Options
2009 Silver Proof Quarter Die Error
ClairHardesty
Posts: 31
Has anyone else received a 2009 silver proof set with the Northern Mariana Islands Quarter with the die error as shown in the attached file? I did not realize that mine was like this until I removed it from the lens to do my archival scans. It went unnoticed while it was still in the lens (you can tell if you look for it, but might not see it if not looking). There is an arc of raised field at the top of the obverse that I can only explain if the die had struck some object (possibly the reeding collar). The radius or the arc is greater than anything on a quarter, about the same radius as a golden dollar coin. The raised portion of the field still has the mirror finish so the die was not ground off. The reeding is not filled out in the center of the coin in the area of the raised field because the metal that normally would push out into the reeding collar stayed behind in the raised area of the field. The attached diagram shows the coin and my best guess at how it came to exist and details of the physical structure of the error. This coin was in one of my two silver proof sets, both shipped in the first couple days of shipping (one from a subscription order and one from an online order placed in the first hour of availability) one on July 17th and one on July 18th. I have yet to see anyone else speak of this error, but find it hard to believe that only one coin escaped the mint from what is obviously a die caused error. I am sure that the error was caught and the die removed from service but it looks like it was caught early and that most of the error coins were expunged. I just have to believe that if one coin made it out, that several did. As I said, the coin can go unnoticed in the lens unless you are looking for it, I did not see it there. I saw it in the scan I did for archival purposes (7200DPI) several days after receiving the sets.
0
Comments
Huh?
Nevermind, I see what you are referring too.
Send it to CONECA and let them figure it out.
The name is LEE!
Sorry, screwed the image upload process. Both images are here.
<< <i>What looks like a line on the obverse is actually a raised area of the mirror field. This would have increased the volume of the coin but the reeding (which is normally created when metal pushes out into the reeding collar) is incomplete in the area of the raised field. The only way for this to be created is if the die has an indent in the field (which is the highest portion of the die since it is a reverse image). The field is only raised a fraction of a mm, but it is not just a line, it only looks like one because of the proof finish and you only see the edge of the raised portion. I have attached an image that might better show the raised field portion.
Sorry, screwed the image upload process. Both images are here. >>
The name is LEE!
very interesting at the least.
nice find.
Big Crumbs Link
Mr Rebates Link
EBates Link
Chucknra@yahoo.com
I am assuming you are one in the same from the "About" forum?
Welcome.
OK, I just got off the phone with PCGS and their "expert" claims that this coin is struck as the mint intended! I made them put it back into grading by telling them that I would hate to publish an article pointing out that PCGS did not see anything wrong with this coin! I will post again as soon as I know more.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>The reed ing across the top of the coin (obverse view) is incomplete. This is caused by a crescent of the obverse field being raised a fraction of a mm above the rest of the field. I have included some images that should make things clear. Among them are close ups of the ST letters from both my coin and a normal coin. One image is of the reeding and there are drawings explaining what I think happened. >>
I reference to the "reeding" depicted in the image below:
See the thread below:
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=787628
These blanks are imported from Australia and I think what you may be seeing is simply an incomplete punch during the planchet blanking process that was not caught prior to delivery to the US Mint. One thing I DO KNOW is that the groove(s) in the reeding of your coin has nothing to do with the line on the obverse.
Your best bet would be to have Mike Diamond of CONECA examine the coin. Mike can be reached at: mdia1@aol.com
The name is LEE!
<< <i>The reeding is formed when the coin is struck. Metal is forced into the reeding collar by the force of the die pressing the top and bottom of the coin. The quarter blanks are sent through the upsetting mill like other coins to form the proto rim. Because of the damage to the obverse die, not enough metal was pressed out into the collar during striking. The poor reeding is exactly coincident with the arc of raised field. The reeding is complete everywhere around the coin except where the obverse field anomally exists and the incomplete reeding is at its worst in the center of the raised field portion and tapers to normality at the end of the field defect. It is difficult to believe that a blank fault would exactly align with a die caused error. The two are clearly related, expecially when the volume of the coin is condsidered. Even if the groove is present in the planchet built on the Aussie upsetting mill, it is the field anomally that is the cause of incomplete reeding in this case. A weak strike, or even a proof coin that was only struck once, could well also prevent the reeding from forming properly but in such a case it would not neccessarily align with any feature of the coin. There is also very slight weakness in the lettering directly opposite the obverse defect. On the reverse, the letters US UNUM 2 areweak at their bottoms (the frost is slightly shiny). The raised field on the obverse transfered less than normal force to the reverse, weakening the force applied to those structures. >>
12 out of 15 of the 2010 ATB Silver Quarters in the three Proof Sets I have received, have this groove in the reeding.
