@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
I have been studying this coin for a year, posting it occasionally to get feedback, and I am irritated that I missed that. It is conflicting with all the other information I strongly believe about the coin. Thank you for pointing it out, and I did finally find it described.
The conflict is two things that can't be true at the same time. Either there are exceptions in the process that can allow a strike thru to be raised to some degree from the field or the three strikes that match almost perfectly must be an incredible coincidence.
Which brings me to the process itself.
In order to have on center multiple strikes beyond the intentional double striking of a proof, it would have been impossible to have only 3 strikes in 1888. There is only one possible means of multiple on strikes, and that is a spring failure that pulls the two halves of the fingers to stop moving planchets and coins while the press is running 100 strokes a minute. An operator needed to manually disengage the belt driven press and step on a foot pedal which would take time to slow and finally stop the energy in the flywheel. To put that into perspective, 6 seconds would have allowed 10 strikes on the coin.
Additionally, the first strike would have been normal before the malfunctioning of the fingers. Because it made it to the die and successfully placed the planchet on the die to be struck with the fingers were on the way back
.
The concept that the field should be flattened on a strikethrough is assuming a single strike.
The final strikes on this coin were while an operator, (likely a woman operator) was stepping on a foot pedal and bringing the press to a stop.
I'm adding a picture of a proof double struck on purpose to show what evidence is visible in a simple intentional double strike. I believe my coin is struck more than 10 times.
Occam's razor.
I see ZERO evidence that your coin was struck twice much less 10x IN PERFECT ALIGNMENT.
Do yourself a favor. Get a coin. Get a letter punch. And punch a couple letters into your coin. You will notice the same exact things (multiple similar/identical marks) in a coin that was clearly damaged BY you after the strike. Any residual sharpness near the edges of your punch will easily be worn down by circulation.
I don't think anything except a coin that is stuck to the die is struck 10+ times. You should really consider the previous advice about PMD.
I didn't know Coins get stuck to dies.
Clearly not on proof coins.
The coin that you have also does not look like a proof. Proofs are very shiny and smooth looking in their original condition.
It isn't a proof. I was pointing out one of the things that shows up on a multiple struck coins. Specifically on the denticles. The coin moves around between strikes.
I can only hope to have the experience, knowledge, and certainty about the Minting process
That the OP has.
Maybe then I can fully understand what happened to his coin. /s.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
These extrusions can only be from post-mint damage. Additionally, the interior of the left-hand damage is the texture of a directional scrape, not a strikethrough.
Also, none of this matters very much - even if these had been strikethroughs, they are very minute and the value of the coin would be increased by approximately $0.00.
@Rexford said:
These extrusions can only be from post-mint damage. Additionally, the interior of the left-hand damage is the texture of a directional scrape, not a strikethrough.
Also, none of this matters very much - even if these had been strikethroughs, they are very minute and the value of the coin would be increased by approximately $0.00.
I'm on the fence about the one to the left except that if it were scraped directionally it would not be equally surrounded.
As for the material moved into the lower inner loop, the bottom is caused by the shrapnel across an already fully formed 8. When the die closed this caused the breaking of the inner loop punch and forcing it towards the middle.
The upper one had no punch left to stop it from moving across.
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
I wanted to add where I think the object you are calling PMD is from.
If the die came down with the broken inner 8 in the left middle, what
would happen to the field on the perimeter of the 8?
It's a waste of time saying "PMD" or offering explanations. The OP is either an excellent bridge dweller or simply unwilling to accept any answer than the one they want.
As soon as we needed 10+ strikes in the press, we left the world of the rational behind. It should never be necessary to add layers of complexity to support your assumption when a simpler explanation exists. Yet...
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
PMD outside the "8." Mint error inside the "8."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
PMD outside the "8." Mint error inside the "8."
No
My speculation of what we're seeing with this IHC is as good as any I've seen here so far.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
I wanted to add where I think the object you are calling PMD is from.
If the die came down with the broken inner 8 in the left middle, what
would happen to the field on the perimeter of the 8?
What are you waiting for? Send it in.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
PMD outside the "8." Mint error inside the "8."
