Clash Marks

Tyrock

Do clash marks on a coin lower its value or desirability?

koynekwest

I would think not. Some strong and impressive ones probably increase a coin's value, sometimes substantially.

mannie gray

I think clash marks are seen as less of a negative now than they used to be in the "old days." When I first started fooling around with coins many years ago, clash marks (usually) were considered a detriment....though not always.

I agree with KWest's statement above.

bolivarshagnasty

For me personally, clash marks or die polish lines are a negative. Yes I own a few, but would prefer my coins without.

howards

If you are looking for the highest grade/most perfect coins, then I think any surface marks (from any source) are a detraction.



But if you are looking for coins with interesting features, some surface marks (like a clash) can be desirable. Sometimes they are a great aid in attributing varieties.

lkeigwin

I find them interesting. Not sure if they add value or not. But they clearly add character.

Lance.

BaronVonBaugh

I think this one is neat.

1857 1C Obv Die Clash with 50C FS-402 S-9

ricko

For some, they are desirable.... like errors....depends on interest of collector. Cheers, RickO

johnny9434

Originally posted by: lkeigwin
I find them interesting. Not sure if they add value or not. But they clearly add character.
Lance.

one of my favorites

jesbroken

What a beautiful specimen, Lance. With or without the clash marks. Love your bust halves. I personally do not mind clashmarks, although I have never sought them out.

Jim

roadrunner

For most unc 1853 arrows half dimes and dimes where they are pretty common, I think they are a negative. The half dimes always seem to have them. Now if the coin is a monster gem otherwise, I'd forgive the clash marks.



I know in the 1988-1990 years of TPGing I had some 1853-1855 seated coinage come back a lot lower than they should have. I believe it was because of clash marks that were a visible distraction. Should we treat these different than roller marks, planchet defects, alloy streaks, adjustment marks, etc?



1865 3c nickels (and other dates) are also abundant with clash marks. Same comments.



On bust coinage clashing is usually minimal and hard to find. So I wouldn't pay much mind to clashes on those.

koynekwest

The Buffalo Nickels have an interesting die clash known as the "Lone Ranger" or "Masked Indian" variety, where the Native American looks like he's wearing a Lone Ranger type mask. Bill Fivaz wrote an article on these either for the "Greyshaat" or for "Coin World"-I can't remember which-a few years back. I have assembled a date set of these, which makes for an interesting little collection IMO. It's pretty prominent on a few of the earlier dates. I have a report of another clash-the "Lettered Chin" or "Chin Whiskers" as far back as 1914. It was prominently listed in the old Spadone "Variety and Oddity" guide from the early sixties. This one is a transfer of the EPU motto from the reverse. I also have a report from 1949 of a "Leaf" 1945 dime so the die clashes were not only named but also apparently collected.

golden

Originally posted by: bolivarshagnasty
For me personally, clash marks or die polish lines are a negative. Yes I own a few, but would prefer my coins without.

ms70

I don't mind die clash at all. It's part of the story, occurred at the mint, and adds interest for me.

Tyrock

I received the coin yesterday from GC. It's an 1859 PCGS 64 3 cent piece with a green CAC sticker. First coin I've owned with clash marks. I don't mind at all. I'm keeping it and I put it in my registry set.

WorldTypeSet

One of my favorites ...