I believe that it is incorrect to call this coin "damaged." Appeal.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The picture of the holdered coin doesn't show the 'darkness' in the recesses of the lamination that all the other pix show. Could it be that they 'conserved' the coin, possibly in order to make it slabable, and this resulted in a 'details' ?
@thebeav said: "The picture of the holdered coin doesn't show the 'darkness' in the recesses of the lamination that all the other pix show. Could it be that they 'conserved' the coin, possibly in order to make it slabable, and this resulted in a 'details' ?"
The coin was not professionally conserved. IT IS SCRATCH DAMAGED!
@thebeav said:
The picture of the holdered coin doesn't show the 'darkness' in the recesses of the lamination that all the other pix show. Could it be that they 'conserved' the coin, possibly in order to make it slabable, and this resulted in a 'details' ?
No conservation was requested, but I will say the true view pics do seem to greatly exaggerate the black you see with the naked eye. I gave it a brief 30 minute acetone bath before I sent it to them.
How can you even compare this coin to a straight graded 64! No offense but it's a turd out of a white whale I could never have in my collection!
PS You said I post myself as a strong buyer....The only time I buy a coin I wouldn't have in my collection is to get something else that comes with it or if it is dirt cheap and I know someone else will pay more!
@amwldcoin said:
How can you even compare this coin to a straight graded 64! No offense but it's a turd out of a white whale I could never have in my collection!
PS You said I post myself as a strong buyer....The only time I buy a coin I wouldn't have in my collection is to get something else that comes with it or if it is dirt cheap and I know someone else will pay more!
Buddy you are a professional at trashing other people's coins while bringing attention any way you can to your inventory (but more power to you there).
I never pretended to have a problem free 64, I posted those for comparison to the details.
I just have to say this! You might get better respect if you change your avatar from a ferringi (spelling) to someone who is not a conniving cheat! Yes... I am a Treckey!
I saw what appeared to be a number of scratches made by a wire brush on one of the earlier pictures and last photo shows it up even better.
Straight up on the right side of the braid in the middle of the lamination looks like an attempt was made to perhaps clean out the black discoloration.
That would be cause for the damage they even state cleaned lamination
what is the elevation of the black stuff? At first I thought it was a sunken detached lamination, now I am wondering if it is black grease or gunk on the surface of the coin, that has been partially removed. Also to the left of the LI at the hairline, there are some odd vertical gouges.
@BIGAL2749 said:
I saw what appeared to be a number of scratches made by a wire brush on one of the earlier pictures and last photo shows it up even better.
Straight up on the right side of the braid in the middle of the lamination looks like an attempt was made to perhaps clean out the black discoloration.
That would be cause for the damage they even state cleaned lamination
Not exactly. They called it planchet streak removed.
@opportunity said: "I gave it a brief 30 minute acetone bath before I sent it to them."
IMO, this is a coin that should be in a slab because of what it is. Acetone, will have very little to no effect on the black substance in the lamination - in fact, it gives it character and it's the reason for the lamination. If you wanted it removed, there are better chemicals. BTW. The acetone bath removed any film on the coin and exposed the scratch damage more.
@davewesen said: "what is the elevation of the black stuff? At first I thought it was a sunken detached lamination, now I am wondering if it is black grease or gunk on the surface of the coin, that has been partially removed."
The black stuff is what caused the missing part of the coin to drop off. The planchet metal was not bonded. It is into the coin and not on the surface.
@GoldenEgg said:
"Streak removed"? WOW! Never heard that one before (to describe this type of anomaly).
In other words - a lamination?
No, a planchet streak removal would mean physically removing a streak not a simple lamination defect.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying and agree. My point is, that's not what this is!
1) The anomaly on this coin is a (de)lamination. To my knowledge, there is no way of replicating this effect outside of the Mint. One can assist a lamination to make it larger or force it's detachment, but making otherwise normal surfaces look like a lamination is difficult.
2) The removal of a planchet streak (surface discoloration), does not require the removal of so much metal.
@opportunity said:
So weird. Totally didn't expect this (the label was a surprise). I have never owned a coin that has had me more confused, frustrated, etc. But here it is.
I'm also posting a couple of MS64's from Coinfacts for comparison. What do you all think?
It looks like this coin did not get mint error consideration and review at PCGS. If it had, it would say "Mint Error" at the top of the label. As others have said, the anomaly that got this coin in a details holder, is also what would qualify it as a mint error, if it had been considered as such by PCGS.
Send it in again. Make sure they review it as an error.
There are two ways to remove unwanted color or defects on coins: Chemically or mechanically. Depending on the expertise of the "doctor" and the nature of the defect (just as important), the coin will be either "market acceptable - conserved and perhaps undetectable) or damaged!
@Insider2 said: @CaptHenway said: "I believe that it is incorrect to call this coin "damaged." Appeal."
Appeal denied!
Take a look at the left end of the error where the curly scratches are.
