@PeacockSteve said:
Well, I didn't submit the coin correctly. Now I have to submit it again. As of now it's a "Struck through Grease" error. I didn't submit it as an error coin with special attributes. So, an error coin expert didn't evaluate it. Btw, it's a 1999 D penny Close AM. When I talked to the grading company on the phone and emailed the pictures I uploaded on here, they could see 2 "6's" and a guy from Stacks Bowers confirmed he could the two "6's" as well. So, it's not "Pareidolia". The guy at Stacks Bowers said it looks like it has a die crack and a lamination error on it as well. To be continued.
Of all the things that didn't happen, this didn't happen the most.
@PeacockSteve said:
Well, I didn't submit the coin correctly. Now I have to submit it again. As of now it's a "Struck through Grease" error. I didn't submit it as an error coin with special attributes. So, an error coin expert didn't evaluate it. Btw, it's a 1999 D penny Close AM. When I talked to the grading company on the phone and emailed the pictures I uploaded on here, they could see 2 "6's" and a guy from Stacks Bowers confirmed he could the two "6's" as well. So, it's not "Pareidolia". The guy at Stacks Bowers said it looks like it has a die crack and a lamination error on it as well. To be continued.
Translation, I did not submit this coin but updated with a word salad reply to keep the drama alive.
I don’t doubt that the coin was submitted, but I’m skeptical of the “6’s” amounting to anything.
I’m glad that once you made the above post, I didn’t doubt that you’d submitted the coin. But for the record, my prediction in February that you wouldn’t submit it was obviously wrong.
On the other hand, even after reading your above post, someone else still accused you of lying
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PeacockSteve said:
I really don't understand why there is so much negativity on here. Isn't this forum a place for people to learn and achieve a better understanding of mint errors?
after back-and-forth then back-and-forth with repeated answers that there's n 6' there it is not hostility but the negativity you are feeling is aggravation.
you finally have pcgs' answer: struck through - the same as what many have already have said. you could have saved a lot of money taking the answers here. there's just no way a 1999 coind also gets struck with 66 on it. coins don't strike that way.
So you're telling me you don't any "6"s ? I'm like to know why and how it ended up on this coin.
@PeacockSteve said:
I really don't understand why there is so much negativity on here. Isn't this forum a place for people to learn and achieve a better understanding of mint errors?
after back-and-forth then back-and-forth with repeated answers that there's n 6' there it is not hostility but the negativity you are feeling is aggravation.
you finally have pcgs' answer: struck through - the same as what many have already have said. you could have saved a lot of money taking the answers here. there's just no way a 1999 coind also gets struck with 66 on it. coins don't strike that way.
So you're telling me you don't any "6"s ? I'm like to know why and how it ended up on this coin.
@PeacockSteve said:
I really don't understand why there is so much negativity on here. Isn't this forum a place for people to learn and achieve a better understanding of mint errors?
after back-and-forth then back-and-forth with repeated answers that there's n 6' there it is not hostility but the negativity you are feeling is aggravation.
you finally have pcgs' answer: struck through - the same as what many have already have said. you could have saved a lot of money taking the answers here. there's just no way a 1999 coind also gets struck with 66 on it. coins don't strike that way.
So you're telling me you don't any "6"s ? I'm like to know why and how it ended up on this coin.
>
I sure don’t see any 6’s.
Here’s a 1966:
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The only way there’s two sixes on that coin is if you look at it upside down and strain your eyes looking at the upside down 99’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 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
The machines use a heavy industrial grease that gets contaminated with dust, metal bits from the planchets and die chips and they fill the numbers and letters before big things because the numbers and letter cavities are rather narrow and are easily plugged with that very thick material. So that is where portions of your date numbers and reverse ONE CENT letters went. And there are no 6's on your coin that is called pareidolia, look it up.
@PeacockSteve said:
I really don't understand why there is so much negativity on here. Isn't this forum a place for people to learn and achieve a better understanding of mint errors?
Yes, it is, if those people are willing to listen and learn.
I predicted what the label would say, and I predicted what your reaction would be. 😕
I do give you credit for reporting back on the results.
