PMD or VERY filled die ?

ebaybuyer · February 20, 2013 11:03AM

lets hear from the crowd. feel free to offer an opinion (and an explanation to support your opinion)

magikbilly · February 20, 2013 11:07AM

Well, the Rev rim and denticles are intact so I might go with the former. I don't "do" errors so that is my wag (make 'em, yes, hopefully with decreasing frequency

.

Eric

Wooly · February 20, 2013 11:10AM

Neither, no evidence of damage. Just well worn, IMHO.

CaptHenway · February 20, 2013 11:10AM

My gut feeling is PMD, but it is very difficult to be sure.

ebaybuyer · February 20, 2013 11:38AM

anyone else ?

MsMorrisine · February 20, 2013 11:41AM

pmd: gut, too

notwilight · February 20, 2013 11:47AM

Wear isn't even so something is amiss. Bent would be an option but there is no evidence on the obverse and the reverse is worn in a way that coins don't usually bend.

Another option is a bulged die. If the die bulged such that the strike was weak in those areas, then normal wear would remove the devices early.

--Jerry

ebaybuyer · February 20, 2013 11:49AM

anyone wish to offer any reason for thier theory ?

magikbilly · February 20, 2013 12:05PM

I did, and I said it wrong as well. I meant the latter.

Eric

halfhunter · February 20, 2013 12:14PM

Why do you feel that it is not a filled die?

HH

ebaybuyer · February 20, 2013 12:19PM

sounds like more of a hypothesis than a WAG magikbilly, you should give yourself a bit more credit. the denticles are strong and show no gouges as would be expected if the reverse was ground with a tool of some sort. the obverse shows no signs of "flattening" as would be expected if the reverse was pounded on to obliterate the design, nor is the coin mis-shapen

messydesk · February 20, 2013 12:21PM

Looks like a filled die to me. Denticles are full all the way around the reverse. Could be PMD, I suppose, but it's a weird pattern for it.

magikbilly · February 20, 2013 3:32PM

<< <i>sounds like more of a hypothesis than a WAG magikbilly, you should give yourself a bit more credit. the denticles are strong and show no gouges as would be expected if the reverse was ground with a tool of some sort. the obverse shows no signs of "flattening" as would be expected if the reverse was pounded on to obliterate the design, nor is the coin mis-shapen >>

Thanks - working on it

Best wishes,
Eric

lordmarcovan · February 20, 2013 4:25PM

Weird wear pattern, for sure.

IF that's what it is: wear.

I dunno. My gut glance told me "filled die" or "struck through grease" or something like that, but I'll be the first to admit that's not my niche.

Wolf359 · February 20, 2013 4:34PM

<< <i>Looks like a filled die to me. Denticles are full all the way around the reverse. Could be PMD, I suppose, but it's a weird pattern for it. >>

I agree.

ebaybuyer · February 21, 2013 2:22AM

based upon examination, i vote filled die.

WoodenJefferson · February 21, 2013 3:20AM

<< <i>based upon examination, i vote filled die. >>

Not so fast. Taking into the account that the dime was struck and circulated during the Civil War era, soldiers in the field had to be creative. Perhaps it was a perfect fit for some sort of spacer and the only contact point wore this pattern? Who's to say? I vote PMD only because there is not conclusive evidence to support a mint error.

ebaybuyer · February 21, 2013 3:37AM

kind of a far fetched theory but ok i asked for it. my examination includes what i consider to be conclusive evidence. anyone have any idea how one can "weigh" all these theories and arrive at a conclusion ?

ricko · February 21, 2013 3:43AM

I would go with PMD because there is still significant interpretable details of the design visible in the worn area. Now, what the mechanism for wear might have been, I have no idea. Cheers, RickO

ebaybuyer · February 21, 2013 3:50AM

perhaps we could "scale" down the possibilities and arrive at a concludion that is worth its "weight" in truth

PMD or VERY filled die ?

Comments

Leave a Comment