Options
Mint error or post mint damage Roosevelt dime
jonathanb
Posts: 4,168 ✭✭✭✭✭
What say you: Mint error or post mint damage? Defend your answer!
1
Comments
Planchet Error.
Successful BST Transactions!SIconbuster, Meltdown, Mission16, slothman2000, RGjohn, braddick, au58lover, allcoinsrule, commemdude, gerard, lablade, PCcoins, greencopper, kaz, tydye, cucamongacoin, mkman123, SeaEaglecoins, Doh!, AnkurJ, Airplanenut, ArizonaJack, JJM,Tee135,LordMarcovan, Swampboy, piecesofme, Ahrensdad,
interesting the relief of the mintmark
you know how with clips, the rims kind of fall down into the clip? I do not see that at the left most portion of the "missing piece" down near 6:30 on the rim.
I'll bet FW calls this PMD
And that's a pretty dramatic one
<< <i>struck on "defective" planchet, probably the result of a lamination that detached prior to the coin being struck. >>
then why doesn't the rim fall into the void at 6:30 on the obverse photo?
Error... defective planchet.
<< <i>After seeing the reverse, definitely an error. IMHO. >>
Agreed. Part of the planchet was missing prior to the strike. The thin area, rough on the obverse, left a corresponding weak area on the reverse.
Genuine error. Struck on a defective planchet.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>struck on "defective" planchet, probably the result of a lamination that detached prior to the coin being struck. >>
then why doesn't the rim fall into the void at 6:30 on the obverse photo?
>>
Because the planchet was of normal diameter, unlike a clip where you have lateral metal flow into the void.
Hoard the keys.
this is a 81?
even in the protected areas of the reeding, there is a lot of cu-ni look to it. where is the copper core?
and that right side impression goes more than halfway through the coin yet at the "bottom of the trough" there is no copper core showing. It looks cu-ni, too.
I think this thing has been post mint plated.
Can anyone explain why the "8" in the date is not struck up and looks like a "3" shape, but the "P" mintmark has high and full relief?
1. PMD?
2. PMD && a defective planchet?
3. a defective planchet?
I'm back on 1. and feel like I've ruled out 3.
Genuine error, struck on defective planchet.
<< <i>bump for further review....
1. PMD?
2. PMD && a defective planchet?
3. a defective planchet?
I'm back on 1. and feel like I've ruled out 3. >>
Why rule out 3?
You have well-respected members saying that's what it is. The '2009 Numismatist of the Year' should be enough for ya
I ruled out 3. because of what I see on the edge picture as evidence of a post-mint plate job. Plus the 8 in the date looked like damage, too.
That gash is more than halfway through the coin (se edge photo) and the copper core is not showing. also, the copper core is not showing on the reeding, even in the recesses. Looks like a plate job to me.
I believe something happened as it was being bonded. By 1981 the bonding was done by
rollers and I'd guess that something adhered to the rollers; perhaps sinter or slag from the
other end of the strip. This is based on the fact that there is cu/ ni cladding smeared on the
edge by the shears which cut it from the strip showing one that the upper clad was in place
and two that the planchet was cut with the obverse up.
If this is the case then it's a most unusual error. It's hard to rule out the possibility that the
strip was damaged outside the bonding process but this damage seems more specific. What
would cause such an odd looking dent?
It probably has a sister coin or two out there somewhere since the damage goes past the rim.