Colonial Experts: 1783 Nova - Mint Error ?

RBAker

I’ve shown several collectors this Nova. I’ve asked, is this a mint error & will it straight grade?

Most seem to agree it’s an error, and majority (but not all) believe the error, itself, will warrant a Details grade.

I wanted to query the communities thoughts.

Does a planchet flaw not allow a coin to straight grade?

Creg

Would that not be a case for preservation, in spite of its grade?

johnny9434

to much damage for me to send in, jmo

JBK

Is it damage or a defective planchet? 🤔

RBAker

Defective planchet

But will this prohibit it from a straight grade ?

RBAker

@johnny9434 said:
to much damage for me to send in, jmo

Is an error coin damage? The Wreath is in tact

Colonialcoin

Looks like damage to me. Even without the damage it wouldn’t be worth grading due to its low grade.

RBAker

@Colonialcoin said:
Looks like damage to me. Even without the damage it wouldn’t be worth grading due to its low grade.

Post mint damage? or damaged planchet before striking. It's clear that the wreath is not damaged, ruling out PMD

My research indicates that PCGS has only slabbed a single example of a NOVA designated "Mint Error" on the label. That being true, the grade would be a small factor in determining if a coin should be slabbed, given that only one example exists.

Colonialcoin

Post mint damage. Do you have an image of the “mint error” Nova?

JBK

@RBAker said:

@Colonialcoin said:
Looks like damage to me. Even without the damage it wouldn’t be worth grading due to its low grade.

Post mint damage? or damaged planchet before striking. It's clear that the wreath is not damaged, ruling out PMD

My research indicates that PCGS has only slabbed a single example of a NOVA designated "Mint Error" on the label. That being true, the grade would be a small factor in determining if a coin should be slabbed, given that only one example exists.

I'm inclined to support this assessment.

pcgsregistrycollector

Damage

jacrispies

I see an environmentally damaged coin with the corrosion affecting the metal differently based on density. As the coin design is struck, the metal is smashed down, creating areas of greater density and less density. That can manufacture unique effects when exposed to the environment. I believe that is why the wreath appears intact with the metal in the fields eaten away. Additionally, it appears that the coin has since been circulated, likely flattening the high points and leveling them out even more.

I don't see how that effect could be created in any minting production process.

jmlanzaf

@RBAker said:

@johnny9434 said:
to much damage for me to send in, jmo

Is an error coin damage? The Wreath is in tact

How come there's no evidence of the "defect" in the wreath? Looks environmental.

johnny9434

That looks like quite a few metal detecting digs that looked like that. Like it's saidanove, environmental damage

CaptHenway

Post strike corrosion.

As to why the wreath is not affected, a possible scenario. The coin became coated in the affected area with some unknown and mildly corrosive substance, but continued to circulate for a while. During this circulation the corrosive substance wore off of the high points of the wreath and the lettering. The coin then left circulation for a couple of centuries and the corrosive substance on the field did its thing.

TD

RBAker

Thanks everyone. The combination of these scenarios definitely helps in understanding the condition.

lilolme

@RBAker
I see what you are asking but I don't know what it is or if it is a combination of things. Here are a couple of planchet defects with a similar thing where the devices are full over the planchet defect. But again I am not saying that is what yours is or is not.

Also on the planchet defect being detailed graded the answer is Yes if it is to large according to PCGS page and appears also dependent upon the type of of coin. Screen shot below. But if submitted under the error submission then it can get an error designation.

seatedlib3991

A population of 1 (error) would sure make the taking a chance of getting that designation very tantalizing. Good luck either way. James

messydesk

@seatedlib3991 said:
A population of 1 (error) would sure make the taking a chance of getting that designation very tantalizing. Good luck either way. James

My gut is telling me that non-perfect planchets are penalized in the marketplace for colonial copper, even if it's a defect worthy of being called an error, unless the underlying coin is so rare that there's no coin available on a less defective planchet.

RBAker

@messydesk said:

My gut is telling me that non-perfect planchets are penalized in the marketplace for colonial copper, even if it's a defect worthy of being called an error, unless the underlying coin is so rare that there's no coin available on a less defective planchet.

I completely agree, however as >@lilolme pointed out: PCGS 93 Planchet Flaw notates "Planchet Flaw: Metal impurity or defect in the planchet. .... Context is also important. Planchet flaws on certain U.S. Colonial coins are expected "

messydesk

@RBAker said:

@messydesk said:

My gut is telling me that non-perfect planchets are penalized in the marketplace for colonial copper, even if it's a defect worthy of being called an error, unless the underlying coin is so rare that there's no coin available on a less defective planchet.

I completely agree, however as >@lilolme pointed out: PCGS 93 Planchet Flaw notates "Planchet Flaw: Metal impurity or defect in the planchet. .... Context is also important. Planchet flaws on certain U.S. Colonial coins are expected "

Planchet flaws typical of a colonial type may be forgiven in the grading process, but having a perfect planchet is rewarded in the marketplace and perhaps also the grading room. Those that are uncharacteristically large could be referred to as errors, but regardless of what they're called, neither the grading service nor the next buyer will be more inclined to like it over one that is less flawed.

I did a quick search on Heritage for "1783 nova flaw" to see what came up. A couple NCS holders said planchet flaw, but none of the PCGS holders did. Heritage's descriptions of the latter always downplayed the flawsby calling them small, minor, tiny or inconsequential. The adjective for the coin in question (assuming it's a planchet flaw and not just damage) would more likely be large, major, or egregious. A planchet flaw that size on a Morgan dollar or a modern would be called spectacular or dramatic and worthy of slabbing as an error.

Yes, context is important.