Options
Mercury Dime "Pattern"
.jpg)
cwt
Posts: 292 ✭✭✭
Wonder why he didn't submit it for encapsulation himself?
Seller will stand behind this coins authenticity as a Genuine Unadulterated U.S. mint made coin. Buyer may take 15 days from the receipt of the coin to send it to either PCGS or NGC for authentication. If the coin comes back form the grading services as being other than an authentic unadulterated U.S. mint made coin, the Seller will fully refund the purchaser's bid money, less the standard Ebay specified handling, insurance, and mailing fees. The coin must be returned within 3 days of return by the grading services and it must remain in as seller sent condition.
link
Seller will stand behind this coins authenticity as a Genuine Unadulterated U.S. mint made coin. Buyer may take 15 days from the receipt of the coin to send it to either PCGS or NGC for authentication. If the coin comes back form the grading services as being other than an authentic unadulterated U.S. mint made coin, the Seller will fully refund the purchaser's bid money, less the standard Ebay specified handling, insurance, and mailing fees. The coin must be returned within 3 days of return by the grading services and it must remain in as seller sent condition.
link
0
Comments
But I like his comment =
I showed this coin to David Hall of PCGS at the Fun show in Jan 2007.
As I was leaving he pointed to the coin and said "That is a nice coin".
No Doubt.
Was HRH being sarcastic
I am going to assume that you posted your comments before the additional photo's of the 43 Merc. went up.
The new photo's clearly showed raised residual reeding metal on the rev. surface running along the perimeter of the rim of coin. If the coin was sanded, that metal could not be there. It would have been sanded off with the rest of the details. The edge reeding is not ground down.
The other coin appears to be an off metal, uniface, partial brockage, struck by a die cap or flipped over double struck coin that probably involved a whole lot of grease.
I am sure that Mr. Hall probably thought that it was a very interesting error coin.
The U.S. mint does many interesting things.
PMD.
<< <i>
<< <i>"Can't figure out what this beast is supposed to be either..."
I am going to assume that you posted your comments before the additional photo's of the 43 Merc. went up.
The new photo's clearly showed raised residual reeding metal on the rev. surface running along the perimeter of the rim of coin. If the coin was sanded, that metal could not be there. It would have been sanded off with the rest of the details. The edge reeding is not ground down.
The other coin appears to be an off metal, uniface, partial brockage, struck by a die cap or flipped over double struck coin that probably involved a whole lot of grease.
I am sure that Mr. Hall probably thought that it was a very interesting error coin.
The U.S. mint does many interesting things. >>
So why wouldn'tyouthensubmit itto PCGSand then your asking ebay asking would be a bit understood tosome at least, possibly? >>
Let me introduce you to the "space" key!
"The U.S. mint does many interesting things."
-----
First time posters sometimes say interesting things too.
Welcome to the Forum, hope you stick around. There
is much that can be learned here, believe it or not.
~
"America suffers today from too much pluribus and not enough unum.".....Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
The "pattern" is definitely an alteration where the reverse was ground off.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
1847 Large Cent on 6.9 Gram copper Type One Blank. Possible U.S. pattern or mint made fantasy piece?
It is thinner than a large cent and a bit Smaller than a U.S. quarter.
It appears to be struck on a concave rev. edge blank.
The coin Obv is flat and squared off at the rim edges. The reverse is concave at the rim edges.
Look at the T and E in United in the 3rd picture. The Rev. side of the coin curves downward toward the Obv. side.
Despite the radical downward curve of the planchet at that area, those letters do not appear to be low enough in relief to account for the planchet drop off.
They roll almost evenly off the edge of the rim. That should indicate that the coin has not been sanded or ground down.
The Obv and Rev. show what appears to be slightly raised stamped metal on the planchet at the edges.
It probably came from loose or jagged edged residual metal produced by down force shearing and return during the blanking process.
This should tell us that the coin was stamped after the coin was blanked and was not simply cut down after manufacture.(See Obv. pic 6)
The coin's collar edge side looks like it did not receive an upset rim or reach into the collar die.
It is not a smooth flat surface. It appears irregular and mottled/ looking possibly from metal tearing during blanking.
The coins collar edge is slightly convex in some areas.
Edge photos 8 and 12 show some kind of an iincused indent. Some extra metal is also present on the collar edge side.(See edge pic 9)
I see no signs of post mint tampering, no grinding, cutting, sanding, or polishing anywhere on the coin.
Coin looks as if it was intentionally produced at the mint.
I am not personally aware of any large cents that are struck onto type one blanks.
Perhaps a large cent specialist can furnish additional information in this regard.
To date, there is one public known partial date off center underweight and smaller than normal large cent struck on a planchet.
It is an considered an error coin.
Seller believes that this coin is struck on a 6.9 gram copper concave rev. edged blank and not a planchet.
If it is an error coin, it is much less probable existing on a blank (type 1) than on a planchet (type 2).
It looks like a Coltman type of blank or what Walter Breen called Convexo/Concave.
Although the coin is flat on the Obv and not really convex, (flattened out from strike?) the Rev. is definitely concave along the rim.
