Strange bent penny
Mulholb1
Posts: 14 ✭
Hey collectors,
I’m fairly new at collecting and I’ve accumulated some strange coins. So I’ve got this penny with a roughly ten degree bend and rounded marks that could be from a persons clamp. But it’s very clean damage leaves untouched areas that would seem to be flattened also. I’d like to verify if it’s post mint or minting error. Even if it’s junk I still enjoy the hunt. Lol. What do you all think? Thanks everyone!
Tagged:
0
Comments
PMD
post mint damage
PMD - keep looking!
Glad you are enjoying the hunt!
@Mulholb1
Welcome aboard.
The coin you displayed is unfortunately damaged outside of the mint.
It is only worth face value.
Keep looking.
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
Technically, a bent coin is "mutilated" and no longer legal tender. Whether this applies to your specific coin depends on how badly out of shape it is.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded the DPOTD twice.
Thanks for the input everyone!
I can make one of those.
PMD
Courteous people are welcome. Stick around, read, maybe the Mint Set and Coin Roll Hunting thread would be a good place to start.
You fly lower neath the radar without a default icon.
Hey sorry to revive zombie post. What would make you all determine pmd? Aren’t there multiple segments of machinery post stamp with die? I’m curious what type of damage any of you might consider being mint damage?
You learn the make the determination by studying what real errors look like versus post mint damage.
If you truly want to learn about errors, it's time for you to start studying errors, rather than aimlessly searching random coins. People here are generally very helpful and happy to assist learning collectors, but the primary responsibility for your learning is on you.
once it has ejected you have a world of things that can damage a coin. how do you know how? anyway, damage after the striking process is still damaged.
In this example, it looks like someone took a normal cent and compressed the edge of it between two hard surfaces. The reverse is smooth and uniform but the obverse looks a little hammered.
A mint created damage could be from the planchet before strike, such as a clipped planchet or missing clad layer.
A mint created damage during strike could be a piece of foreign material getting between the die and the planchet, known as a strike thru.
A mint created damage during strike could be a planchet getting struck off center or twice in different positions or something similar.
A mint created damage after striking could be a coin getting stuck in a bin or chute or door or what ever you can dream of and which would me considered PMD... post mint damage.
Anything happening to a coin after the last dies strike the coin is considered damage. Prior or during that strike is considered an error.
I appreciate your help. So you doubt this would be caused by foreign object during stamp?
It cannot possibly be caused by an object during minting. The coin is compressed at high pressure between two very hard objects. In order for your coin THAT YOU ARE STILL STARING AT AFTER 2 YEARS to be damaged like that, there would have to be 2 objects: one on each side of the die. 2 objects exactly opposite each other. And if such a miracle by the Grace of Christ himself occurred, there would be no coin impression where the foreign objects were situated AND the coin would still be round because it would be in a collar.
On the other hand, if you just squeeze a cent with a pair of pliers...
You should go right to the bank and get a roll of anything. 40 quarters to start at all give you 80 years of amusement.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I am confident given the textured hammered appearance and discoloration around the damage of the obverse that this happened after striking. This did not happen with a foreign object being stamped into the coin during striking.
It may have happened as it was in or leaving the mint premises, it may have happened in my neighbor's machine shop, it may have happened with a bored kid in shop class. Whatever happened to it, this is damage that happened after the coin left the stamping process.
no. it's not 100% round and the collar wasn't broken to allow the strike do that in such an unusual fashion, then there is the problem that it would take 2 objects, not 1, exactly opposite each to strike that.
you want to explain every bit of damage from so many coins that people here will quickly tire of providing answers.
go to auction houses like great collections, heritage auctions and stacks bowers. search on the word error and see what errors do look like.
No, we do not doubt that. There is no doubt involved. We know with 100% certainty that this WAS NOT and COULD NOT BE caused by foreign object during stamp.
Look at the rim on your coin to the left and slightly above LIBERTY. The rim on your coin is deformed, no longer round.
However, the rim on a coin is formed by the die used to strike the coin. Dies are incredibly hard. There are many examples of very hard foreign objects (springs, screws, etc.) that were absolutely flattened during a strike, with absolutely no damage to the dies at all.
This is what @IkesT means when saying that you should study what real errors look like. There is no physical way for any coin to get this appearance during the minting process, so there is absolutely no chance that it is a real error.
