Options
Is my description right for this PCGS Mint Error?
ctf_error_coins
Posts: 15,433 ✭✭✭✭✭
I am in the processes going through all my inventory when I found this PCGS error slab, with an incomplete description.
I believe this is an off center state quarter that when struck, split apart and this is the obverse clad layer of that split. Correct?
1
Comments
Amazing - where do you find this stuff....
Looks like what you said.
Personal Collection turned into inventory
Would help to know the weight, and to see the edge for any signs of copper, but I think you are on the right track.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
That's an incomplete (error!) Label.
It should have said on the pedigree line
"Detached Layer After Striking"
Send it back to customer service, saying the
label description is incomplete, and you want
the full description, per FW.
In addition to typos' sometimes, due to the
nature of the Mint Error labels, the 2nd line
doesn't get entered/printed.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Thank you again, Fred. I will call.
This place is the best.
Fred, I see what you mean, and that was my first thought also, but what if a split before striking clad layer got partially into a coining chamber, off-center and atop a properly-centered normal planchet, and was then struck? The underside of the cladding layer should be embossed like this.
Not sure I could tell the two results apart, between your explanation and my theory.
TD
I would think they would have a different look.
To me, the side that's struck looks like it's the side that would have been bonded to the copper layer. There aren't really any contact marks to speak of, but the other side looks more like how I would expect a blank planchet to look. I think @CaptHenway might be onto something.
Collector, occasional seller
I think I agree.
coin in hand under a loupe says the Captain (might be) right as pointed out by Chris H
Fred now what?
Close up photos, for discussion
If it were struck on top of a normal unstuck planchet,
wouldn't the 'reverse side' be blank?
I've seen enough of these, on Quarters,
both Pre-State and State, to believe that
it wasn't a detached layer struck on an unstuck planchet.
Notice how 'mushy' (or indistinct) the incused
lettering is - it doesn't have a Brockage look to
me. And, where would that lettering have come from?
The incused side looks like it does because it was
struck as a normal off center coin, and then split apart
after striking, in my opinion. I'm open to discussion.
The normal lettering side is the top layer of the
clad planchet when struck ; the 'incused' side
would have been the side bonded to the copper
core incorrectly.
As EoC says, "I would think they would have a different look'
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
I'm lost.
You both make sense.
I think my photos show which side is the split side.
Yes, it's easy to see which side,
under either scenario, is the
split side.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Only one way to find out... who knows someone who works at the mint?
Collector, occasional seller
If someone could share a photo of a coin which was struck through a clad layer (they exist, I just cannot find one right now), I think you will see that the design in the struck-through area looks a lot like the back of the OP's coin. This will not look like a normal planchet struck in the same manner, that would cause an indent in the coin beneath it because it is much thicker.
Sean
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I already wrote that but deleted it upon rethinking it as if it was stuck thru a clad layer, the reverse design would show through.
How thin is a 25c clad layer? At a small enough thickness I would think that it would act similar to foil and show the design on both sides when struck through.
I'm far from an expert
Collector, occasional seller
.
only read about 80% of the thread but wanted to say the cert page doesn't show any further error text so this isn't a case where the text didn't print off. minor detail.
.
Okay, here are a couple I found with a quick search.
https://sullivannumismatics.com/productdisplay/10c-1966-roosevelt-35-obverse-struck-through-clad-layer-au-53
Here is a picture of a state quarter from the same seller's archive which has an indent almost exactly the same place as the OP's coin:
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
IMO,
The planchet was split before the strike because, to me, it sure looks like the obverse die struck the split side of a split planchet.
The other side confuses me.
Could it be brockaged by struck thru clad layer coin?
Sean, if it was struck thru a thin clad layer, the reverse would show through, right?
Confusing, I just have to assume that this is the 25% Nickel outer clad layer, very thin that was struck off center...now, my question is, the reverse of the off center strike, those devices are 'incused' right? It would have to be a already struck coin in the chamber that incused the devices on the split planchet, right...or am I on the wrong trail here?