@PeacockSteve said:
Well, I didn't submit the coin correctly. Now I have to submit it again. As of now it's a "Struck through Grease" error. I didn't submit it as an error coin with special attributes. So, an error coin expert didn't evaluate it. Btw, it's a 1999 D penny Close AM. When I talked to the grading company on the phone and emailed the pictures I uploaded on here, they could see 2 "6's" and a guy from Stacks Bowers confirmed he could the two "6's" as well. So, it's not "Pareidolia". The guy at Stacks Bowers said it looks like it has a die crack and a lamination error on it as well. To be continued.
Translation, I did not submit this coin but updated with a word salad reply to keep the drama alive.
I don’t doubt that the coin was submitted, but I’m skeptical of the “6’s” amounting to anything.
I’m glad that once you made the above post, I didn’t doubt that you’d submitted the coin. But for the record, my prediction in February that you wouldn’t submit it was obviously wrong.
On the other hand, even after reading your above post, someone else still accused you of lying
I believe the coin was submitted after seeing the photos. On the other hand, I don't believe anyone at PCGS or Stack's Bowers told him that they could see the two 6's, nor do I believe they told him that the coin looks like it has a die crack and a lamination.
Although he is clearly not stating the truth in these instances, it's possible that he is delusional rather than deliberately telling lies. We can only guess about what's going on inside his head, but either way, it seems fair to say that he is not particularly credible.
@PeacockSteve said:
I really don't understand why there is so much negativity on here. Isn't this forum a place for people to learn and achieve a better understanding of mint errors?
In order to learn, one must be willing to listen. That coin is correctly labeled as struck through grease. There are no multiple dates on it. You are unwilling to listen to anyone on the matter, so no learning will ever take place.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@FredWeinberg said:
The only way there’s two sixes on that coin is if you look at it upside down and strain your eyes looking at the upside down 99’s
@PeacockSteve Mr. Weinberg is the foremost expert on errors and was the PCGS error expert before his retirement. If you won't listen to anyone else, you should listen to him.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@PeacockSteve said:
I really don't understand why there is so much negativity on here. Isn't this forum a place for people to learn and achieve a better understanding of mint errors?
after back-and-forth then back-and-forth with repeated answers that there's n 6' there it is not hostility but the negativity you are feeling is aggravation.
you finally have pcgs' answer: struck through - the same as what many have already have said. you could have saved a lot of money taking the answers here. there's just no way a 1999 coind also gets struck with 66 on it. coins don't strike that way.
So you're telling me you don't any "6"s ? I'm like to know why and how it ended up on this coin.
I don't see any either.
You're holding it wrong.
Flip it upside down.
Then you'll see the 6s.
@PeacockSteve said:
I really don't understand why there is so much negativity on here. Isn't this forum a place for people to learn and achieve a better understanding of mint errors?
after back-and-forth then back-and-forth with repeated answers that there's n 6' there it is not hostility but the negativity you are feeling is aggravation.
you finally have pcgs' answer: struck through - the same as what many have already have said. you could have saved a lot of money taking the answers here. there's just no way a 1999 coind also gets struck with 66 on it. coins don't strike that way.
So you're telling me you don't any "6"s ? I'm like to know why and how it ended up on this coin.
I see the marks that you are interpreting (insisting?) are sixes. Since you are not open to the idea that they are not, there is little point in discussing it.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
OK, NOW I see the ‘66’s -
It was just a longer ROUTE for me
To get to.
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 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
If it's a grease struck "6", where are the non-grease struck "6" examples? Certainly, the mint didn't put this die in the press, strike just this one coin and then change dies again.
@PeacockSteve said:
I really don't understand why there is so much negativity on here. Isn't this forum a place for people to learn and achieve a better understanding of mint errors?
after back-and-forth then back-and-forth with repeated answers that there's n 6' there it is not hostility but the negativity you are feeling is aggravation.
you finally have pcgs' answer: struck through - the same as what many have already have said. you could have saved a lot of money taking the answers here. there's just no way a 1999 coind also gets struck with 66 on it. coins don't strike that way.
So there is no way grease clogged die - the contents of that grease filled die can fall out before a coin is struck? OR a little sliver of that grease filled die can fall out before the coin is struck ?
If this is not possible, then dropped letters from grease filled die's are not possible. However, I have seen a coin sold at an auction with dropped number and dropped letter from a grease filled die.