Seller thinks that this is more than likely an experimental piece.
Being well centered and on this type of blank, the coin looks intentionally produced.
Was this an experimental small cent pattern in contemplation of the future reduction of the size of the circulating large cents?
If so, that would make it a very significantly important and valuable specimen of American coinage history.
Was it made for a collector friend of the mint...or just by some bored worker at the mint with too much time on their hands?
The seller does not know how or why this coin came to be.
Very Rare and probably Unique.
This coin merits serious research and further study. It also needs attribution, authentication, and grading.
On a coin like this, that could take quite a while.
Seller is not an error coin expert and advises and recommends that all interested parties seek professional opinion as to the authenticity of this coin.
Buyer may come to sellers Florida location within 15 days of close of auction and personally inspect the coin as a condition of the sale.
They are welcome to utilize any expert(s) as needed.
Upon inspection of coin, Buyer may elect to close sale, or to cancel the purchase.
If Buyer views the coin and elects to not final the purchase, Buyer shall be entitled to a full refund of price paid.
If Buyer fails to review the coin in person within the 15 days, the sale will be considered final and coin will be sent to Buyer and there shall be no refund.
If something comes up, let me know. I will do my best to work with you.
Buyer may elect to cancel the purchase of this coin for any reason within 3 days of auction close. Contact the seller within the 3 days and I will refund your full purchase price.
Comments and questions are welcomed.
<< <i>The other coin appears to be an off metal, uniface, partial brockage, struck by a die cap or flipped over double struck coin that probably involved a whole lot of grease. >>
<< <i>"Can't figure out what this beast is supposed to be either..."
I am going to assume that you posted your comments before the additional photo's of the 43 Merc. went up.
The new photo's clearly showed raised residual reeding metal on the rev. surface running along the perimeter of the rim of coin. If the coin was sanded, that metal could not be there. It would have been sanded off with the rest of the details. The edge reeding is not ground down.
The other coin appears to be an off metal, uniface, partial brockage, struck by a die cap or flipped over double struck coin that probably involved a whole lot of grease.
I am sure that Mr. Hall probably thought that it was a very interesting error coin.
The U.S. mint does many interesting things. >>
You certainly can't be faulted for lack of imagination ... or ability to fantasize.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
On a normal uniface error coin, I would expect that you could see some indenting that comes from the other planchet. You might also see some ghosting of an image on the unifaced side from the other die stamping thru the other coin.
On a pattern struck from a blank die you could reasonably see a smooth and flat surface. If the coin blank or planchet to be struck is thinner or smaller than normal, I would imagine that different things can occur.
Depending upon the size and thickness of the planchet, the coin can have full reeding. A smooth uniface flat side edge surface can allow metal to work its way around the rim and collar die and onto the planchet.
When the coin is struck and as the planchet is compressing and expanding, the collar die contains the outward expansion of the planchet which also forces metal inward to form the reeding. An undersized or underweight blank or planchet can lift, tilt, chatter, or shift, allowing the inward forced collar pressed metal onto the planchet. The collar die constrained inward pressure can create a flared micro flange type of lip that may then get stamped onto a smooth blank surface. Flaring of the edge of a coin is normally constrained by the planchet's rim, and the obv., rev., and collar dies. Additionally, as setting up correct striking pressure for a pattern can be a challenge, a combination of these forces can result in minute reeding metal being struck onto a flat smooth uniface surface of a coin along it's rims edges. A planchet movement or ejection problem can alter the rim edge or reeding of a coin as well.
This is what shows on the coin. Look thru Errorscope at some uniface patterns. You can find raised metal along the surface edge. Erasing of any form would most certainly eliminate any surface edge metal stamping and of course, it's devices.
Pictures cannot do justice to actually seeing and examining any coin.
Some long time collectors may not like, nor trust, sending presently unknown coins to any grading service.
Believe it or not, many people still buy, sell, and collect rare raw non certified coins
I know that you have not seen the coin. That being said, there are 3 area's of the coin which show irregular reeding. They are close to each other on the coin. The other areas are a bit flattened. There are some pressed diagonal reeds. The coin probably tilted.
Most Jewelery pieces show signs of rim damage on different parts of the coins edge from where it was attached to a holder of some sort. Not the case on this coin. The rest of the rim is normal and well struck.
Have a little faith. There are still many un-loved coins out there just waiting for someone to spot for what they are. You just got to know how to discern them.
Erasing removes metal. It does not add to it.
The coin is on a planchet but look at the concave shaped edge.
http://www.largecents.net/consign/td_1796s98.jpg
The only way I know of for this 1847 coin to be cut down and look like it does is if it was done by a cookie cutter type of tool after the coin was struck. Even then, the rounded edge rev side should show signs of metal pulling or shearing downward on the raised letters where they roll off of the edge of the coin. Look at the T and E in United. They look to be as struck.
On a rimless coin that is stamped after it is cut into a blank, minute raised remnant edge metal remaining after the blanking can be struck onto the planchet surfaces along the perimeter of the rim. It will show as flattened as struck raised metal coming up off of the planchet surface. Cut down PMD will not likely show that.
That said, pictures never tell what close examination can.