The reeding groove is in no way associated with the obverse error on your coin.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I am not saying that the incomplete reeding does not have a deeper root source, only that in the case of my coin the straw that broke the camel's back is the obverse die damage. On my coin the incomplete reeding only exists where the extra metal is present on the obverse field and the more volume that exists on the field, the worse the reeding anomally is. The reeding on my coin is as expected everywhere else around the coin and all 9 of my other 2009 proof silver quarters have nominal reeding. As long as the weight of the planchets is correct and they are not way too small (diameter), the reeding should form up unless the strike is weak, the coin is only struck once, or the initial issue is severe (which it may well be in many cases). The reeding issue on my coin is a secondary effect. The real error is the damaged obverse die and the raised portion of the obverse field that it causes. I believe that if this coin had been minted from a normal obverse die that the reeding would also be normal or the "dents" would have been minimal. On my coin, the missing metal in the reeds coorsponds very well to the extra metal on the obverse field. On other coins, the lack of full reeds has other causes. >>
I get it now.
Have an expert examine "your" coin to determine the "real" problem.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I just received the coin back from PCGS and I am happy to report that it is the same coin I sent out and it still has the massive die error showing on the obverse (which PCGS mounted backwards because it is a U.S. Territory quarter). After two times through the error graders at PCGS (the second time at my insistence) they contend that the coin is struck as the mint intended, that there is no error. I provided documentation with the coin and emailed additional images for the second review to no avail. I literally pleaded with them to have more people look at the coin but they insisted that the coin is as the mint meant it to be. "PCGS fails to spot major silver proof die error, TWICE!"
I'm still very curious about that line which runs through STATES OF AM
As for it being a Major Proof Die Error? Some MEE's need to look at the coin! (Major Error Experts)
Please post it on CONECA's Mint Error Forum.
The name is LEE!
Mike Diamond
President, CONECA
Columnist, Collector's Clearinghouse (Coin World)
Host: Error Coin Information Exchange
I'm curious if anymore of these will turn up and perhaps with a copy of this report, you can at least get PCGS to attribute it as a die polishing error.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Customer service turned the request over to the graders and they have decided to give me the silent treatment, three weeks and no response. >>
Don't take it so bad. They probably sent your question to the people who run the Q&A forum.
There might be.
Having done my own die polishing and minting, I would conclude the following:
It is not a die polishing error. A die polishing error would not create that much of a discontinuity on the die face, and it would not cause an arc that extended across the rim.
It is not an error from the die impacting the collar. Modern US Mint coin presses have floating collars that are held in place by a "cushion" of air pressure. If something pushes down on the collar (like the upper die), the collar will "give" and move downwards to prevent major damage. How else would an off-center coin strike occur ? If the collar didn't float, every modern off-center strike out there would have had the un-struck portion of the coin sheared off during striking.
I believe that the coin in question was struck on an incompletely-punched planchet. The planchet was partially punched out, end then fully punched out, but with a small shift between the punches. I have one of my concept dollars that has this same effect. This would also explain why no others have turned up - if it was some sort of die error, there would be more of them. Also note that the radius of the arc would change (become larger) during striking since the planchet metal moves radially to fill the collar when struck.
<< <i>
I believe that the coin in question was struck on an incompletely-punched planchet. The planchet was partially punched out, end then fully punched out, but with a small shift between the punches. I have one of my concept dollars that has this same effect. This would also explain why no others have turned up - if it was some sort of die error, there would be more of them. Also note that the radius of the arc would change (become larger) during striking since the planchet metal moves radially to fill the collar when struck. >>
That's seems like a logical explanation to me. I can't believe PCGS didn't holder this as a mint error.
Cool find in any case.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>I sent an email to PCGS customer service asking is they would consider reviewing the coin for a third time (at their cost) in light of Mike Diamond's article and the fact that they had insisted that the coin was normal. Customer service turned the request over to the graders and they have decided to give me the silent treatment, three weeks and no response. This is exactly what they did the first time, the coin was originally returned with no explanation that they found no error, just shipped back as though I had submitted it as a normal coin. No recognition at all of tha fact that I had paid them a $30 error attribution fee for nothing. I am not even sure that they in fact reviewed the coin the second time because writing on the return packaging made it appear thet the box had been sealed before I complained about the attribution and there was no indication that the box had been opened and resealed. They claimed that their graders had reviewed the pictures I sent and the coin and still held to the no error opinion. I think it might be time to see if NGC would like to use the coin as a publicity item. >>
First off, Hopefully, you've learned something here. Namely, get it to Mike Diamond at CONECA before submitting to ANY grading service. If you haven't, then hopefully other will learn from your experience.
It is imperative that folks REMEMBER, PCGS is a GRADING service, not a COIN EXAMINATION/ATTRIBUTION service.
They do not and will not research "obscure" modern mint errors or "obscure" modern mint varieties. Thats what CONECA and their professional attributers are for. PCGS will be more than happy to slab "documented" Mint Errors but ALWAYS stay away from "undocumented" errors.