@PeacockSteve said:
I really don't understand why there is so much negativity on here. Isn't this forum a place for people to learn and achieve a better understanding of mint errors?
after back-and-forth then back-and-forth with repeated answers that there's n 6' there it is not hostility but the negativity you are feeling is aggravation.
you finally have pcgs' answer: struck through - the same as what many have already have said. you could have saved a lot of money taking the answers here. there's just no way a 1999 coind also gets struck with 66 on it. coins don't strike that way.
So there is no way grease clogged die - the contents of that grease filled die can fall out before a coin is struck? OR a little sliver of that grease filled die can fall out before the coin is struck ?
If this is not possible, then dropped letters from grease filled die's are not possible. However, I have seen a coin sold at an auction with dropped number and dropped letter from a grease filled die.
They would be INCUSE, not raised.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
So y'all are telling me, I'm imaging seeing this ?
And I didn't lie about what the guy at Stacks Bowers said or the person over the phone at PCGS said.
It's a grease struck "6"
I'm going to make a survey on Social media and post the results here.
Are y'all messing with me or what ??
Is this what happens to newby's on here ??
It has already been explained.
I see a faint 9 and a spot/stain. You are combining the two to make a 6. A dropped letter would either be flush with the surface of the coin, or if the struck grease fell out after striking then it would be include. The faint 9 that makes up part of your supposed 6 is in relief (rises above the surface).
As for speaking to PCGS and SB, who did you speak to there? The error experts/graders, or just some customer service rep?
By the way, you got a free opinion above from Fred Weinberg, who used to be the error expert at PCGS until he retired.
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 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
you pointed out the "6" you see, that's the top of the raised nine and some convenient spots. the linear part of the "6" is neither raised or incuse. it's a spot
So y'all are telling me, I'm imaging seeing this ?
And I didn't lie about what the guy at Stacks Bowers said or the person over the phone at PCGS said.
It's a grease struck "6"
I'm going to make a survey on Social media and post the results here.
Are y'all messing with me or what ??
Is this what happens to newby's on here ??
It has already been explained.
I see a faint 9 and a spot/stain.
The latest pictures make it clear that the OP is getting misled by looking at slight differences in color on the surface of a coin.
There are no circumstances -- none -- where a color change is the sole evidence of an error.
In a few cases, a color change indicates some other error. For example, a cent struck on a dime planchet has an unusual color. But in that case, the color is simply a sign that the metal composition is wrong. The same could be said for other similar types of errors: poor metal mix, struck through wrong-metal fragment, etc.
Even if a struck through fragment happened to curl into the shape of a 6, the error would be the struck-through-ness, with no mention of the 6. And there would be plenty of other features besides the color to confirm what was going on.
The only error here is the grease strike-through. The post-mint color changes are unrelated, and not an error.
@PeacockSteve said:
Well, I didn't submit the coin correctly. Now I have to submit it again. As of now it's a "Struck through Grease" error. I didn't submit it as an error coin with special attributes. So, an error coin expert didn't evaluate it. Btw, it's a 1999 D penny Close AM. When I talked to the grading company on the phone and emailed the pictures I uploaded on here, they could see 2 "6's" and a guy from Stacks Bowers confirmed he could the two "6's" as well. So, it's not "Pareidolia". The guy at Stacks Bowers said it looks like it has a die crack and a lamination error on it as well. To be continued.
Translation, I did not submit this coin but updated with a word salad reply to keep the drama alive.
I don’t doubt that the coin was submitted, but I’m skeptical of the “6’s” amounting to anything.
I’m glad that once you made the above post, I didn’t doubt that you’d submitted the coin. But for the record, my prediction in February that you wouldn’t submit it was obviously wrong.
On the other hand, even after reading your above post, someone else still accused you of lying
I believe the coin was submitted after seeing the photos. On the other hand, I don't believe anyone at PCGS or Stack's Bowers told him that they could see the two 6's, nor do I believe they told him that the coin looks like it has a die crack and a lamination.
Although he is clearly not stating the truth in these instances, it's possible that he is delusional rather than deliberately telling lies. We can only guess about what's going on inside his head, but either way, it seems fair to say that he is not particularly credible.
Thanks for clarifying that. Some people have a hard time with generalizations and need everything explained in a very literal way.