No
My speculation of what we're seeing with this IHC is as good as any I've seen here so far.
So you ascribe to the very "likely" 10 strike theory?
What makes you believe that is anything other than damage?
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
PMD outside the "8." Mint error inside the "8."
No
My speculation of what we're seeing with this IHC is as good as any I've seen here so far.
So you ascribe to the very "likely" 10 strike theory?
What makes you believe that is anything other than damage?
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
PMD outside the "8." Mint error inside the "8."
No
My speculation of what we're seeing with this IHC is as good as any I've seen here so far.
So you ascribe to the very "likely" 10 strike theory?
What makes you believe that is anything other than damage?
The discrepancy within the last "8" looks like it came from a defect in the punch used to make the "8." There should be other examples of 1888 IHC's extant that exhibit this discrepancy if I am correct.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
PMD outside the "8." Mint error inside the "8."
No
My speculation of what we're seeing with this IHC is as good as any I've seen here so far.
So you ascribe to the very "likely" 10 strike theory?
What makes you believe that is anything other than damage?
The discrepancy within the last "8" looks like it came from a defect in the punch used to make the "8." There should be other examples of 1888 IHC's extant that exhibit this discrepancy if I am correct.
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
PMD outside the "8." Mint error inside the "8."
No
My speculation of what we're seeing with this IHC is as good as any I've seen here so far.
So you ascribe to the very "likely" 10 strike theory?
What makes you believe that is anything other than damage?
The discrepancy within the last "8" looks like it came from a defect in the punch used to make the "8." There should be other examples of 1888 IHC's extant that exhibit this discrepancy if I am correct.
There are none. Now, what's your theory?
None that you know of.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Folks, OP needs time to assimilate. Imagine the disappointment of learning that a year of research is moot.
OP clings to hopes, but does not toss insults.
OP, please decompress—stop looking at that coin. I will give you twenty dollars for it, or a roll of wheat cents that have not been searched for errors, or some Eisenhauser proofs; not because it is worth it, but to help you get past the obesssion, and get something for it.
I don’t want it, though, I don’t like dented coins, even if there may be a strike through on the coin. I’m gonna shoot at it from a hundred feet with a model 25 Daisy, and post pictures for everyone’s therapy.
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
PMD outside the "8." Mint error inside the "8."
No
My speculation of what we're seeing with this IHC is as good as any I've seen here so far.
So you ascribe to the very "likely" 10 strike theory?
What makes you believe that is anything other than damage?
The discrepancy within the last "8" looks like it came from a defect in the punch used to make the "8." There should be other examples of 1888 IHC's extant that exhibit this discrepancy if I am correct.
Welcome to the forum @Sberry002 ! Great pictures. I agree with the others, it's damage.
When you ask a question, and then argue with all the responders... you will usually get a less than favorable response. It happens all too often when a new collector rejects the advice of a room that contains many experts, veteran collectors and dealers. The approach you are taking is a one way ticket to gruff responses, and ultimately being ignored.
You are new, and already in a bit of a hole... so, I advise to stop digging. Simply thank that group, and if you want a second opinion, take it to a Coin Shop (but don't argue there either).
I tell newer collectors that starting with "errors" is not a good entry point to the hobby. There is too much to know, and too much damage to confuse you. Most collectors that start this way end-up with a binder full of damaged, face-value coins...
I wish you luck, but again... to be successful on the forum (and in the hobby), you may want to change your approach.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
PMD outside the "8." Mint error inside the "8."
No
My speculation of what we're seeing with this IHC is as good as any I've seen here so far.
So you ascribe to the very "likely" 10 strike theory?
What makes you believe that is anything other than damage?
The discrepancy within the last "8" looks like it came from a defect in the punch used to make the "8." There should be other examples of 1888 IHC's extant that exhibit this discrepancy if I am correct.
There are none. Now, what's your theory?
None that you know of.
No.. there are none. So then what's your theory?
Strike through within the "8". A tiny metal piece (shaped like a foot) got between the flan and the die prior to striking. The strike was made resulting in what we are seeing within the "8". Final answer.
Too bad about the PMD outside the "8". C'est la vie.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
PMD outside the "8." Mint error inside the "8."