"Mint damage", of the kind that everyone is interested in (the kind that people are prepared to pay extra money for) is damage that can only happen to a coin during the production process.
In theory, all kinds of "damage" can happen to a coin while inside the Mint. For example, a coin might fall out of the press stream after being struck, and sit on the production floor for a while - it might get kicked around, slid across the floor, and driven over by a mint forklift, before eventually getting picked up and tossed back into the coinage hopper. But such damage does not qualify as being in any way a "mint error", because a coin doesn't have to be inside the Mint for it to be dropped, kicked around, or driven over.
Likewise, in theory, a mint worker might pick up a finished coin and whack it with a hammer a few times. No, I don't know why they'd do that, and they'd certainly get in trouble with the boss for doing that, but theoretically it could happen. But this would not make that particular hammer-damaged coin a "mint error" just because it happened inside the Mint, because it would be physically indistinguishable from hammer-damage that would occur to a coin being whacked by a hammer out in the street, or in somebody's basement.
In short, if the damage can be readily replicated by taking a normal coin and abusing it, then it's not a "mint error". It is only a mint error if the only possible explanation for the damage is a flaw, defect or malfunction in the manufacturing process.
Coin production is a highly mechanized, industrialized process but at it's heart it's not really complicated; it's still the same basic procedure that has been used to make a coin for centuries (take round blank piece of metal, put in coin press, squeeze tight, let go and remove coin). There are only a finite number of ways that this process can go wrong, and wrong in such a way that results in an error coin. But once coins are issued, out in the real world and in the hands of bored, malicious or careless people, perfectly normal coins can be and are abused, punctured, mutilated and otherwise damaged in a far more diverse array of possibilities, creating things that might look like error coins, but aren't. As such, the probability that a "weird-looking coin" is weird-looking because of a mint error is actually quite low.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded the DPOTD twice.
The Chinese will undercut you with volume.
I have> @jmlanzaf said:
I understand various known errors. DDO, DDR, clipped, stamp through etc. so I would not create a post to ask questions that can be answered solely with research. I was simply asking how extreme mint damage can be. If my post annoys you don’t respond. I didn’t join on here to be belittled and talked down to. If this is how you treat someone after three posts with respectful and friendly questions I’m not sure I’d recommend this website to anyone. I appreciate all of you that were respectful and welcoming.
Mint damage can be precisely as extreme as non-mint damage. Damage is damage. As @Sapyx says, there is nothing noteworthy about damage that happens within the mint versus outside the mint.
If you are actually interested in mint errors (rather than damage), that is an entirely separate question. The answer to that question comes from understanding what is and is not possible in the minting process. The Resources: Books-Links to read on numismatic series, errors, and varieties thread provides excellent references about the minting process. That thread is pinned to the top of this discussion board because its list of references is so important. https://www.error-ref.com/ (linked from that thread) is an excellent general-interest site to start learning from.
That is a very strange comment. There is nothing more important than research when it comes to understanding the minting process, and to understanding errors that can be produced by the minting process.
therein lies the issue. ypou knowwerrors but are still trying to contort things to fit some new way of error creation.
if you know errors, then you'd know these aren't
saphyx provided a lenghty but complete explanation.
i was just being honest about 3 coins, 3 threads and a penchant for seeking new error creation methods. we have done this dance many times with other new people. where it goes wrong is with the "but" over multiple responses that agree with each other.
you're just asking a question. but if you know errors you wouldn't have needed to ask. the do it 3 times.
there is no research out there on what is not an error. there are so many ways a coin can be damaged. your dime has at least 2 different areas of differing damage.
if you want to tell people not to come here then be sure to mention to them how you know errors yet still wonder why it can't be mint damage on your coins then show them the coins.
you even mistook scrapes for reeding. the gaps between the peaks aren't even the same.
stick around. read more threads. and you will find out about collectible errors and find out there are no threads on collectible scrapes
No, that is part of what you are here to learn from us. There is no such thing as a "stamp through", for example. Just based on your posting history, it is likely that you would not know a doubled die from mechanical doubling, or a genuine clipped planchet error from post mint damage. When it comes to coins, we will let you know what you understand. Welcome.
it is called a strike through, not stamp through. strike, no stamp. keep reading.