@PeacockSteve said:
Hey guys thanks for letting me know it's Pareidolia. Glad to know these two "6's" are really there and I am imagining it.
Pareidolia is not "imagining". It's your brain interpreting images in a familiar way, even though the actual image may be random marks. It's perfectly normal. But feel free to continue to spend time and money trying to prove the opposite. It is your right. Come back after a couple years and several hundred dollars and we can chat again
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@PeacockSteve said:
Hey guys thanks for letting me know it's Pareidolia. Glad to know these two "6's" are really there and I am imagining it.
You've had unilaterally the exact same advice from some of us yahoos, from experts, from the foremost error expert of the last half century, and from PCGS.
@PeacockSteve said:
Hey guys thanks for letting me know it's Pareidolia. Glad to know these two "6's" are really there and I am imagining it.
You've had unilaterally the exact same advice from some of us yahoos, from experts, from the foremost error expert of the last half century, and from PCGS.
What could possibly convince you at this point?
I did explain how I think it happened and y'all rejected it.
@PeacockSteve said:
Hey guys thanks for letting me know it's Pareidolia. Glad to know these two "6's" are really there and I am imagining it.
You've had unilaterally the exact same advice from some of us yahoos, from experts, from the foremost error expert of the last half century, and from PCGS.
What could possibly convince you at this point?
I did explain how I think it happened and y'all rejected it.
We heard your explanation. Your explanation is not just wrong, it's impossible. Even the premise that something exists to have even happened is wrong.
The literal top experts in the world (Fred Weinberg and PCGS) along with every other person here, from the experts down to armchair numismatists, have said the exact same thing.
So, with your "super high GT Score on the Military ASVAB Test which represents incredible problem-solving abilities", please solve this problem. You are not an expert. Why does your belief in a minting error (which has been demonstrated to be impossible) still persist despite literally all evidence to the contrary?
Hint: it's ok to admit you are wrong. We are all wrong about various things in life all the time.
@PeacockSteve said:
Hey guys thanks for letting me know it's Pareidolia. Glad to know these two "6's" are really there and I am imagining it.
You've had unilaterally the exact same advice from some of us yahoos, from experts, from the foremost error expert of the last half century, and from PCGS.
What could possibly convince you at this point?
I did explain how I think it happened and y'all rejected it.
We heard your explanation. Your explanation is not just wrong, it's impossible. Even the premise that something exists to have even happened is wrong.
The literal top experts in the world (Fred Weinberg and PCGS) along with every other person here, from the experts down to armchair numismatists, have said the exact same thing.
So, with your "super high GT Score on the Military ASVAB Test which represents incredible problem-solving abilities", please solve this problem. You are not an expert. Why does your belief in a minting error (which has been demonstrated to be impossible) still persist despite literally all evidence to the contrary?
Hint: it's ok to admit you are wrong. We are all wrong about various things in life all the time.
When I find the video, I'll show you. It's a coin with a extra "9" off to the left side. A partially grease clogged die - the contents came out and the coin was struck. Resulting in a mint error.
@PeacockSteve said:
Hey guys thanks for letting me know it's Pareidolia. Glad to know these two "6's" are really there and I am imagining it.
You've had unilaterally the exact same advice from some of us yahoos, from experts, from the foremost error expert of the last half century, and from PCGS.
What could possibly convince you at this point?
I did explain how I think it happened and y'all rejected it.
We heard your explanation. Your explanation is not just wrong, it's impossible. Even the premise that something exists to have even happened is wrong.
The literal top experts in the world (Fred Weinberg and PCGS) along with every other person here, from the experts down to armchair numismatists, have said the exact same thing.
So, with your "super high GT Score on the Military ASVAB Test which represents incredible problem-solving abilities", please solve this problem. You are not an expert. Why does your belief in a minting error (which has been demonstrated to be impossible) still persist despite literally all evidence to the contrary?
Hint: it's ok to admit you are wrong. We are all wrong about various things in life all the time.
When I find the video, I'll show you. It's a coin with a extra "9" off to the left side. A partially grease clogged die - the contents came out and the coin was struck. Resulting in a mint error.