No
My speculation of what we're seeing with this IHC is as good as any I've seen here so far.
So you ascribe to the very "likely" 10 strike theory?
What makes you believe that is anything other than damage?
The discrepancy within the last "8" looks like it came from a defect in the punch used to make the "8." There should be other examples of 1888 IHC's extant that exhibit this discrepancy if I am correct.
There are none. Now, what's your theory?
None that you know of.
No.. there are none. So then what's your theory?
Strike through within the "8". A tiny metal piece (shaped like a foot) got between the flan and the die prior to striking. The strike was made resulting in what we are seeing within the "8". Final answer.
Too bad about the PMD outside the "8". C'est la vie.
That buzzer sound is letting you know that your final answer was incorrect. But some parting gifts from our sponsor await you.
@Shurke said:
In the area to the left of the 8, there are raised ridges around the impression, which are a clear indication of PMD (see my edit of your pic). From your pics, I'm not seeing similar ridges in the area inside the 8, but being that there's already established PMD close by, it seems likely it's more of the same.
PMD outside the "8." Mint error inside the "8."
No
My speculation of what we're seeing with this IHC is as good as any I've seen here so far.
So you ascribe to the very "likely" 10 strike theory?
What makes you believe that is anything other than damage?
The discrepancy within the last "8" looks like it came from a defect in the punch used to make the "8." There should be other examples of 1888 IHC's extant that exhibit this discrepancy if I am correct.
There are none. Now, what's your theory?
None that you know of.
No.. there are none. So then what's your theory?
Strike through within the "8". A tiny metal piece (shaped like a foot) got between the flan and the die prior to striking. The strike was made resulting in what we are seeing within the "8". Final answer.
Too bad about the PMD outside the "8". C'est la vie.
Because on a coin with all the other damage ( scratches, rim bump), there's just no way that isn't just more damage...???
It is a multiple struck, multiple strike through caused by mechanical failure.
It has raised material around the left most struck through piece because the press was not able to fully close in the final strikes. Too little speed and added die chip material into the third 8.
It is a G8 so there has to be some PMD, but those pieces are from the broken die.
@Sberry002 said:
It is a multiple struck, multiple strike through caused by mechanical failure.
It has raised material around the left most struck through piece because the press was not able to fully close in the final strikes. Too little speed and added die chip material into the third 8.
It is a G8 so there has to be some PMD, but those pieces are from the broken die.
So stop wasting (y)our time yammering to us about it and send it in to a TPG then and confirm what you are convinced is true.
Uggams' razor strikes again! Uggam's razor owes its name to the great singer/actress Leslie Uggams. It is just an ordinary razor, so it's easy to use. Just take the simplest explanation and use the razor to hack it to pieces.
I'm starting to understand why mr1931 gets a lot of flack around here.
I have yet to see a cogent explanation (other than my own, of course) of what happened with the OP's 1888 penny. Lots of talk but no walk.
I call it as I see it. Too bad we can't have more of that kind of thing going on around here. >
The explanation is: It's post mint damage. There is no other explanation. I'm not sure why anyone thinks otherwise unless they're trolling the forum, delusional, or both.
Aside from not being able to find anything stating that there can be no displacement above the field, which on the surface makes very logical sense, I would question the fact that a strike through isn't capable of holding the press open enough to not re impact the field.
I'm curious about how many pounds of pressure a coin strike takes. I do know a steel nail could not hold the dies open because I think PCGS certified a coin with a naail in it.
I'm starting to understand why mr1931 gets a lot of flack around here.
I have yet to see a cogent explanation (other than my own, of course) of what happened with the OP's 1888 penny. Lots of talk but no walk.
I call it as I see it. Too bad we can't have more of that kind of thing going on around here. >
The explanation is: It's post mint damage. There is no other explanation. I'm not sure why anyone thinks otherwise unless they're trolling the forum, delusional, or both.
I never have feared thinking outside the box. The foot shaped feature within the last "8" was likely caused at the mint when the piece was struck, in my opinion.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I'm starting to understand why mr1931 gets a lot of flack around here.
