurred during a normal production run.

The strike is weak (see the "1887" date, for example). But the piece was struck when partially over-lapping another coin (brockage). This means that, essentially, the material between the dies was double the normal thickness. And the strike area covered less than half the surface area of the planchet.

If this were done with the production press adjusted for normal striking (even weak striking within tolerances) this error would show MUCH greater distortion of the planchet, significantly more metal movement, and the resulting shape of the final product would be significantly oblong, not perfectly round.

The only way that the coin could come out looking like that would be if the press was adjusted for extremely light striking.

So my conclusion is that this "error" occurred during press setup, adjustment, and/or testing.

MrEureka

@dcarr said:
The error coin in question would not have come out like that if it occurred during a normal production run.

The strike is weak (see the "1887" date, for example). But the piece was struck when partially over-lapping another coin (brockage). This means that, essentially, the material between the dies was double the normal thickness. And the strike area covered less than half the surface area of the planchet.

If this were done with the production press adjusted for normal striking (even weak striking within tolerances) this error would show MUCH greater distortion of the planchet, significantly more metal movement, and the resulting shape of the final product would be significantly oblong, not perfectly round.

The only way that the coin could come out looking like that would be if the press was adjusted for extremely light striking.

So my conclusion is that this "error" occurred during press setup, adjustment, and/or testing.

Or perhaps as the press was being shut down?

CaptHenway

@MrEureka said:

@dcarr said:
The error coin in question would not have come out like that if it occurred during a normal production run.

The strike is weak (see the "1887" date, for example). But the piece was struck when partially over-lapping another coin (brockage). This means that, essentially, the material between the dies was double the normal thickness. And the strike area covered less than half the surface area of the planchet.

If this were done with the production press adjusted for normal striking (even weak striking within tolerances) this error would show MUCH greater distortion of the planchet, significantly more metal movement, and the resulting shape of the final product would be significantly oblong, not perfectly round.

The only way that the coin could come out looking like that would be if the press was adjusted for extremely light striking.

So my conclusion is that this "error" occurred during press setup, adjustment, and/or testing.

Or perhaps as the press was being shut down?

Quite possible. The machine jammed and the press operator hit the stop button and the flywheel took a moment to come to a stop.

dcarr

@CaptHenway said:

@MrEureka said:

@dcarr said:
The error coin in question would not have come out like that if it occurred during a normal production run.

The strike is weak (see the "1887" date, for example). But the piece was struck when partially over-lapping another coin (brockage). This means that, essentially, the material between the dies was double the normal thickness. And the strike area covered less than half the surface area of the planchet.

If this were done with the production press adjusted for normal striking (even weak striking within tolerances) this error would show MUCH greater distortion of the planchet, significantly more metal movement, and the resulting shape of the final product would be significantly oblong, not perfectly round.

The only way that the coin could come out looking like that would be if the press was adjusted for extremely light striking.

So my conclusion is that this "error" occurred during press setup, adjustment, and/or testing.

Or perhaps as the press was being shut down?

Quite possible. The machine jammed and the press operator hit the stop button and the flywheel took a moment to come to a stop.

.

Something like that, maybe. But note that the brockage image is also from a coin that was weakly-struck (the brockage date is weak, just like the non-brockage date).

So this would mean that at least two strikes were made with the press when it was set for very weak striking.

Another possibility is that the axes of the upper and lower dies were not parallel (the upper die was tilted in relation to the lower die). This could cause, for example, a weak strike in the date area and a stronger strike in the areas that are off the planchet on this piece. If so, this may have been some sort of intentional test strike to somehow gauge the parallelism of the dies.

.