Enjoy.
Still learning...N63
Weight can only take you so far.
Wrong planchet errors, patterns, and ground coins can all be underweight.
You have to look for further diagnostics. The fullness of the rim , or lack thereof, can add additional info.
Careful examination of the metal flow on the coins uniface surface can add additional insight.
Grinding, sanding and polishing tends to smooth metal and alter it's as struck flow patterns, particularly if you go far enough to eliminate the devices.
So how did that metal get there? Can sanding, grinding or polishing of the surface or edge of the coin be the cause?
The chance that ground metal would be pushed up or over by alteration, and left sitting on the flat surface along the perimeter without showing slight signs of a beveling of the edge, is not very good. If there is some extra metal sitting there, is it lifted up and pushed over from grinding on the edge, or is it struck onto the planchet? If it is struck onto the planchet and raises above the surface of the coin, it cannot be ground or sanded down. It would be gone along with the rest of the metal.
Enjoying the banter...N63.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Love the small 1916 date.
Seems reasonable. Ask yourself a question. Would you send unknown coins out to anyone? Who exactly is the expert on unknown coins? Anyone actually have a Coltman blank handy for examination?
I did show the coin to David Hall a few years ago.
I have known David since he opened his first coin table.
I come from a time when we did not rely on TPG to buy and sell rare coins. We did our homework or lost big time.
If anyone comes to look at the coins, they can use any expert they so chose. If they want the coins to be certified, fine.
All is negotiable. I am just going to need a damned good reason to send them anywhere.
After 55 years of examining and collecting coins, I certainly do not give a rats butt whether or not I sell them.
The whole point of listing them is to establish their existence and to generate interest and commentary.
Suffice to say, that is now being accomplished.
And yes, I have shown the coins to a few dealers over the years. Most of them had more than 40 years of coin experience. They think that I should get them certified. Perhaps in time I will.]
I will not sell the coins to anyone not fully knowledgeable and confident of the veracity of their purchases.
Relax and enjoy the commentary. Some of us are just real long time coin collectors.
NECA63 should be a clue.
"During the WWII years the mint experimented with metal compositions. We went to steel cents in 1943.
This coin may have been made as an experiment in lowering the amount of silver content in a dime.
Silver was going to be needed and it was used for many strategic War needs, electronics, radios, radar, ect.
This would not have been the first time the U,.S. mint changed the metal content in U.S. dimes."
Yep. the Mint wanted to reduce the amount of silver in the dimes, so they could add 35% to the composition of the Jefferson 5 cent pieces.
Please expound on what coinage other than the Lincoln cents that the Mint was experimenting on in or around 1942. This should be easy for you to do, since such experiments were all well documented by the Mint. We're eagerly awaiting your well founded answer. The only patterns that have been known from 1942 are the multiple compositions of the 1 cent piece. But you are now a discoverer of a unique piece after 69 years of shrouded Mint mystery. I think a failed clandestine effort by the 3rd Reich to undermine the U.S. economy with counterfeit dimes is a more plausible theory.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
The pattern concordance does not have that much info. It does show many 1942 cents on experimental planchets.
http://www.uspatterns.com/pat18todat.html
I do know that some overweight or thicker than normal one cent 3.5 gram or so copper nickel pieforts (trial patterns?) exist from 1941, 1942, 1944, and I think 1945. There is an open question as to whether the 1941 coins are patterns. My guess is yes.
I find almost no info to date with respect to what (errors?) the mint actually produced during the war years.
That is not to say that currently undiscovered or unknown coins do not exist. Much about the mint is still unknown.
Granted, it is counter intuitive that the mint went to silver nickels. However, nickel became strategic.. Perhaps there was some balancing of materials.
The U.S. did have a billion ounces of silver in 1943. That does not mean that the people wanted the government to waste any of it. At that time, silver certificates were backed by silver.
Perhaps there was also some consideration by Treasury for a debasement of currency. Wars are expensive. Large supply notwithstanding, many items were rationed during the war years.
If I remember from old memory, the silver War nickels had an added Large mintmark to allow them to be recalled if necessary as they were overweight relative to the other circulating silver coins. Other less costly compositions were no doubt considered for the nickel.
Who could know in 1942 that the silver nickel would continue into 1945? It could have just as easily been made in shell case copper, zinc steel, or, new nickel supplies could have come available and into production. The 1943 zinc steel cent only lasted 1 year.
Trying to figure out in 1942-3 what was going to be needed for the war, and how long the war would go on was difficult at best. What metals do we use/need? What supplies are available or in jeopardy? How do we pay for war? With a few unlucky turns of the war or a delay in the bomb, the war could have gone on for another year or so. No doubt politics and business interests (Coin Vendors, Metals Suppliers) also played a major role in the ultimate decisions made by the mint as to the choices of materials used. No doubt, many options were explored at the mint.
"The United States Congress enacted Public Law 77-815 on December 18, 1942. It authorized the Mint to find alternative metal substitutes for US coinage with a sunset clause included reverting the alternatives back to their previous alloys by December 31, 1946".
I can only imagine the experiments they came up with.
Perhaps others can chime in here.