If this coin had been sold raw, outside of the mint set, would you have bid on it Mike? >>
Yes, if I had a photo of both faces. But that would mainly be due to my knowledge that similar errors on nickels are known from this time period. If it was from any other period, I would be suspicious and, at the very least, would demand a firm return policy. I recognize that it's possible to create a fake mirror brockage without doing much damage to the opposite face. You just need the coin to rest on a somewhat giving surface, like hard leather.
The presence of a partial collar and the smearing of Monticello's door would have set my mind at ease if it had been raw and had been from a different time period, mint, or denomination.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
We bash the auction because we think the coin is fake, and then the expert comes along, and we all praise the coin. >>
just want to interject here that yes I did think fake when seeing the pic, but I held back because being a jefferson collector I am by far a know it all.
I defer to the error gods here, and have bought many errors and at my expense send them out for a look. None of us are know it alls, but many of the error experts dealers here know their chit, and are 95-44-100% on their calls.
I defer to them and respect them, 100%
edit: errormaven is one on that list fully supported by me. Put that in the pipe n smoke it
Mike, what makes that particular time of the 70's a clue as to this type of error. I remember the commotion in the early 70's concerning the myriad of 1964 dated Lincolns w/multiple strikes. What do you look for?
<< <i>Mike, what makes that particular time of the 70's a clue as to this type of error. I remember the commotion in the early 70's concerning the myriad of 1964 dated Lincolns w/multiple strikes. What do you look for? >>
All I know is that they appear in some numbers between 1968 and 1974, only in the Denver Mint, and largely among nickels and dimes. Most are double strikes. 1973 produced a number of quarters with similar errors. There are also a fair number of off-center half dollars with low-pressure brockages of the obverse design on the reverse face. I don't know what was going on in the Denver Mint during this interval. Clearly, there was something different about the presses operating there in that time period. And it didn't extend to the presses striking cents. Not all indents and partial brockages on nickels, dimes, quarters, and half dollars from this time period have this appearance. The majority of such errors are still quite conventional-looking.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
<< <i>The backwards lettering proves it isn't multi-struck. It's a 'sandwich coin'... >>
Thanks for the education, Mike! I learn new things here all the time...
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
I'll add another congrats to you on a great score, Mike.
Thanks for all the tidbits.
Jeff
Jeff Ylitalo served as CONECA editor (error variety journal) 2007-2016 and written hundreds of articles on error and variety coins. Jeff is a long time error and variety coin collector and researcher.
Jeff is a 33 Year Active Duty US Combat Vet (Retired).
FREEDOM and its action on contact is absolute PROOF of its Uncompromising Force.
There have been a few occasions where I rejected a legitimate error because it didn't fit into any existing paradigm and because I couldn't figure out how it came about. I have a number of errors in my collection that I know are genuine but that I've yet to figure out. And, of course, I've purchased my share of genuine-looking errors that turned out to be fake.
None of us are infallible.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
<< <i>I have the coin and it is exactly what I thought it would be. It's an in-collar double strike with no rotation and a low-pressure brockage and indent on the second strike. The reverse is pristine, and the only evidence of the second strike is a subtle but telling smearing of the door of Monticello. There's a slight partial collar next to the brockage. Here are two photos I took.
>>
Mike,
That is a pretty cool error! Had the seller posted pictures like that, it would not have crossed my mind that it was a fake!
Thanks for sharing!
-Ben T. * Collector of Errors! * Proud member of the CUFYNA
<< <i>I have the coin and it is exactly what I thought it would be. It's an in-collar double strike with no rotation and a low-pressure brockage and indent on the second strike. The reverse is pristine, and the only evidence of the second strike is a subtle but telling smearing of the door of Monticello. There's a slight partial collar next to the brockage. Here are two photos I took.
>>
Very Nice!