Often times, mint errors are forwarded to Fred Weinberg for authentication but I believe that PCGS must have a reasonable certainty that an actual error exists before forwarding it to Fred since it costs time and money. I know for a fact that Fred DOES NOT see mint error submitted to PCGS.
(You really should have listened to my advise in the second post! March 2nd))
Secondly, once PCGS rejected your coin as a Mint Error from your initial submission, continuing to bug them about whether or not its an error based upon the forgone conclusions of public coin forum members does nothing other than irritate them. Once it was rejected, then the coin should have been submitted to Mike at CONECA for formal examination and attribution as I advised you on Dec 2nd. CONECA is a well respected Coin Error Service and PCGS respects their opinions and publications.
After formal examination, then the coin should have then been resubmitted ALONG with the CONECA documentation for another examination by PCGS. At that point, PCGS would have documentation ON the coin which would have better enabled them feel comfortable in attributing the coin as a Mint Error.
PCGS will not simply attribute a coin as a Mint Error based upon the musings and ramblings of a submitter. I personally found your initial "assessment" somewhat confusing and pretty much missing the mark. Despite your best efforts at defining what occured, there was never a specific "error" mentioned other than "Collar clash is probably the closest existing classification" so I'm assuming it was sent as a "Collar Clash"? Whatever! PCGS saw it, didn't agree with you and eventually, you did get it off to CONECA with the end result being the story in Coin World's Collectors Clearing House. (You really should have listened sooner.
At this point in time and IMHO, if the coin were simply resubmitted to PCGS under the Mint Error Service along with the Coin World article that Mike wrote, you just might get it slabbed as a "Die Polishing Error"(?). (I don't really know what it would be classified as.) Additionally, understanding that PCGS is not an Examination/Attribution Service, it's pointless to ask them to re-evaluate the coin "at their cost". They made no mistakes IMO and shouldn't be held accountable for your misinterpretation of what did or did not occur with the coin and/or obv die. You yourself admitted that the error was "unnoticeable" while still in the Proof Set lens and you really didn't even "see" it until after your scanner did. Your initial musings on what occured were very weak and rambling. Had you submitted it to Mike in the First Place (for $5.00), you probably could have saved yourself a bunch of money and headaches.
Again, whatever. Either resubmit it to PCGS along with the proper documentation or go ahead and see if NGC will be "interested". I suspect they'll show as much interest as PCGS since the "error", although significant in nature, is apparently difficult to actually see. It also represents a previously undocumented type of error.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I believe that the coin in question was struck on an incompletely-punched planchet. The planchet was partially punched out, end then fully punched out, but with a small shift between the punches. I have one of my concept dollars that has this same effect. This would also explain why no others have turned up - if it was some sort of die error, there would be more of them. Also note that the radius of the arc would change (become larger) during striking since the planchet metal moves radially to fill the collar when struck. >>
I'm fairly certain that Mike D considered the possibility of an "incomplete" punch but if this were actually the case, then the line would have crossed the lettering. There is no line across the lettering as shown in the photo above and the close up in the Coin World article.
The name is LEE!
As others have said, this is clearly not an incomplete punch (incomplete clip). An incomplete clip takes the form of a sharp, narrow groove on both faces. On this proof quarter there is no groove, only a well-defined step on the obverse face.
Letters that cross the step are thinned-out and pinched at and north of the step, which means that the field around those letters was mechanically removed on the die face after the die was frosted. The only operation I know of that can account for this would be proof polishing.
There is certainly no evidence for movement between the two (or more) strikes used to produce a typical proof.
In my opinion, PCGS should offer Mr. Hardesty a refund on his submission fees, postage, and insurance. He submitted the coin under their mint error service. The coin had a grossly obvious mint error. Their failure to recognize it as such amounts to a failure to deliver the service they promised. If they were unable to identify the nature and origin of the error, then they should have simply admitted this. Perhaps they could have affixed a non-specific label like "die error" or "die defect".
--Mike Diamond
I'd like to see a close-up picture of the lower reverse.
bob
1. An incomplete punch this shallow and incomplete would almost certainly have been erased by the strike.
2. The alleged punch mark is no stronger on the rim than it is in the field. An incomplete punch should be wider and better preserved on the rim because the effective striking pressure is lower here.
3. The fact that the curved groove does not extend farther than LIBERTY's head and doesn't appear at all on the reverse face makes the printed diagnosis highly suspect.
4. An incomplete punch should also be visible on the edge, and my guess is that this is not the case with this specimen.
5. An incomplete punch will penetrate the surface of the coin. This short curved groove seems quite superficial.
6. Even if you could manage to show the groove was present on the planchet before the strike, that wouldn't necessarily prove it was an incomplete punch. There are other sources of curved grooves on planchets besides the blanking die.
I have seen one or two other alleged incomplete punches on Morgan dollars. None exhibited the expected diagnostics.
Don't believe everything you read on a slab label.
Here's what an incomplete punch SHOULD look like: