Your photographs show numerous tiny bumps found amongst the peripheral letters (but not elsewhere). This is yet another disturbing aspect of the coin. -- Mike Diamond
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
Without seeing the coin in person I can't say for sure, but my opinion based on the photos is that it's unlikely to be a clashed die, and looks damaged to me. "Hammer jobs" (which is how it would've probably been made) can be awfully deceptive at times, and I've seen some super good examples. The coin doesn't look right to me and there are too many things about it which point to its being just a cleverly altered coin.
Based on Ken's image of the quarter's obverse, it's intriguing that the "clashed" leaves appear to be "under" the stars, especially star 13. It's difficult to image how this could be achieve post-minting without disturbing the stars. So much of the "clash" appears to be underneath the quarter design that is supports something that occurred during minting or a very clever fake. Interesting coin, nonetheless.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I've added an image of the Reeding as per your request. I just knew somebody was going to ask . I am not well versed in EA coins so you will have to make the call on the reeding. If you need additional images, just yell. I will continue to refrain from posting my assessment of the coin so as to not cloud the comments of others.
I've added an image of the Reeding as per your request. I just knew somebody was going to ask I am not well versed in EA coins so you will have to make the call on the reeding. If you need additional images, just yell. I will continue to refrain from posting my assessment of the coin so as to not cloud the comments of others.
Ken
>>
Thanks!
Nothing immediately jumps out at me (other than there doesn't appear to be a seam!).
I hate to ask this because it is a bit of a pain to do, but can you give us a reed count? I have heard that if you put the coin in a flashlight reflector, take a photo of it, print that photo out, then count the reeds off by groups of 10 it can be done accurately. perhaps there are other methods too (including just counting them by holding the coin in your hand.
I don't know what the correct reed count(s) are for that year, but I assume that someone in the LSCC will chime in on that.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
I can't get past ten reeds before I lose it. I'll try getting a flashlight today if I go to the local "bargain bin" and try that trick. The flashlights I have here are waterproof and sealed in a manner that I can't get apart. A $1 flashlight will surely fall apart. I first learned of the trick from Lonesome John Devine in 1986. Tried it once but the mirror was the wrong size (I guess).
Couple of things stand out to me. 1. The reverse dentils appear to be tooled along AMERICA 2. The reverse letters seem inconsistent in size and shape and almost appear hand tooled 3. It is hard to tell on my monitor, but the clashing appears incuse. (my eyes could be playing tricks.)
I am no expert, but my gut tells me this is counterfeit. Possibly large cent hammer job, then die struck to appear like a clash.
Having seen the piece in hand I have no doubt that the quarter is a genuine coin struck at the U.S. Mint. The reeding count is irrelevant.
The out of round, however, reinforces the theory that it was a post-Mint sandwich job. Collars do not stretch.
What I can't explain is why the impressions around the stars and etc. did not flatten out the stars and etc.
TD
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.
<< <i>Having seen the piece in hand I have no doubt that the quarter is a genuine coin struck at the U.S. Mint. The reeding count is irrelevant.
The out of round, however, reinforces the theory that it was a post-Mint sandwich job. Collars do not stretch.
What I can't explain is why the impressions around the stars and etc. did not flatten out the stars and etc.
TD >>
Good point.
The out-of-round condition is an indicator of something.
The one point against that is -- I don't recall seeing that issue with that much die rust on the reverse before. Those pimples made me believe it was struck from false dies, perhaps made by the spark erosion process.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
Ken, thanks for looking into this coin and getting us such clear images. Much better than Jack' B&W images and much better than my cell phone images from the show. Jack said that he found the clash after cleaning gunk off the coin. I have no doubt regarding Jack Beymer's story and find it intriguing that it was not presented as an error with some huge back story and price by someone who could have made in their basement. If it were a basement job, I doubt it would have acquired the debris of the ages Jack said it originally had, and it would not have entered the numismatic discussion as a coin found after removing age-old debris by a respected dealer.
Is it not possible that heating the coin could explain the raised bumps and the out-of-roundness? If so, it could still be a real mint product, with an explanation for the things making people nervous.
<< <i>Is it not possible that heating the coin could explain the raised bumps and the out-of-roundness? If so, it could still be a real mint product, with an explanation for the things making people nervous. >>
A good thought.
However, I don't recall seeing a heated coin becoming even slightly out of round as a result. And the heated coins that show the effects of trapped gasses typically show large rounded bubbles and mounds, not these tiny ones.