You may be right, but in actual size those are awfully darn small. The scratch by the LI now bothers me more.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Here's another thing to consider: If you take the area in the black box and move it to the right, it looks like it fits there. So, that raised piece of metal in the box was sheared from it's original location, and then stamped into the coin?
Your guess is as good as mine. I'm just presenting this for your opinion. I don't know.
What I do know is that the coin itself is from a very late die state. Evidence of heavy flow lines and the diagnostic "crack" extending well beyond what I have seen on all other Overdates are clues.
This coin may have been one of the last minted before removing the die.
Geeze.............................
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@davewesen said: "what is the elevation of the black stuff? At first I thought it was a sunken detached lamination, now I am wondering if it is black grease or gunk on the surface of the coin, that has been partially removed."
The black stuff is what caused the missing part of the coin to drop off. The planchet metal was not bonded. It is into the coin and not on the surface.
have you seen the coin in hand? if not how can you be sure anything 'fell off' ?
@GoldenEgg said:
"Streak removed"? WOW! Never heard that one before (to describe this type of anomaly).
In other words - a lamination?
No, a planchet streak removal would mean physically removing a streak not a simple lamination defect.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying and agree. My point is, that's not what this is!
1) The anomaly on this coin is a (de)lamination. To my knowledge, there is no way of replicating this effect outside of the Mint. One can assist a lamination to make it larger or force it's detachment, but making otherwise normal surfaces look like a lamination is difficult.
2) The removal of a planchet streak (surface discoloration), does not require the removal of so much metal.
Except we're all assuming that the error code refers to the lamination. There's enough other marks in other places on the coin.
@davewesen said: "Have you seen the coin in hand? if not how can you be sure anything 'fell off' ?"
I just self-edited my complete original post to you. After I finished and had the self-satisfaction of dealing with what I perceived to be a snarky, ignorant, attack, I realized that you may just be asking an honest question. I'm going to believe that is the case.
A very long time ago, as a young, professional numismatist I peeled back and ripped off the laminated metal on several nickels and Morgan dollars to study them with a microscope while trying to learn what made their surface split. That's why I don't need to see the coin in hand or be around when the struck surface (now gone) broke off. What remains on the surface of the OP's coin is typical (without the scratch damage) of at least 95% of the coins I destroyed. Over time, by examining lots of coins very closely, I have learned that things we see on a coin's surface that happened after it was struck "look" much differently than things that happened to the planchet before it was struck. Perhaps this comment will entice other members to write what the differences are as I've spent way too much time on this thread since it began! Anyway, it's well past my bedtime.
Laminations on nickels are as common as dirt! I probably have at least three dozen laminated cents, nickels, and dollars of various types and severity. The only thing that makes the OP's coin worth more than $5 to me is the overdate.
@Insider2 said: @davewesen said: "Have you seen the coin in hand? if not how can you be sure anything 'fell off' ?"
I just self-edited my complete original post to you. After I finished and had the self-satisfaction of dealing with what I perceived to be a snarky, ignorant, attack, I realized that you may just be asking an honest question. I'm going to believe that is the case.
A very long time ago, as a young, professional numismatist I peeled back and ripped off the laminated metal on several nickels and Morgan dollars to study them with a microscope while trying to learn what made their surface split. That's why I don't need to see the coin in hand or be around when the struck surface (now gone) broke off. What remains on the surface of the OP's coin is typical (without the scratch damage) of at least 95% of the coins I destroyed. Over time, by examining lots of coins very closely, I have learned that things we see on a coin's surface that happened after it was struck "look" much differently than things that happened to the planchet before it was struck. Perhaps this comment will entice other members to write what the differences are as I've spent way too much time on this thread since it began! Anyway, it's well past my bedtime.
Laminations on nickels are as common as dirt! I probably have at least three dozen laminated cents, nickels, and dollars of various types and severity. The only thing that makes the OP's coin worth more than $5 to me is the overdate.
Now we know what happened! Insider2 peeled off the lamination.
There's enough tool work to justify the details holder, I would think.
Comments
The 64's from Coinfacts are at least 100X more desirable than yours (which to my eye is damaged).
I believe that it is incorrect to call this coin "damaged." Appeal.
The picture of the holdered coin doesn't show the 'darkness' in the recesses of the lamination that all the other pix show. Could it be that they 'conserved' the coin, possibly in order to make it slabable, and this resulted in a 'details' ?
@thebeav said: "The picture of the holdered coin doesn't show the 'darkness' in the recesses of the lamination that all the other pix show. Could it be that they 'conserved' the coin, possibly in order to make it slabable, and this resulted in a 'details' ?"
The coin was not professionally conserved. IT IS SCRATCH DAMAGED!
@CaptHenway said: "I believe that it is incorrect to call this coin "damaged." Appeal."
Appeal denied!
Take a look at the left end of the error where the curly scratches are.
No conservation was requested, but I will say the true view pics do seem to greatly exaggerate the black you see with the naked eye. I gave it a brief 30 minute acetone bath before I sent it to them.
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
How can you even compare this coin to a straight graded 64! No offense but it's a turd out of a white whale I could never have in my collection!
