I’m not really a fan of your “Nope, you’re wrong........ I’m not going to say why, but guess what I’m thinking” game. If you have a different theory, why not share it? Truly, I’m happy to learn how this could possibly have happened after striking.
I'm not a fan of "Spoon Feeding" folks who are not paying me for an opinion. I personally like to be challenged by my instructors/mentors/ and forum members. So, rather than blurt out an opinion or refute one already stated, I believe all of us (including me) will learn more when we are asked to think why what we have written cannot be the answer.
This place is supposed to be a free forum of flowing ideas and discussion. Lots of good stuff in this thread. I'm still thinking about the coin. I the meantime, I simply asked WHY a posted opinion CANNOT be correct. It is an easy answer.
Question: Why did the letters appear on the coin EITHER while it was struck or after it was struck AND NOT BEFORE? Just so I'm hated less...Hint: Think what happens to a planchet when it is struck. Now, look at the OP's coin.
If we put our heads together we MAY solve this mystery to everyone's satisfaction. As I wrote, this characteristic has been seen before BUT NO ONE CARED as we all considered it PMD. Some good arguments have been made to dispute this belief; however, they can only work if we can describe how it's possible.
Without having read everything after this post the answer is because striking pressure would have smoothed out anything that was on the planchet. As was explained to me long ago about roller marks, they were expected to be removed when the planchet was struck into a coin.
@tradedollarnut said:
You will NEVER convince me that those letters came onto the coin after the denticles were struck
LOL....BETS???? The more knowledgeable a collector, the easier it is to change their opinion!
@davids5104 said: "The "E" and the "O" also, to me, have some degree of ???(continuation) on the denticles."
They are going to say the metal was not there to fill the incuse area of a partial brockage on one side of a blank planchet. In which case, someone must have an example of an unstruck planchet with only a few letters of a brockage on the edge of the planchet and no other indication of that brockage on the rest of the planchet.
@tradedollarnut said:
You will NEVER convince me that those letters came onto the coin after the denticles were struck
LOL....BETS???? The more knowledgeable a collector, the easier it is to change their opinion!
@davids5104 said: "The "E" and the "O" also, to me, have some degree of ???(continuation) on the denticles."
They are going to say the metal was not there to fill the incuse area of a partial brockage on one side of a blank planchet. In which case, someone must have an example of an unstruck planchet with only a few letters of a brockage on the edge of the planchet and no other indication of that brockage on the rest of the planchet.
@BAJJERFAN said: "Without having read everything after this post the answer is because striking pressure would have smoothed out anything that was on the planchet. As was explained to me long ago about roller marks, they were expected to be removed when the planchet was struck into a coin."
EXACTLY, That's what I was trying to draw out with my questions.. Overstrikes are the exception. The more that is left of the under-coin, the more desirable the overstrike. THE BIG DIFFERENCE is that the partial letters are incuse and not raised as on that "P" over "O" mint dollar.
@tradedollarnut said:
You will NEVER convince me that those letters came onto the coin after the denticles were struck
LOL....BETS???? The more knowledgeable a collector, the easier it is to change their opinion!
@davids5104 said: "The "E" and the "O" also, to me, have some degree of ???(continuation) on the denticles."
They are going to say the metal was not there to fill the incuse area of a partial brockage on one side of a blank planchet. In which case, someone must have an example of an unstruck planchet with only a few letters of a brockage on the edge of the planchet and no other indication of that brockage on the rest of the planchet.
If I max zoom on the middle part of the letter E, the denticle continues that letter precisely.
@tradedollarnut said:
You will NEVER convince me that those letters came onto the coin after the denticles were struck
LOL....BETS???? The more knowledgeable a collector, the easier it is to change their opinion!
@davids5104 said: "The "E" and the "O" also, to me, have some degree of ???(continuation) on the denticles."
They are going to say the metal was not there to fill the incuse area of a partial brockage on one side of a blank planchet. In which case, someone must have an example of an unstruck planchet with only a few letters of a brockage on the edge of the planchet and no other indication of that brockage on the rest of the planchet.
If I max zoom on the middle part of the letter E, the denticle continues that letter precisely.
uh, no it doesn't... how old are all of yall? maybe its time to get lasik!