That is from my observations; others may have seen something different.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
<< <i>Is it not possible that heating the coin could explain the raised bumps and the out-of-roundness? If so, it could still be a real mint product, with an explanation for the things making people nervous. >>
A good thought.
However, I don't recall seeing a heated coin becoming even slightly out of round as a result. And the heated coins that show the effects of trapped gasses typically show large rounded bubbles and mounds, not these tiny ones.
That is from my observations; others may have seen something different. >>
Sure, I haven't seen it either. While heating itself wouldn't cause deformation of the coin to make it out of round, a heated and struck coin might if no collar was used. That doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility if some late night experimentation was going on at the mint.
Abuse of perfectly good working dies.The mint worker responsible should have been sent home for a few days without pay to think about what his job really is.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>Ken, thanks for looking into this coin and getting us such clear images. Much better than Jack' B&W images and much better than my cell phone images from the show. Jack said that he found the clash after cleaning gunk off the coin. I have no doubt regarding Jack Beymer's story and find it intriguing that it was not presented as an error with some huge back story and price by someone who could have made in their basement. If it were a basement job, I doubt it would have acquired the debris of the ages Jack said it originally had, and it would not have entered the numismatic discussion as a coin found after removing age-old debris by a respected dealer. >>
Rick, I have no issues with Jack (or Tom who sent the coin). As far as I'm concerned what Jack or Tom he says is gospel. As for the coin's status, I will remain neutral and not say what I think one way or the other. I leaned of this discussion so I'm just presenting facts I know were not made available previously. Additionally I felt that the images shot with a low light source would be a fresh look at the coin.
As for basement jobs, I have seen them come out of old collections. One that I'll never forget came out of an old bag of Large cents. The bag was tattered and falling apart and within were coins in mixed degrees of preservation; some had seen a bit of environmental damage and others were fine. However, what else was found in the bag besides the mixed date large cents was a beautiful Off Center strike and a fake Brockage. Those coins are shown below.
In any event, since I am a certified quality control guy who has learned strict measurement methods, I felt that some aspects about the coin that were unknown to those commenting in this thread, should be known. For example the coin is out-of-round. Is the degree that it's off significant? I don't know. What I do know is that I have never once encountered a coin that was perfectly round. As soon as the collar begins to wear, what is struck in it will be out-of-round. The same is true for a die. When I measure my dies I can measure them to spec but they are never the same measurement when measured as I described for the subject coin. In general, these minute differences are of no concern.
However, the subject coin was further out of spec then I have ever seen on a coin except the Presidential and Sac dollars with edge inscriptions. (In their infinite wisdom the US Mint decided to edge mark coins instead of planchets - contrary to what the rest of the world does and what the machines were built to do.)
So my hope is to share what I know and hope that other can tell me something like -- ya, that's too far out of spec for a Lib Seated coin ... or the collars were a bit sloppy and this is not abnormal. Hopefully somebody can measure a few quarters from this era and report back.
Also, not being a EA coin guy I hope that I can learn if the spikes are from rust or not. I also hope that somebody can explain how a fake could be made without disrupting the raised design elements. This is a curiosity that had nothing to do with this coin. None of this has anything to do with questioning the integrity of Jack or Tom. I hope nobody gets that idea.
Thanks for chiming in Rick! Your comments are valued and welcome!
<< <i>Is it not possible that heating the coin could explain the raised bumps and the out-of-roundness? If so, it could still be a real mint product, with an explanation for the things making people nervous. >>
A good thought.
However, I don't recall seeing a heated coin becoming even slightly out of round as a result. And the heated coins that show the effects of trapped gasses typically show large rounded bubbles and mounds, not these tiny ones.
That is from my observations; others may have seen something different. >>
Sure, I haven't seen it either. While heating itself wouldn't cause deformation of the coin to make it out of round, a heated and struck coin might if no collar was used. That doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility if some late night experimentation was going on at the mint. >>
It is possible to get it out of round depending on how the heat is applied. I'd imagine that in order to get a noticeable effect you'd have to heat up the coin in a highly localized area and cool it down very rapidly multiple times. It'd be an unusual circumstance for sure, especially if it wasn't done on purpose.
it's hard to imagine that this could have happened accidentally if I understand the procedure the OP has put forth. it would mean that an obverse Cent die would need to clash with a reverse Quarter die, a Reverse Cent die would need to clash with an obverse Quarter die and then the pair would need to be used together to strike the OP coin. improbable at best and highly unlikely at worst. considering the other FE overstrikes a reasonable person should conclude that it was the so-called MidnightMinter at work.