Coin Collector, Chicken Owner, Licensed Tax Preparer & Insurance Broker/Agent. San Diego, CA
<< <i>How much would an error like this sell for in a PCGS or NGC holder? >>
It would be foolish, in my opinion, to remove the coin from the mint set. Once you do that, it would be virtually impossible to distinguish the coin from any other early die state (EDS) nickel. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that the grading service would arrive at the correct diagnosis. And even if they did, there'd be no room on the slab label for all the salient facts.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
Comments
<< <i>Hmmmm.
So much for the hammer technique.
If this coin had been sold raw, outside of the mint set, would you have bid on it Mike? >>
Yes, if I had a photo of both faces. But that would mainly be due to my knowledge that similar errors on nickels are known from this time period. If it was from any other period, I would be suspicious and, at the very least, would demand a firm return policy. I recognize that it's possible to create a fake mirror brockage without doing much damage to the opposite face. You just need the coin to rest on a somewhat giving surface, like hard leather.
The presence of a partial collar and the smearing of Monticello's door would have set my mind at ease if it had been raw and had been from a different time period, mint, or denomination.
<< <i>It's amazing as to the character of people.
We bash the auction because we think the coin is fake, and then the expert comes along, and we all praise the coin. >>
just want to interject here that yes I did think fake when seeing the pic, but I held back because being a jefferson collector I am by far a know it all.
I defer to the error gods here, and have bought many errors and at my expense send them out for a look. None of us are know it alls,
but many of the error experts dealers here know their chit, and are 95-44-100% on their calls.
I defer to them and respect them, 100%
edit: errormaven is one on that list
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
<< <i>Mike, what makes that particular time of the 70's a clue as to this type of error. I remember the commotion in the early 70's concerning the myriad of 1964 dated Lincolns w/multiple strikes. What do you look for? >>
All I know is that they appear in some numbers between 1968 and 1974, only in the Denver Mint, and largely among nickels and dimes. Most are double strikes. 1973 produced a number of quarters with similar errors. There are also a fair number of off-center half dollars with low-pressure brockages of the obverse design on the reverse face. I don't know what was going on in the Denver Mint during this interval. Clearly, there was something different about the presses operating there in that time period. And it didn't extend to the presses striking cents. Not all indents and partial brockages on nickels, dimes, quarters, and half dollars from this time period have this appearance. The majority of such errors are still quite conventional-looking.
www.conecaonline.org
<< <i>The backwards lettering proves it isn't multi-struck. It's a 'sandwich coin'... >>
Thanks for the education, Mike! I learn new things here all the time...
I'll add another congrats to you on a great score, Mike.
Thanks for all the tidbits.
Jeff
Jeff is a 33 Year Active Duty US Combat Vet (Retired).
FREEDOM and its action on contact is absolute PROOF of its Uncompromising Force.
None of us are infallible.
<< <i>I have the coin and it is exactly what I thought it would be. It's an in-collar double strike with no rotation and a low-pressure brockage and indent on the second strike. The reverse is pristine, and the only evidence of the second strike is a subtle but telling smearing of the door of Monticello. There's a slight partial collar next to the brockage. Here are two photos I took.
Mike,
That is a pretty cool error! Had the seller posted pictures like that, it would not have crossed my mind that it was a fake!
Thanks for sharing!
<< <i>I have the coin and it is exactly what I thought it would be. It's an in-collar double strike with no rotation and a low-pressure brockage and indent on the second strike. The reverse is pristine, and the only evidence of the second strike is a subtle but telling smearing of the door of Monticello. There's a slight partial collar next to the brockage. Here are two photos I took.
Very Nice!
San Diego, CA
<< <i>How much would an error like this sell for in a PCGS or NGC holder? >>
It would be foolish, in my opinion, to remove the coin from the mint set. Once you do that, it would be virtually impossible to distinguish the coin from any other early die state (EDS) nickel. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that the grading service would arrive at the correct diagnosis. And even if they did, there'd be no room on the slab label for all the salient facts.