I have yet to see a cogent explanation (other than my own, of course) of what happened with the OP's 1888 penny. Lots of talk but no walk.
I call it as I see it. Too bad we can't have more of that kind of thing going on around here. >
The explanation is: It's post mint damage. There is no other explanation. I'm not sure why anyone thinks otherwise unless they're trolling the forum, delusional, or both.
I never have feared thinking outside the box. The foot shaped feature within the last "8" was likely caused at the mint when the piece was struck, in my opinion.
Because...?
I believe it is a code placed on the coin by three-footed aliens. We have exactly the same amount of evidence.
That coin has damage in two places, including a scratch leading into the left side of the 8. That is evidence of DAMAGE. Why ignore the evidence in favor of some random conjecture?
I'm starting to understand why mr1931 gets a lot of flack around here.
I have yet to see a cogent explanation (other than my own, of course) of what happened with the OP's 1888 penny. Lots of talk but no walk.
I call it as I see it. Too bad we can't have more of that kind of thing going on around here. >
The explanation is: It's post mint damage. There is no other explanation. I'm not sure why anyone thinks otherwise unless they're trolling the forum, delusional, or both.
I never have feared thinking outside the box. The foot shaped feature within the last "8" was likely caused at the mint when the piece was struck, in my opinion.
Folks, OP needs time to assimilate. Imagine the disappointment of learning that a year of research is moot.
OP clings to hopes, but does not toss insults.
OP, please decompress—stop looking at that coin. I will give you twenty dollars for it, or a roll of wheat cents that have not been searched for errors, or some Eisenhauser proofs; not because it is worth it, but to help you get past the obesssion, and get something for it.
I don’t want it, though, I don’t like dented coins, even if there may be a strike through on the coin. I’m gonna shoot at it from a hundred feet with a model 25 Daisy, and post pictures for everyone’s therapy.
Edit: I save coins wounded by projectiles.
LOL, the OP should call your bluff and you'll be out $20 less the 60c the guy at my flea market pays for culls!
Comments
Occam's razor.
I see ZERO evidence that your coin was struck twice much less 10x IN PERFECT ALIGNMENT.
Do yourself a favor. Get a coin. Get a letter punch. And punch a couple letters into your coin. You will notice the same exact things (multiple similar/identical marks) in a coin that was clearly damaged BY you after the strike. Any residual sharpness near the edges of your punch will easily be worn down by circulation.
Did I mention Occam's razor?
It isn't a proof. I was pointing out one of the things that shows up on a multiple struck coins. Specifically on the denticles. The coin moves around between strikes.
I can only hope to have the experience, knowledge, and certainty about the Minting process
That the OP has.
Maybe then I can fully understand what happened to his coin. /s.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
These extrusions can only be from post-mint damage. Additionally, the interior of the left-hand damage is the texture of a directional scrape, not a strikethrough.
Also, none of this matters very much - even if these had been strikethroughs, they are very minute and the value of the coin would be increased by approximately $0.00.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Simple damage.
I'm on the fence about the one to the left except that if it were scraped directionally it would not be equally surrounded.
As for the material moved into the lower inner loop, the bottom is caused by the shrapnel across an already fully formed 8. When the die closed this caused the breaking of the inner loop punch and forcing it towards the middle.
The upper one had no punch left to stop it from moving across.
If you say so. 🙄
I wanted to add where I think the object you are calling PMD is from.
If the die came down with the broken inner 8 in the left middle, what
would happen to the field on the perimeter of the 8?
PMD.
It wouldn’t have an impression with displaced metal around the edges. Sorry, it’s PMD all the way.
It's a waste of time saying "PMD" or offering explanations. The OP is either an excellent bridge dweller or simply unwilling to accept any answer than the one they want.
As soon as we needed 10+ strikes in the press, we left the world of the rational behind. It should never be necessary to add layers of complexity to support your assumption when a simpler explanation exists. Yet...
PMD outside the "8." Mint error inside the "8."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Exactly what I meant.
Cheers, and God Bless, CRHer700
,
No
My speculation of what we're seeing with this IHC is as good as any I've seen here so far.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
What are you waiting for? Send it in.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
So you ascribe to the very "likely" 10 strike theory?