<< <i>it's hard to imagine that this could have happened accidentally if I understand the procedure the OP has put forth. it would mean that an obverse Cent die would need to clash with a reverse Quarter die, a Reverse Cent die would need to clash with an obverse Quarter die and then the pair would need to be used together to strike the OP coin. improbable at best and highly unlikely at worst. considering the other FE overstrikes a reasonable person should conclude that it was the so-called MidnightMinter at work. >>
Yes, it would have required two different pairs of mismatched dies heavily clashing together at an angle in precisely the right areas that would later fall opposite each other when the quarter dies were then put in a press. What are the odds against that?
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 large cent obverse die (27.5 mm) will not go into the Seated Quarter reverse chamber (24.3 mm) to clash...but the seated quarter obverse die can enter the large cent reverse chamber and clash...wait, this is very confusing.
...a coiner who got really mixed up swapping out dies, I.E. No, that's not right, neither is that...oops, did it again! (to hide the evidence, the coiner just tosses the morphodite quarter into the coin bin, drops the dies on the floor to mar them before turning them in...heads to the pub for more grog.)
<< <i>Having seen the piece in hand I have no doubt that the quarter is a genuine coin struck at the U.S. Mint. The reeding count is irrelevant.
The out of round, however, reinforces the theory that it was a post-Mint sandwich job. Collars do not stretch.
What I can't explain is why the impressions around the stars and etc. did not flatten out the stars and etc.
TD >>
I'm sure you know this but others may not. So there is no confusion, dies do not stretch but they can be worn out-of-round. This die also has pitting from rust (I polished the rust out myself), die cracks, dents, etc., not relevant to this discussion.
Here are images of one of my dies, the face of the die and an edge view of the die at about 1:00 O'Clock. 01
<< <i>It sure would be important if a second example surfaced. >>
Rick, so true! I had an early date Canadian 10c Cud that I shot in the late 1980/ or the early 1990s that I began to doubt, thinking maybe it was a solder coin removed from a piece of jewelry or similar, due to it being so heavily cleaned and just not remembering the coin that well. I recently posted it elsewhere where it got beat up a bit and then the thread died. Just a few days ago a fellow found a second example. If this coin is in fact genuine it would seem like a second example should show up in time. Until then it appears the coin will remain controversial.
Until then it appears the coin will remain controversial.
I don't think the coin is controversial, it is what it is and stands on that. what is controversial is the way that it came into being. collectors will always pay for what they find interesting or valuable regardless of whether or not those things are legitimate or accepted by the masses of the Hobby.
<< <i>Until then it appears the coin will remain controversial.
I don't think the coin is controversial, it is what it is and stands on that. what is controversial is the way that it came into being. collectors will always pay for what they find interesting or valuable regardless of whether or not those things are legitimate or accepted by the masses of the Hobby. >>
Keets, if you look up the word "controversial" in the dictionary, you will find that until there is a consensus among collectors, that "controversial" quite aptly describes anything where there are no absolutes to prove something one way or another. Even finding a second specimen could leave this coin in the realm of being controversial as a significant number of folks will argue that it is just represents a second specimen from counterfeit dies.
Comments
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I've added an image of the Reeding as per your request. I just knew somebody was going to ask
Ken
<< <i>DaveW,
I've added an image of the Reeding as per your request. I just knew somebody was going to ask
Ken
Thanks!
Nothing immediately jumps out at me (other than there doesn't appear to be a seam!).
I hate to ask this because it is a bit of a pain to do, but can you give us a reed count? I have heard that if you put the coin in a flashlight reflector, take a photo of it, print that photo out, then count the reeds off by groups of 10 it can be done accurately. perhaps there are other methods too (including just counting them by holding the coin in your hand.
I don't know what the correct reed count(s) are for that year, but I assume that someone in the LSCC will chime in on that.
I can't get past ten reeds before I lose it. I'll try getting a flashlight today if I go to the local "bargain bin" and try that trick. The flashlights I have here are waterproof and sealed in a manner that I can't get apart. A $1 flashlight will surely fall apart. I first learned of the trick from Lonesome John Devine in 1986. Tried it once but the mirror was the wrong size (I guess).
1. The reverse dentils appear to be tooled along AMERICA
2. The reverse letters seem inconsistent in size and shape and almost appear hand tooled
3. It is hard to tell on my monitor, but the clashing appears incuse. (my eyes could be playing tricks.)
I am no expert, but my gut tells me this is counterfeit. Possibly large cent hammer job, then die struck to appear like a clash.
My Ebay Store
The out of round, however, reinforces the theory that it was a post-Mint sandwich job. Collars do not stretch.
What I can't explain is why the impressions around the stars and etc. did not flatten out the stars and etc.
TD
<< <i>Having seen the piece in hand I have no doubt that the quarter is a genuine coin struck at the U.S. Mint. The reeding count is irrelevant.
The out of round, however, reinforces the theory that it was a post-Mint sandwich job. Collars do not stretch.
What I can't explain is why the impressions around the stars and etc. did not flatten out the stars and etc.
TD >>
Good point.
The out-of-round condition is an indicator of something.
The one point against that is -- I don't recall seeing that issue with that much die rust on the reverse before. Those pimples made me believe it was struck from false dies, perhaps made by the spark erosion process.
<< <i>Having seen the piece in hand I have no doubt that the quarter is a genuine coin struck at the U.S. Mint. The reeding count is irrelevant.
The out of round, however, reinforces the theory that it was a post-Mint sandwich job. Collars do not stretch.
What I can't explain is why the impressions around the stars and etc. did not flatten out the stars and etc.
TD >>
Maybe the flattening was repaired after the fact. That might explain all the odd dentils.
My Ebay Store
<< <i>Is it not possible that heating the coin could explain the raised bumps and the out-of-roundness? If so, it could still be a real mint product, with an explanation for the things making people nervous. >>
A good thought.
However, I don't recall seeing a heated coin becoming even slightly out of round as a result. And the heated coins that show the effects of trapped gasses typically show large rounded bubbles and mounds, not these tiny ones.
That is from my observations; others may have seen something different.
<< <i>
<< <i>Is it not possible that heating the coin could explain the raised bumps and the out-of-roundness? If so, it could still be a real mint product, with an explanation for the things making people nervous. >>
A good thought.
However, I don't recall seeing a heated coin becoming even slightly out of round as a result. And the heated coins that show the effects of trapped gasses typically show large rounded bubbles and mounds, not these tiny ones.
That is from my observations; others may have seen something different. >>
Sure, I haven't seen it either. While heating itself wouldn't cause deformation of the coin to make it out of round, a heated and struck coin might if no collar was used. That doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility if some late night experimentation was going on at the mint.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>Ken, thanks for looking into this coin and getting us such clear images. Much better than Jack' B&W images and much better than my cell phone images from the show. Jack said that he found the clash after cleaning gunk off the coin. I have no doubt regarding Jack Beymer's story and find it intriguing that it was not presented as an error with some huge back story and price by someone who could have made in their basement. If it were a basement job, I doubt it would have acquired the debris of the ages Jack said it originally had, and it would not have entered the numismatic discussion as a coin found after removing age-old debris by a respected dealer. >>
Rick,
I have no issues with Jack (or Tom who sent the coin). As far as I'm concerned what Jack or Tom he says is gospel. As for the coin's status, I will remain neutral and not say what I think one way or the other. I leaned of this discussion so I'm just presenting facts I know were not made available previously. Additionally I felt that the images shot with a low light source would be a fresh look at the coin.
As for basement jobs, I have seen them come out of old collections. One that I'll never forget came out of an old bag of Large cents. The bag was tattered and falling apart and within were coins in mixed degrees of preservation; some had seen a bit of environmental damage and others were fine. However, what else was found in the bag besides the mixed date large cents was a beautiful Off Center strike and a fake Brockage. Those coins are shown below.
In any event, since I am a certified quality control guy who has learned strict measurement methods, I felt that some aspects about the coin that were unknown to those commenting in this thread, should be known. For example the coin is out-of-round. Is the degree that it's off significant? I don't know. What I do know is that I have never once encountered a coin that was perfectly round. As soon as the collar begins to wear, what is struck in it will be out-of-round. The same is true for a die. When I measure my dies I can measure them to spec but they are never the same measurement when measured as I described for the subject coin. In general, these minute differences are of no concern.
However, the subject coin was further out of spec then I have ever seen on a coin except the Presidential and Sac dollars with edge inscriptions. (In their infinite wisdom the US Mint decided to edge mark coins instead of planchets - contrary to what the rest of the world does and what the machines were built to do.)
So my hope is to share what I know and hope that other can tell me something like -- ya, that's too far out of spec for a Lib Seated coin ... or the collars were a bit sloppy and this is not abnormal. Hopefully somebody can measure a few quarters from this era and report back.
Also, not being a EA coin guy I hope that I can learn if the spikes are from rust or not. I also hope that somebody can explain how a fake could be made without disrupting the raised design elements. This is a curiosity that had nothing to do with this coin. None of this has anything to do with questioning the integrity of Jack or Tom. I hope nobody gets that idea.
Thanks for chiming in Rick! Your comments are valued and welcome!
Ken
Genuine Off Center Strike
Fake Brockage
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Is it not possible that heating the coin could explain the raised bumps and the out-of-roundness? If so, it could still be a real mint product, with an explanation for the things making people nervous. >>
A good thought.
However, I don't recall seeing a heated coin becoming even slightly out of round as a result. And the heated coins that show the effects of trapped gasses typically show large rounded bubbles and mounds, not these tiny ones.
That is from my observations; others may have seen something different. >>
Sure, I haven't seen it either. While heating itself wouldn't cause deformation of the coin to make it out of round, a heated and struck coin might if no collar was used. That doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility if some late night experimentation was going on at the mint. >>
It is possible to get it out of round depending on how the heat is applied. I'd imagine that in order to get a noticeable effect you'd have to heat up the coin in a highly localized area and cool it down very rapidly multiple times. It'd be an unusual circumstance for sure, especially if it wasn't done on purpose.
<< <i>it's hard to imagine that this could have happened accidentally if I understand the procedure the OP has put forth. it would mean that an obverse Cent die would need to clash with a reverse Quarter die, a Reverse Cent die would need to clash with an obverse Quarter die and then the pair would need to be used together to strike the OP coin. improbable at best and highly unlikely at worst. considering the other FE overstrikes a reasonable person should conclude that it was the so-called MidnightMinter at work. >>
Yes, it would have required two different pairs of mismatched dies heavily clashing together at an angle in precisely the right areas that would later fall opposite each other when the quarter dies were then put in a press. What are the odds against that?
...a coiner who got really mixed up swapping out dies, I.E. No, that's not right, neither is that...oops, did it again! (to hide the evidence, the coiner just tosses the morphodite quarter into the coin bin, drops the dies on the floor to mar them before turning them in...heads to the pub for more grog.)
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>Having seen the piece in hand I have no doubt that the quarter is a genuine coin struck at the U.S. Mint. The reeding count is irrelevant.
The out of round, however, reinforces the theory that it was a post-Mint sandwich job. Collars do not stretch.
What I can't explain is why the impressions around the stars and etc. did not flatten out the stars and etc.
TD >>
I'm sure you know this but others may not. So there is no confusion, dies do not stretch but they can be worn out-of-round. This die also has pitting from rust (I polished the rust out myself), die cracks, dents, etc., not relevant to this discussion.
Here are images of one of my dies, the face of the die and an edge view of the die at about 1:00 O'Clock.
01
Images Copyright Ken Potter 2015
<< <i>It sure would be important if a second example surfaced. >>
Rick, so true! I had an early date Canadian 10c Cud that I shot in the late 1980/ or the early 1990s that I began to doubt, thinking maybe it was a solder coin removed from a piece of jewelry or similar, due to it being so heavily cleaned and just not remembering the coin that well. I recently posted it elsewhere where it got beat up a bit and then the thread died. Just a few days ago a fellow found a second example. If this coin is in fact genuine it would seem like a second example should show up in time. Until then it appears the coin will remain controversial.
I don't think the coin is controversial, it is what it is and stands on that. what is controversial is the way that it came into being. collectors will always pay for what they find interesting or valuable regardless of whether or not those things are legitimate or accepted by the masses of the Hobby.
<< <i>Until then it appears the coin will remain controversial.
I don't think the coin is controversial, it is what it is and stands on that. what is controversial is the way that it came into being. collectors will always pay for what they find interesting or valuable regardless of whether or not those things are legitimate or accepted by the masses of the Hobby. >>
Keets, if you look up the word "controversial" in the dictionary, you will find that until there is a consensus among collectors, that "controversial" quite aptly describes anything where there are no absolutes to prove something one way or another. Even finding a second specimen could leave this coin in the realm of being controversial as a significant number of folks will argue that it is just represents a second specimen from counterfeit dies.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5