Ok, so you are unable to acknowledge the reality of the situation and totally unable to consider that you are incorrect. You believe that you understand the minting process better than (essentially) the sum total knowledge of the rest of the entire numismatic community. You just want people to agree with you regardless of having been proven wrong.
I wish you the best of luck in life. It's going to be a long, hard road if this is your mindset when encountering future chagrin and disillusionments.
I've already watched the minting video process before the link was sent to me by the GOAT of coin grading who retired from PCGS. Here's my deal, y'all say its Pareidolia. I wouldn't have any issue accepting that outcome. If there were not clear lines showing the two "6's"along the two "6"s", well one clear line. To me it looks like a grease struck "6" on top of a "9", y'all disagree, that's fine. Since y'all are the experts, please tell me why in there a line on each side of the "6", see picture. The 1st "6" is Pareidolia apparently. I also just noticed on the reverse on the coin what appears to be extra columns on the Lincoln Memorial.
Comments
Of all the things that didn't happen, this didn't happen the most.
I’m glad that once you made the above post, I didn’t doubt that you’d submitted the coin. But for the record, my prediction in February that you wouldn’t submit it was obviously wrong.
On the other hand, even after reading your above post, someone else still accused you of lying
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
So you're telling me you don't any "6"s ? I'm like to know why and how it ended up on this coin.
I don't see any either.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
>
I sure don’t see any 6’s.
Here’s a 1966:
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The only way there’s two sixes on that coin is if you look at it upside down and strain your eyes looking at the upside down 99’s
Look on the bright side, you have THE top pop struck through grease 1999-D Lincoln cent.
And you might want to look at the minting process here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih9q3OpGhpI
The machines use a heavy industrial grease that gets contaminated with dust, metal bits from the planchets and die chips and they fill the numbers and letters before big things because the numbers and letter cavities are rather narrow and are easily plugged with that very thick material. So that is where portions of your date numbers and reverse ONE CENT letters went. And there are no 6's on your coin that is called pareidolia, look it up.
>
Ohh yeah, I'm seeing them now!
>
Yes, it is, if those people are willing to listen and learn.
I predicted what the label would say, and I predicted what your reaction would be. 😕
I do give you credit for reporting back on the results.
I believe the coin was submitted after seeing the photos. On the other hand, I don't believe anyone at PCGS or Stack's Bowers told him that they could see the two 6's, nor do I believe they told him that the coin looks like it has a die crack and a lamination.
Although he is clearly not stating the truth in these instances, it's possible that he is delusional rather than deliberately telling lies. We can only guess about what's going on inside his head, but either way, it seems fair to say that he is not particularly credible.
In order to learn, one must be willing to listen. That coin is correctly labeled as struck through grease. There are no multiple dates on it. You are unwilling to listen to anyone on the matter, so no learning will ever take place.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@PeacockSteve Mr. Weinberg is the foremost expert on errors and was the PCGS error expert before his retirement. If you won't listen to anyone else, you should listen to him.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
You're holding it wrong.
Flip it upside down.
Then you'll see the 6s.
I see the marks that you are interpreting (insisting?) are sixes. Since you are not open to the idea that they are not, there is little point in discussing it.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
OK, NOW I see the ‘66’s -
It was just a longer ROUTE for me
To get to.
So y'all are telling me, I'm imaging seeing this ?
And I didn't lie about what the guy at Stacks Bowers said or the person over the phone at PCGS said.
It's a grease struck "6"
I'm going to make a survey on Social media and post the results here.
Are y'all messing with me or what ??
Is this what happens to newby's on here ??
If it's a grease struck "6", where are the non-grease struck "6" examples? Certainly, the mint didn't put this die in the press, strike just this one coin and then change dies again.
So there is no way grease clogged die - the contents of that grease filled die can fall out before a coin is struck? OR a little sliver of that grease filled die can fall out before the coin is struck ?
If this is not possible, then dropped letters from grease filled die's are not possible. However, I have seen a coin sold at an auction with dropped number and dropped letter from a grease filled die.
It's toning above the 9 that you are interpreting as a 6. Pareidolia. That's what it means. We all see the marks, but they cannot possibly be sixes.
This is what happens to stubborn people who refuse to listen to people with more experience. Fred Weinberg is the foremost expert.