Ive been just watching this post.. because im not super knowledgeable about this stuff. However, what I am good at is rational logic.
When @insider2 claims an absolute, and then gives examples of exceptions, this is bad logic. In fact, if it were done on a final in a math class I taught, ID FAIL YOU.
The denticles came after the letters. The backwards E is what I keep looking at. Check it out. A ghost of the foot of the E shows at the denticles, then is deeper at the rim.
@tradedollarnut said:
You will NEVER convince me that those letters came onto the coin after the denticles were struck
The "E" and the "O" also, to me, have some degree of ???(continuation) on the denticles
Yup letters came after the denticles.
Nope - denticles came after letters. Your eyes are seeing continuation where it isn’t. The mind likes to do that
How could one possibly put those letters on the upper rim field without completely destroying the supposedly already struck denticles?
All 4 letters in the photo show continuation onto the deticles. If the letters were already there before the coin was struck no way they remain where the denticles now reside.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
In my thinking, it is more important to look at the letters that clearly do not "continue" onto the denticles. That is, the left most E and the S.
now, for the letters that do appear to continue, I dont believe they do. You can find other denticles on the coin with similar looking denticles that have absolutely no other letters in the denticle.
To be clear, evidence that suggest no continuation is more weighing on my thinking than ones that appear to continue due to metal that could fill in on the strike.
Unless there are more arguments to be made, I'd consider this case closed.
Isn't it just that the letters appear to bleed into the denticles because there wasn't enough remaining metal on the following strike to form fully rounded denticles?
@10000lakes said:
Isn't it just that the letters appear to bleed into the denticles because there wasn't enough remaining metal on the following strike to form fully rounded denticles?
I can see VERY faint remnants of a few of the letters in the denticals. To me, it reminds me of what a Daniel Carr piece would look like after restriking (faint ghosting of the letters remain). I can't see how the denticals would not look destroyed or smashed if they were there first, and then the letters were struck. I vote letter came first, then denticals over them.
@tradedollarnut said:
You will NEVER convince me that those letters came onto the coin after the denticles were struck
LOL....BETS???? The more knowledgeable a collector, the easier it is to change their opinion!
@davids5104 said: "The "E" and the "O" also, to me, have some degree of ???(continuation) on the denticles."
They are going to say the metal was not there to fill the incuse area of a partial brockage on one side of a blank planchet. In which case, someone must have an example of an unstruck planchet with only a few letters of a brockage on the edge of the planchet and no other indication of that brockage on the rest of the planchet.
If I max zoom on the middle part of the letter E, the denticle continues that letter precisely.
uh, no it doesn't... how old are all of yall? maybe its time to get lasik!
Ive been just watching this post.. because im not super knowledgeable about this stuff. However, what I am good at is rational logic.
When @insider2 claims an absolute, and then gives examples of exceptions, this is bad logic. In fact, if it were done on a final in a math class I taught, ID FAIL YOU.
He also seems to both know and not know the answer to this question.
@clarkbar04 said:
if the letters were on the planchet before being struck, I would think the letters would be deformed (smooshed inward) a bit when struck in a collar so my vote would be that it happened post-strike.
Unless the brockage was slightly recessed and there wasn’t enough metal for the letters to be fully brought up to the level of the collar. As in the picture of the cent that I posted and supported by the incomplete obverse rim
Following along with the struck-over-off-center-partial-brockage theory...I ask: how could the obverse design rim opposing the inverse lettering be blank?
If you say there was not enough effective pressure to remove the inverse lettering on the reverse, how did it obliterate normally struck details on the obverse design rim?
@TradesWithChops said:
In my thinking, it is more important to look at the letters that clearly do not "continue" onto the denticles. That is, the left most E and the S.
now, for the letters that do appear to continue, I dont believe they do. You can find other denticles on the coin with similar looking denticles that have absolutely no other letters in the denticle.
To be clear, evidence that suggest no continuation is more weighing on my thinking than ones that appear to continue due to metal that could fill in on the strike.
Unless there are more arguments to be made, I'd consider this case closed
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@clarkbar04 said:
if the letters were on the planchet before being struck, I would think the letters would be deformed (smooshed inward) a bit when struck in a collar so my vote would be that it happened post-strike.
Unless the brockage was slightly recessed and there wasn’t enough metal for the letters to be fully brought up to the level of the collar. As in the picture of the cent that I posted and supported by the incomplete obverse rim
Following along with the struck-over-off-center-partial-brockage theory...I ask: how could the obverse design rim opposing the inverse lettering be blank?
If you say there was not enough effective pressure to remove the inverse lettering on the reverse, how did it obliterate normally struck details on the obverse design rim?
That’s where there is no obverse rim - it’s mostly missing.
@clarkbar04 said:
if the letters were on the planchet before being struck, I would think the letters would be deformed (smooshed inward) a bit when struck in a collar so my vote would be that it happened post-strike.
Unless the brockage was slightly recessed and there wasn’t enough metal for the letters to be fully brought up to the level of the collar. As in the picture of the cent that I posted and supported by the incomplete obverse rim
Following along with the struck-over-off-center-partial-brockage theory...I ask: how could the obverse design rim opposing the inverse lettering be blank?
If you say there was not enough effective pressure to remove the inverse lettering on the reverse, how did it obliterate normally struck details on the obverse design rim?
That’s where there is no obverse rim - it’s mostly missing.
Why is it missing? An off center brockage would have normal obverse details.
@clarkbar04 said:
if the letters were on the planchet before being struck, I would think the letters would be deformed (smooshed inward) a bit when struck in a collar so my vote would be that it happened post-strike.
Unless the brockage was slightly recessed and there wasn’t enough metal for the letters to be fully brought up to the level of the collar. As in the picture of the cent that I posted and supported by the incomplete obverse rim
Following along with the struck-over-off-center-partial-brockage theory...I ask: how could the obverse design rim opposing the inverse lettering be blank?
If you say there was not enough effective pressure to remove the inverse lettering on the reverse, how did it obliterate normally struck details on the obverse design rim?
That’s where there is no obverse rim - it’s mostly missing.
Why is it missing? An off center brockage would have normal obverse details.
The brockage thinned the metal at that area. Not enough left to completely fill the collar from the subsequent strike
@clarkbar04 said:
if the letters were on the planchet before being struck, I would think the letters would be deformed (smooshed inward) a bit when struck in a collar so my vote would be that it happened post-strike.
Unless the brockage was slightly recessed and there wasn’t enough metal for the letters to be fully brought up to the level of the collar. As in the picture of the cent that I posted and supported by the incomplete obverse rim
Following along with the struck-over-off-center-partial-brockage theory...I ask: how could the obverse design rim opposing the inverse lettering be blank?
If you say there was not enough effective pressure to remove the inverse lettering on the reverse, how did it obliterate normally struck details on the obverse design rim?
That’s where there is no obverse rim - it’s mostly missing.
Why is it missing? An off center brockage would have normal obverse details.
The brockage thinned the metal at that area. Not enough left to completely fill the collar from the subsequent strike
An off center reverse brockage doesn’t simply have a blank reverse; it has reverse details that, per your logic, should remain unharmed from a subsequent, in-collar strike.
Even the piece that you continue to refer to has a normally struck design on the opposite face of the brockage.
“The brockage thinned the metal at that area. Not enough left to completely fill the collar from the subsequent strike“
@tradedollarnut And unfortunately this is where you lose me a bit. Because I’ve not seen that feature (beveled opposite rim) on any brockages, overstruck or not. I HAVE seen it (or similar) on PMD vice jobs. This is what makes this coin so unusual and interesting to me. It has aspects of both a real error and a commonly faked error.
There are also misaligned dies, obverse is thin opposite of the guido. A modified Blakesley effect that has incomplete rim fill at 180 degrees. Lots of mint issues going on here, possibly initiated by misaligned dies, reverse is centered, obverse die is slightly off-center.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@scubafuel said:
“The brockage thinned the metal at that area. Not enough left to completely fill the collar from the subsequent strike“
@tradedollarnut And unfortunately this is where you lose me a bit. Because I’ve not seen that feature (beveled opposite rim) on any brockages, overstruck or not. I HAVE seen it (or similar) on PMD vice jobs. This is what makes this coin so unusual and interesting to me. It has aspects of both a real error and a commonly faked error.
A unusual coin might have an unusual explanation. Misaligned dies is one possibility, but I'm guessing it's more likely a misaligned planchet, initially struck at an odd angle, given a partial brockage on one side and metal displacement along the opposite rim. This might have been caused by a chunk of a coin, a chunk of coin debris, or something else caught in the press..... then still in good enough shape that the operator sent it through again. Goofy things can happen. A careful microscopic comparison of the rim letters and the regular letters would rule out a vice job if identical die markers could be identified on both. I wouldn't think a vise job would imprint sharp detail to the lettering though. The lettering on the rim looks like it was sharply struck.
@BryceM vice jobs can leave very clear lettering. Check the picture for an example.
Question is, what if you did this to an UNSTRUCK planchet, and then struck it with Morgan dies? Is it possible only the lettering at the edge would remain? I'm not saying anyone at the mint put a blank planchet and a struck coin in a vice, but there's lots of heavy machinery in there that could have a similar effect. The blank is still round after this treatment and could easily be struck in collar.
I have no problem with that, but it still requires a subsequent regular strike, which apparently (without explanation) @insider2 is quite certain didn’t happen.
@Insider2 said:
...
I'll bet we ARE going to solve this to everyone's satisfaction by taking baby steps in 100% agreement.
...
I'll take that bet. The agreed upon facts have already been established: "It's mostly round, mostly silver, and mostly looks like a Morgan." We can't even get agreement on what is shown in the high res pictures, followed by exhortations for another poster to get their eyes checked.
And no, your moderated guiding, or whatever you think is necessary, is not going to change this. And it is also at odds with how online forums work.
Dang it, this thread has the makins for TOTY 2019. Obtuse. Cloying. Annoying. Yet, (somewhat) educational and entertaining. Now, if only the Colonel was still around to have participated.
Other 1899-O dollars were also struck from misaligned dies. This coin has a slightly offset obverse die, not by itself enough to be called an error, but there are other attributes. Obverse, opposite 180 degrees of where the dentils are to the edge of the coin, is a void in the rim that was not filled (absolutely NOT a rim dent). Reverse side at same location are the incuse and reverse letters, most likely from an off-center brockage. Interesting coin that absolutely did not receive a normal, centered strike. Misaligned dies can cause collar die issues.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@scubafuel said: @BryceM vice jobs can leave very clear lettering. Check the picture for an example.
Question is, what if you did this to an UNSTRUCK planchet, and then struck it with Morgan dies? Is it possible only the lettering at the edge would remain? I'm not saying anyone at the mint put a blank planchet and a struck coin in a vice, but there's lots of heavy machinery in there that could have a similar effect. The blank is still round after this treatment and could easily be struck in collar.
It seems like many here are almost arguing the same point. Your argument seems plausible. But the most likely vice like item at the mint where a blank and a struck coin could meet would be in the coining press. IMO.
I am in the error camp with a partial brockage occurs maybe off center and once it was removed the blank planchet was reused.
I am also seeing some irregularities in strike opposite the the partial brockage in @tradedollarnuts picture. The area near the rim opposite seems distorted and has marks that look like possibly more letters that didn’t fully impress.
@abcde12345 said:
Dang it, this thread has the makins for TOTY 2019. Obtuse. Cloying. Annoying. Yet, (somewhat) educational and entertaining. Now, if only the Colonel was still around to have participated.
Insider is being obtuse and condescending himself. So it's kind of like the faux Colonel is here
I am in the error camp with a partial brockage occurs maybe off center and once it was removed the blank planchet was reused.
If this is an off-center brockage, something caused the off-center strike. The misaligned die setup for this coin can definitely create issues with the rim collar and enable an off center strike. Also, I am in agreement - where the incuse letters exist the striking pressure was weak because of the void on the opposite reverse. There was another thread for a misaligned dies 1899-O dollar on Cointalk, and probably others exist.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@bigjpst@BryceM i agree with you as well, which is why brockages are so common. A brockage is a “vice job” caused by the dies mushing planchets together.
One thing that makes this coin slightly different is the presence of the beveled edge (dent, rim void) opposite the incuse lettering. That does not usually feature in a brockage and (IMO) is what caused so many (including error experts who see thousands of brockages) to think PMD. The reason is that a brockage done on a die is supported by the anvil die, so damage or void to the supported side would be very unusual.
The neat thing here is the misaligned dies as @Nysoto pointed out, which I did not think was that important at first but now may provide a good explanation for why a brockage might not be totally supported by an Anvil die...
Wow, those are expensive. I would love to get one for a reasonable price if reprinted.
What price and where did you see them at?
I may have a dozen or more in various editions as I used to buy full book libraries just to get a few books I desperately wanted without drawing any attention to them.
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
Wow, those are expensive. I would love to get one for a reasonable price if reprinted.
What price and where did you see them at?
I may have a dozen or more in various editions as I used to buy full book libraries just to get a few books I desperately wanted without drawing any attention to them.
There was a fourth edition on eBay for $90.
All the others are $50+ as far as I can find, on Amazon and affiliated sellers.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
For those of you following along at home, interesting comments were made by Fred Weinberg in this thread. I don't see how coins rattling around in a bag could bump together hard enough to do this (his theory), but I'm open minded. I'm interested to hear his thoughts after he sees the coin.
It makes me want to try an "experiment" with a few cull Morgans I have at home. I already know exactly how to position them.........
@Insider2 said:
...
I'll bet we ARE going to solve this to everyone's satisfaction by taking baby steps in 100% agreement.
...
I'll take that bet. The agreed upon facts have already been established: "It's mostly round, mostly silver, and mostly looks like a Morgan." We can't even get agreement on what is shown in the high res pictures, followed by exhortations for another poster to get their eyes checked.
And no, your moderated guiding, or whatever you think is necessary, is not going to change this. And it is also at odds with how online forums work.
IMHO, anyone who could not see partial letters or the fact that they are not raised SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSTING in the first place. Additionally, the same goes for anyone who thinks the partial letters were on the coin pre-strike! That's why I felt the need to start at the basics. That has met with resistance and derision.
Okay, so be it. You and the five members that agreed with your comments can figure it out for yourselves because as you posted what I was going to try FOR THE SECOND TIME is also at odds with how online forums work.
@BryceM said:
For those of you following along at home, interesting comments were made by Fred Weinberg in this thread. I don't see how coins rattling around in a bag could bump together hard enough to do this (his theory), but I'm open minded. I'm interested to hear his thoughts after he sees the coin.
It makes me want to try an "experiment" with a few cull Morgans I have at home. I already know exactly how to position them.........
I do not know for sure, but I believe, me calling this a "rim hit" may have drawn his eyes to the obverse without even seeing the reverse
Comments
Without having read everything after this post the answer is because striking pressure would have smoothed out anything that was on the planchet. As was explained to me long ago about roller marks, they were expected to be removed when the planchet was struck into a coin.
Yup letters came after the denticles.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
LOL....BETS???? The more knowledgeable a collector, the easier it is to change their opinion!
@davids5104 said: "The "E" and the "O" also, to me, have some degree of ???(continuation) on the denticles."
They are going to say the metal was not there to fill the incuse area of a partial brockage on one side of a blank planchet. In which case, someone must have an example of an unstruck planchet with only a few letters of a brockage on the edge of the planchet and no other indication of that brockage on the rest of the planchet.
Nope - denticles came after letters. Your eyes are seeing continuation where it isn’t. The mind likes to do that
How could one possibly put those letters on the upper rim field without completely destroying the supposedly already struck denticles?
Yup. See the cent I already posted to this thread
@BAJJERFAN said: "Without having read everything after this post the answer is because striking pressure would have smoothed out anything that was on the planchet. As was explained to me long ago about roller marks, they were expected to be removed when the planchet was struck into a coin."
EXACTLY, That's what I was trying to draw out with my questions.. Overstrikes are the exception. The more that is left of the under-coin, the more desirable the overstrike. THE BIG DIFFERENCE is that the partial letters are incuse and not raised as on that "P" over "O" mint dollar.
If I max zoom on the middle part of the letter E, the denticle continues that letter precisely.
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
Your images are top quality.
uh, no it doesn't... how old are all of yall? maybe its time to get lasik!
Ive been just watching this post.. because im not super knowledgeable about this stuff. However, what I am good at is rational logic.
When @insider2 claims an absolute, and then gives examples of exceptions, this is bad logic. In fact, if it were done on a final in a math class I taught, ID FAIL YOU.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
The denticles came after the letters. The backwards E is what I keep looking at. Check it out. A ghost of the foot of the E shows at the denticles, then is deeper at the rim.
All 4 letters in the photo show continuation onto the deticles. If the letters were already there before the coin was struck no way they remain where the denticles now reside.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
Im confident enough that this is a mint error that I'd pay full CAC money for it.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
In my thinking, it is more important to look at the letters that clearly do not "continue" onto the denticles. That is, the left most E and the S.
now, for the letters that do appear to continue, I dont believe they do. You can find other denticles on the coin with similar looking denticles that have absolutely no other letters in the denticle.
To be clear, evidence that suggest no continuation is more weighing on my thinking than ones that appear to continue due to metal that could fill in on the strike.
Unless there are more arguments to be made, I'd consider this case closed.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
points that I think warrant more discussion.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
How do you hit a struck coin hard enough to transfer letters but NOT smush denticles raised above the area you are hitting? Simply not possible
@TradesWithChops said: "Unless there are more arguments to be made, I'd consider this case closed."
Well shucks, if you would have posted sooner it would have saved all of us a lot of time.
I do what I can!
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
Isn't it just that the letters appear to bleed into the denticles because there wasn't enough remaining metal on the following strike to form fully rounded denticles?
And they were case hardened
I can see VERY faint remnants of a few of the letters in the denticals. To me, it reminds me of what a Daniel Carr piece would look like after restriking (faint ghosting of the letters remain). I can't see how the denticals would not look destroyed or smashed if they were there first, and then the letters were struck. I vote letter came first, then denticals over them.
Guido variant.
He also seems to both know and not know the answer to this question.
Following along with the struck-over-off-center-partial-brockage theory...I ask: how could the obverse design rim opposing the inverse lettering be blank?
If you say there was not enough effective pressure to remove the inverse lettering on the reverse, how did it obliterate normally struck details on the obverse design rim?
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
That’s where there is no obverse rim - it’s mostly missing.
Why is it missing? An off center brockage would have normal obverse details.
The brockage thinned the metal at that area. Not enough left to completely fill the collar from the subsequent strike
Has anyone looked for a small Omega on the eagle's talon ?
An off center reverse brockage doesn’t simply have a blank reverse; it has reverse details that, per your logic, should remain unharmed from a subsequent, in-collar strike.
Even the piece that you continue to refer to has a normally struck design on the opposite face of the brockage.
Edit: reverse details
“The brockage thinned the metal at that area. Not enough left to completely fill the collar from the subsequent strike“
@tradedollarnut And unfortunately this is where you lose me a bit. Because I’ve not seen that feature (beveled opposite rim) on any brockages, overstruck or not. I HAVE seen it (or similar) on PMD vice jobs. This is what makes this coin so unusual and interesting to me. It has aspects of both a real error and a commonly faked error.
There are also misaligned dies, obverse is thin opposite of the guido. A modified Blakesley effect that has incomplete rim fill at 180 degrees. Lots of mint issues going on here, possibly initiated by misaligned dies, reverse is centered, obverse die is slightly off-center.
A unusual coin might have an unusual explanation. Misaligned dies is one possibility, but I'm guessing it's more likely a misaligned planchet, initially struck at an odd angle, given a partial brockage on one side and metal displacement along the opposite rim. This might have been caused by a chunk of a coin, a chunk of coin debris, or something else caught in the press..... then still in good enough shape that the operator sent it through again. Goofy things can happen. A careful microscopic comparison of the rim letters and the regular letters would rule out a vice job if identical die markers could be identified on both. I wouldn't think a vise job would imprint sharp detail to the lettering though. The lettering on the rim looks like it was sharply struck.
@BryceM vice jobs can leave very clear lettering. Check the picture for an example.
Question is, what if you did this to an UNSTRUCK planchet, and then struck it with Morgan dies? Is it possible only the lettering at the edge would remain? I'm not saying anyone at the mint put a blank planchet and a struck coin in a vice, but there's lots of heavy machinery in there that could have a similar effect. The blank is still round after this treatment and could easily be struck in collar.
I have no problem with that, but it still requires a subsequent regular strike, which apparently (without explanation) @insider2 is quite certain didn’t happen.
I'll take that bet. The agreed upon facts have already been established: "It's mostly round, mostly silver, and mostly looks like a Morgan." We can't even get agreement on what is shown in the high res pictures, followed by exhortations for another poster to get their eyes checked.
And no, your moderated guiding, or whatever you think is necessary, is not going to change this. And it is also at odds with how online forums work.
Dang it, this thread has the makins for TOTY 2019. Obtuse. Cloying. Annoying. Yet, (somewhat) educational and entertaining. Now, if only the Colonel was still around to have participated.
Other 1899-O dollars were also struck from misaligned dies. This coin has a slightly offset obverse die, not by itself enough to be called an error, but there are other attributes. Obverse, opposite 180 degrees of where the dentils are to the edge of the coin, is a void in the rim that was not filled (absolutely NOT a rim dent). Reverse side at same location are the incuse and reverse letters, most likely from an off-center brockage. Interesting coin that absolutely did not receive a normal, centered strike. Misaligned dies can cause collar die issues.
It seems like many here are almost arguing the same point. Your argument seems plausible. But the most likely vice like item at the mint where a blank and a struck coin could meet would be in the coining press. IMO.
I am in the error camp with a partial brockage occurs maybe off center and once it was removed the blank planchet was reused.
I am also seeing some irregularities in strike opposite the the partial brockage in @tradedollarnuts picture. The area near the rim opposite seems distorted and has marks that look like possibly more letters that didn’t fully impress.
My Ebay Store
Insider is being obtuse and condescending himself. So it's kind of like the faux Colonel is here
@bigjpst:
If this is an off-center brockage, something caused the off-center strike. The misaligned die setup for this coin can definitely create issues with the rim collar and enable an off center strike. Also, I am in agreement - where the incuse letters exist the striking pressure was weak because of the void on the opposite reverse. There was another thread for a misaligned dies 1899-O dollar on Cointalk, and probably others exist.
Seems likely to me too.
@bigjpst @BryceM i agree with you as well, which is why brockages are so common. A brockage is a “vice job” caused by the dies mushing planchets together.
One thing that makes this coin slightly different is the presence of the beveled edge (dent, rim void) opposite the incuse lettering. That does not usually feature in a brockage and (IMO) is what caused so many (including error experts who see thousands of brockages) to think PMD. The reason is that a brockage done on a die is supported by the anvil die, so damage or void to the supported side would be very unusual.
The neat thing here is the misaligned dies as @Nysoto pointed out, which I did not think was that important at first but now may provide a good explanation for why a brockage might not be totally supported by an Anvil die...
A now scarce out of print book many in this thread should be on the look out to add to your library and read.
It not only covers how each error type occurs, but also every mint stage from planchet perpetration to how coins are struck.
The final printing was the 4th edition, but having read them all editions 1, 2, & 3 are also worth acquiring should any edition surface.
Wow, those are expensive. I would love to get one for a reasonable price if reprinted.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
What price and where did you see them at?
I may have a dozen or more in various editions as I used to buy full book libraries just to get a few books I desperately wanted without drawing any attention to them.
There was a fourth edition on eBay for $90.
All the others are $50+ as far as I can find, on Amazon and affiliated sellers.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
For those of you following along at home, interesting comments were made by Fred Weinberg in this thread. I don't see how coins rattling around in a bag could bump together hard enough to do this (his theory), but I'm open minded. I'm interested to hear his thoughts after he sees the coin.
It makes me want to try an "experiment" with a few cull Morgans I have at home. I already know exactly how to position them.........
IMHO, anyone who could not see partial letters or the fact that they are not raised SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSTING in the first place. Additionally, the same goes for anyone who thinks the partial letters were on the coin pre-strike! That's why I felt the need to start at the basics. That has met with resistance and derision.
Okay, so be it. You and the five members that agreed with your comments can figure it out for yourselves because as you posted what I was going to try FOR THE SECOND TIME is also at odds with how online forums work.
I do not know for sure, but I believe, me calling this a "rim hit" may have drawn his eyes to the obverse without even seeing the reverse
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
@jmlanzaf said: "In either case, I don't think it can be PMD because the denticles are UNAFFECTED.
Perhaps you should take another look. The denticals ARE affected. They have partial letters stamped into them!