I believe my comment to have been on point and very helpful. I'm sorry if it is not what you wanted to hear. You are literally still asking about this same damaged cent after two years. That isn't someone who is asking questions that can be answered "solely with research". You are ignoring the results of that research and continuing to try and find a reason for your damaged cent to be something other than damaged.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
.
Well you do have a "smartazz" way of commenting to newbies then act surprised when you are called out on it.
I'm sure the OP was not staring at the coin for 2 years.........he just happened upon this thread and asked a question about it..............
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
I am almost never a smart ass with newbies. I'm usually a smartass with regulars. This guy is not a newbie. This thread is TWO YEARS OLD. He didn't just stumble across this thread. He STARTED IT more than 2 years ago.
In fact, i often criticize people who are rude to newbies. But when they argue with you for 2 years, you are fair game. Despite that, I explained to him exactly why it couldn't have happened in the press.
Make of that what you will.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Just out of curiosity, how does one "happen" onto a 2 year 4 month old thread? I have no idea how many pages back this was before the op revived it, 200 pages perhaps. It seems unlikely that most people, let alone newbies, would be perusing threads that difficult to find unless specifically looking for it.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
He didn't. It's his thread
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Sheesh
Smitten with DBLCs.
DOH!! please learn to read. In my post I write "the op revived it" obviously (to anyone who can read) I know this post was started by Mulholb1.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Also for any old threads in general. Google searches will bring them to the top. I sometimes find searching Google is easier than using the forum search function.
The easiest way for the OP to revive the thread is by looking in their own profile which shows what posts they started. There were only 3 so not hard to find.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I agree with that.
But I was answering a question about generality for the average person, not specific to the OP who started this thread. The question... "Just out of curiosity, how does one "happen" onto a 2 year 4 month old thread? I have no idea how many pages back this was before the op revived it, 200 pages perhaps. It seems unlikely that most people, let alone newbies, would be perusing threads that difficult to find unless specifically looking for it"
You really are difficult to deal with. Notice how I comment without actually insulting anyone. "revived it" could have meant it was anyone's thread. Yes "op revived it" should mean it was his thread and I apologize profusely for missing the two letters. But I fail to see why an ad hominem attack is appropriate. But, if it makes you feel any better to hurl insults, have at it. I hope that makes you feel better about yourself and that you have a great weekend as a result.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
You playing the victim card now that is rich.
From prior in this thread:
and from another thread:
No doubt you are a sweetheart alright.
If you are too fragile to take it don't be the one giving it.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I'm not at all fragile. I also didn't play the victim card. In neither of your "examples", did I hurl any insults. Being a smartass is different than calling someone a "moron".
As for the 2nd response, which was to you, I did find it ironic that you criticized someone's failure to use the possessive - which boils down to possibly simply forgetting the apostrophe when your first sentence has a clear comma splice and a missing (understood?) subject. I think, in your own beautiful words, "if you are too fragile to take it don't be the one giving it." (sic - I'll ignore the missing comma
for the sake of comity.)
I do love a good, pedantic discussion.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Second victim card played, right on cue!! A helpful tip for you, there are some doctors on this forum perhaps one can write you a prescription for some anti whiner meds. Now before you pull out your third victim card, I'm just trying to help you.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
You are correct that often a Google search can be more fruitful than using the search feature here. My post was more tongue in cheek as I am not sure that the member I quoted was/is aware this thread was dredged from the deep by the person that started it.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
If you'd really like to help, could you point to the alleged text that is either whining or suggestng victimization?
No? Yeah. I didn't think so.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
No need to double down on a display of your poor reading comprehension, we know it is inadequate. By the way, what does the word suggestng in your reply mean? I could not find it in the dictionary.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Yeah, couldn't find it could you?
By the way, you should write "... what does the word 'suggestng' (sic) in your reply mean?", if you were really meaning to ask the question? As you wrote it, the sentence has even less meaning than my missing "i" im "suggestng" (sic). Congratulations!!!!
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
A word salad was not necessary; all you had to say was that your spelling is as atrocious as your reading comprehension. Now we all know that your massive insecurity complex requires you to have the last word. And as you get boring really quick, I'm out all yours Pondexter.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Latest assessment from AI................