What makes you believe that is anything other than damage?
I think he was using Uggams' razor.
The discrepancy within the last "8" looks like it came from a defect in the punch used to make the "8." There should be other examples of 1888 IHC's extant that exhibit this discrepancy if I am correct.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
There are none. Now, what's your theory?
None that you know of.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Folks, OP needs time to assimilate. Imagine the disappointment of learning that a year of research is moot.
OP clings to hopes, but does not toss insults.
OP, please decompress—stop looking at that coin. I will give you twenty dollars for it, or a roll of wheat cents that have not been searched for errors, or some Eisenhauser proofs; not because it is worth it, but to help you get past the obesssion, and get something for it.
I don’t want it, though, I don’t like dented coins, even if there may be a strike through on the coin. I’m gonna shoot at it from a hundred feet with a model 25 Daisy, and post pictures for everyone’s therapy.
Edit: I save coins wounded by projectiles.
No.. there are none. So then what's your theory?
Welcome to the forum @Sberry002 ! Great pictures. I agree with the others, it's damage.
When you ask a question, and then argue with all the responders... you will usually get a less than favorable response. It happens all too often when a new collector rejects the advice of a room that contains many experts, veteran collectors and dealers. The approach you are taking is a one way ticket to gruff responses, and ultimately being ignored.
You are new, and already in a bit of a hole... so, I advise to stop digging. Simply thank that group, and if you want a second opinion, take it to a Coin Shop (but don't argue there either).
I tell newer collectors that starting with "errors" is not a good entry point to the hobby. There is too much to know, and too much damage to confuse you. Most collectors that start this way end-up with a binder full of damaged, face-value coins...
I wish you luck, but again... to be successful on the forum (and in the hobby), you may want to change your approach.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
Strike through within the "8". A tiny metal piece (shaped like a foot) got between the flan and the die prior to striking. The strike was made resulting in what we are seeing within the "8". Final answer.
Too bad about the PMD outside the "8". C'est la vie.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
That buzzer sound is letting you know that your final answer was incorrect. But some parting gifts from our sponsor await you.
Because on a coin with all the other damage ( scratches, rim bump), there's just no way that isn't just more damage...???
I'm starting to understand why mr1931 gets a lot of flack around here.
Why not have it graded at PCGS?> @FredWeinberg said:
Maybe one day.
Took you long enough
It is a multiple struck, multiple strike through caused by mechanical failure.
It has raised material around the left most struck through piece because the press was not able to fully close in the final strikes. Too little speed and added die chip material into the third 8.
It is a G8 so there has to be some PMD, but those pieces are from the broken die.
Sorry G6
Pure delusion..
So stop wasting (y)our time yammering to us about it and send it in to a TPG then and confirm what you are convinced is true.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
@Manifest_Destiny said:
I have yet to see a cogent explanation (other than my own, of course) of what happened with the OP's 1888 penny. Lots of talk but no walk.
I call it as I see it. Too bad we can't have more of that kind of thing going on around here. >
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Uggams' razor strikes again! Uggam's razor owes its name to the great singer/actress Leslie Uggams. It is just an ordinary razor, so it's easy to use. Just take the simplest explanation and use the razor to hack it to pieces.
The explanation is: It's post mint damage. There is no other explanation. I'm not sure why anyone thinks otherwise unless they're trolling the forum, delusional, or both.
Anything is possible but IMO, your coin is damaged.
I'm curious about how many pounds of pressure a coin strike takes. I do know a steel nail could not hold the dies open because I think PCGS certified a coin with a naail in it.
I never have feared thinking outside the box. The foot shaped feature within the last "8" was likely caused at the mint when the piece was struck, in my opinion.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Because...?
I believe it is a code placed on the coin by three-footed aliens. We have exactly the same amount of evidence.
That coin has damage in two places, including a scratch leading into the left side of the 8. That is evidence of DAMAGE. Why ignore the evidence in favor of some random conjecture?
Like I said......
LOL, the OP should call your bluff and you'll be out $20 less the 60c the guy at my flea market pays for culls!
Not a bluff. I am serious. I want the OP to shoot it before shipping it to me.