I believe the Stacks guy said it, probably to get you off the phone. Did he offer to put it in an auction?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
They would be INCUSE, not raised.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
It has already been explained.
I see a faint 9 and a spot/stain. You are combining the two to make a 6. A dropped letter would either be flush with the surface of the coin, or if the struck grease fell out after striking then it would be include. The faint 9 that makes up part of your supposed 6 is in relief (rises above the surface).
As for speaking to PCGS and SB, who did you speak to there? The error experts/graders, or just some customer service rep?
By the way, you got a free opinion above from Fred Weinberg, who used to be the error expert at PCGS until he retired.
That’s not the route he wants to take
dropped letters go into the coin
you pointed out the "6" you see, that's the top of the raised nine and some convenient spots. the linear part of the "6" is neither raised or incuse. it's a spot
and 1999 coins are supposed to be close am
I am SO glad I missed this each time it was at the top of the page!!!
The latest pictures make it clear that the OP is getting misled by looking at slight differences in color on the surface of a coin.
There are no circumstances -- none -- where a color change is the sole evidence of an error.
In a few cases, a color change indicates some other error. For example, a cent struck on a dime planchet has an unusual color. But in that case, the color is simply a sign that the metal composition is wrong. The same could be said for other similar types of errors: poor metal mix, struck through wrong-metal fragment, etc.
Even if a struck through fragment happened to curl into the shape of a 6, the error would be the struck-through-ness, with no mention of the 6. And there would be plenty of other features besides the color to confirm what was going on.
The only error here is the grease strike-through. The post-mint color changes are unrelated, and not an error.
The current label is accurate.
Thanks for clarifying that. Some people have a hard time with generalizations and need everything explained in a very literal way.
Are you sure?
Hey guys thanks for letting me know it's Pareidolia. Glad to know these two "6's" are really there and I am imagining it.
there are no "6"'s there
Pareidolia is not "imagining". It's your brain interpreting images in a familiar way, even though the actual image may be random marks. It's perfectly normal. But feel free to continue to spend time and money trying to prove the opposite. It is your right. Come back after a couple years and several hundred dollars and we can chat again
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
You've had unilaterally the exact same advice from some of us yahoos, from experts, from the foremost error expert of the last half century, and from PCGS.
What could possibly convince you at this point?
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
I did explain how I think it happened and y'all rejected it.
You asked for opinions and got them. If you only wanted to hear from people who agreed with you, you could have said so up front.
We heard your explanation. Your explanation is not just wrong, it's impossible. Even the premise that something exists to have even happened is wrong.
The literal top experts in the world (Fred Weinberg and PCGS) along with every other person here, from the experts down to armchair numismatists, have said the exact same thing.
So, with your "super high GT Score on the Military ASVAB Test which represents incredible problem-solving abilities", please solve this problem. You are not an expert. Why does your belief in a minting error (which has been demonstrated to be impossible) still persist despite literally all evidence to the contrary?
Hint: it's ok to admit you are wrong. We are all wrong about various things in life all the time.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Ground Hog Day, amazing movie and one of my favorites. Not the movie I recommended for lermish to watch, however. That is our little secret. tee hee
The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
When I find the video, I'll show you. It's a coin with a extra "9" off to the left side. A partially grease clogged die - the contents came out and the coin was struck. Resulting in a mint error.
Reveals more insights every time I read it...
5 times the posts but 1/10th the nonsense.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
What, it's perfectly normal to name your coins, and not weird in any way whatsoever.
I've already watched the minting video process before the link was sent to me by the GOAT of coin grading who retired from PCGS. Here's my deal, y'all say its Pareidolia. I wouldn't have any issue accepting that outcome. If there were not clear lines showing the two "6's"along the two "6"s", well one clear line. To me it looks like a grease struck "6" on top of a "9", y'all disagree, that's fine. Since y'all are the experts, please tell me why in there a line on each side of the "6", see picture. The 1st "6" is Pareidolia apparently. I also just noticed on the reverse on the coin what appears to be extra columns on the Lincoln Memorial.
It's not up to us to prove it isn't, it's up to you to prove it is. Your assertions are not compatible with the minting process.
You don't believe PCGS, you don't believe the former error expert at PCGS, and you don't believe all the rest who've provided the same answer.
There's really nothing more to say. 😕