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
No, not at all, it never came close to the reverse dies. I am going to do a poor job explaining this, but here goes anyway:
A normal clad planchet is a sandwich of clad layer / copper core / clad layer. Picture a coin where one clad layer split off after the strike. The copper core will still show the design, but weakly because there was a layer of material between it and the dies when it was struck. The piece that split off will have a crisp design on the side that struck the dies, and a weaker version of the same design on the back, where it was in contact with the clad layer.
Now picture the same thing, except instead of a single planchet , you have an extra clad layer (from a different planchet) resting partially on top of it. Now when the obverse die strikes, it is impressing two stacked clad layers. When the outer one separates, it will look just like your coin. The coin beneath it will have a weaker design where the clad layer was overlapping.
In both cases, the clad layer that separates and the surface under that clad layer will have the same appearance. The difference is on the former, removing the clad layer reveals the copper core, and in the latter, it reveals an intact planchet.
If anyone can add photos to help make this clearer, feel free.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
That is one heck of a theory but not implausible. My question is, if this can be reasonably argued until the powers that be are convinced, wouldn't that make it exponentially rarer than it the error it is slabbed as now?
My head hurts now and I still have 5000 pennies to go thru .....
Just to clean this up, what I think you have is a separated clad layer that was struck off center while atop another planchet. The second coin in this equation would look like the state quarter I posted above. I hope that my previous post makes more sense now.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I'm in agreement with seanq on this one. The reverse looks to have come in contact with the collar lightly just outside of the "struck" area. If this was detached after the strike you would not see those contact marks.
Next up: that error has nice rims on both sides. Did it go through the upsetting process before or after splitting?
It could have been punched from an edge of the strip where the cladding extended beyond the copper core. If it was never bonded to the core, that would explain why there aren’t obvious difference between the faces. It is also possible that the clad layer could have come loose due to the axial pressure of the upsetting process.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Very interesting error... as is this entire discussion. I think this would merit a 'meeting of the experts'.. say at a large show...and examine the error 'in hand' for a definitive conclusion. There are very persuasive inputs posted here, I will be looking forward to the conclusion...Cheers, RickO
...I finally wrapped my head around this error.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Fred, just a theory, but I think I'm right: A normal planchet feeds into the collar, and a split-off cladding layer lands on top of the normal planchet, rough side up, but off-center. The press cycles.
The thin cladding layer is pressed into the recesses of the obverse die, embossed from below by the metal of the normal planchet pushing it upwards, just as every planchet pushes both upwards and downwards during a strike.
When you have a cladding layer that splits off of a "normal coin" after the strike you have this same embossed effect on the underside of the cladding layer. The only difference there is that the underside of the cladding layer will show the rough surface from the bonding of the strip.
Arguments in favor: The off-center head is very well struck, such as might happen when you have extra metal in the coining chamber, specifically the thickness of the normal planchet plus the thickness of the extra cladding layer. Also, the underside of the O/C cladding layer strike is smooth, as though it were struck against the smooth copper-nickel outside of a normal blank planchet rather than a rough copper core.
How much of a "bend" is there in the coin? An off-center strike typically shows a good bend where the struck area is pushed down into the collar and the part still atop the collar bends upwards. A split clad layer laying atop a normal planchet would not push down into the collar as much, and should show less of a bend.
Tom, I think you are right and I believe this is what Sean was saying but about a clad layer instead of a regular planchet.
One note tho, the OC strike does have a pretty good bend to it.
Tom said exactly what I was thinking, he just did a better job of explaining himself.
I would still be curious about the weight, but as far as how it was struck and why the reverse looks the way it does, I think we have it figured out.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Yes, I'll now agree -
I wasn't factoring in the 'bend', but taking
that factor into account, I believe Tom is correct.
The Bend, to me, is the conclusive part of the explanation.
When you get deep into some things, you get the 'bends'.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
What a great thread! Thank you, guys!
To have Tom and Fred go back and forth on this and then have Sean chime in, just wow, a panel of experts.
So would this be called ......
Struck 70% off center on a clad layer uniface reverse
Fred, to refresh your memory I will be submitting this coin for reholdering tomorrow. Thanks again all.