PS You said I post myself as a strong buyer....The only time I buy a coin I wouldn't have in my collection is to get something else that comes with it or if it is dirt cheap and I know someone else will pay more!
Buddy you are a professional at trashing other people's coins while bringing attention any way you can to your inventory (but more power to you there).
I never pretended to have a problem free 64, I posted those for comparison to the details.
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
I just have to say this! You might get better respect if you change your avatar from a ferringi (spelling) to someone who is not a conniving cheat! Yes... I am a Treckey!
I saw what appeared to be a number of scratches made by a wire brush on one of the earlier pictures and last photo shows it up even better.
Straight up on the right side of the braid in the middle of the lamination looks like an attempt was made to perhaps clean out the black discoloration.
That would be cause for the damage they even state cleaned lamination
what is the elevation of the black stuff? At first I thought it was a sunken detached lamination, now I am wondering if it is black grease or gunk on the surface of the coin, that has been partially removed. Also to the left of the LI at the hairline, there are some odd vertical gouges.
Not exactly. They called it planchet streak removed.
Peeling Lamination - 83
Planchet Flaw- 93
Scratch- 95
Damage (unspecified) - 98
You have a 83, a 93 and a 95 going on here which results in a 98 code.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
"Streak removed"? WOW! Never heard that one before (to describe this type of anomaly).
In other words - a lamination?
No, a planchet streak removal would mean physically removing a streak not a simple lamination defect.
@opportunity said: "I gave it a brief 30 minute acetone bath before I sent it to them."
IMO, this is a coin that should be in a slab because of what it is. Acetone, will have very little to no effect on the black substance in the lamination - in fact, it gives it character and it's the reason for the lamination. If you wanted it removed, there are better chemicals. BTW. The acetone bath removed any film on the coin and exposed the scratch damage more.
@davewesen said: "what is the elevation of the black stuff? At first I thought it was a sunken detached lamination, now I am wondering if it is black grease or gunk on the surface of the coin, that has been partially removed."
The black stuff is what caused the missing part of the coin to drop off. The planchet metal was not bonded. It is into the coin and not on the surface.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying and agree. My point is, that's not what this is!
1) The anomaly on this coin is a (de)lamination. To my knowledge, there is no way of replicating this effect outside of the Mint. One can assist a lamination to make it larger or force it's detachment, but making otherwise normal surfaces look like a lamination is difficult.
2) The removal of a planchet streak (surface discoloration), does not require the removal of so much metal.
It looks like this coin did not get mint error consideration and review at PCGS. If it had, it would say "Mint Error" at the top of the label. As others have said, the anomaly that got this coin in a details holder, is also what would qualify it as a mint error, if it had been considered as such by PCGS.
Send it in again. Make sure they review it as an error.
There are two ways to remove unwanted color or defects on coins: Chemically or mechanically. Depending on the expertise of the "doctor" and the nature of the defect (just as important), the coin will be either "market acceptable - conserved and perhaps undetectable) or damaged!
You may be right, but in actual size those are awfully darn small. The scratch by the LI now bothers me more.
Someone digging around?
Here's another thing to consider: If you take the area in the black box and move it to the right, it looks like it fits there. So, that raised piece of metal in the box was sheared from it's original location, and then stamped into the coin?
Your guess is as good as mine. I'm just presenting this for your opinion. I don't know.
What I do know is that the coin itself is from a very late die state. Evidence of heavy flow lines and the diagnostic "crack" extending well beyond what I have seen on all other Overdates are clues.
This coin may have been one of the last minted before removing the die.
Geeze.............................
Pete
have you seen the coin in hand? if not how can you be sure anything 'fell off' ?
Except we're all assuming that the error code refers to the lamination. There's enough other marks in other places on the coin.
@davewesen said: "Have you seen the coin in hand? if not how can you be sure anything 'fell off' ?"
I just self-edited my complete original post to you. After I finished and had the self-satisfaction of dealing with what I perceived to be a snarky, ignorant, attack, I realized that you may just be asking an honest question. I'm going to believe that is the case.
A very long time ago, as a young, professional numismatist I peeled back and ripped off the laminated metal on several nickels and Morgan dollars to study them with a microscope while trying to learn what made their surface split. That's why I don't need to see the coin in hand or be around when the struck surface (now gone) broke off. What remains on the surface of the OP's coin is typical (without the scratch damage) of at least 95% of the coins I destroyed. Over time, by examining lots of coins very closely, I have learned that things we see on a coin's surface that happened after it was struck "look" much differently than things that happened to the planchet before it was struck. Perhaps this comment will entice other members to write what the differences are as I've spent way too much time on this thread since it began! Anyway, it's well past my bedtime.
Laminations on nickels are as common as dirt! I probably have at least three dozen laminated cents, nickels, and dollars of various types and severity. The only thing that makes the OP's coin worth more than $5 to me is the overdate.
Now we know what happened! Insider2 peeled off the lamination.
There's enough tool work to justify the details holder, I would think.