"Triple Struck" Nickel in Mint Packaging?! Smells like an interesting "scam"...
OffMetal
Posts: 1,684 ✭
OffMetal
Posts: 1,684 ✭
Comments
<< <i>Second strike, to the left of center, the lettering is backwards. I learned the hard way with that kind of multiple strike. Must have been really careful opening the cello and resealing it. >>
Not even done in vise, just a good wack with a hammer w/ another 5c Jeff'S rev facing this coins obv.
The seller should get a good wack with a hammer too!
<< <i>The backwards lettering proves it isn't multi-struck. It's a 'sandwich coin'... >>
Meant to look like a Flip Over D/S.
With 16 hours to go if reported as Bogus would EBay take any action?
<< <i>cmerlo, sandwich! Thats what I was tryin' to spit out! Thanx! >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Second strike, to the left of center, the lettering is backwards. I learned the hard way with that kind of multiple strike. Must have been really careful opening the cello and resealing it. >>
Not even done in vise, just a good wack with a hammer w/ another 5c Jeff'S rev facing this coins obv.
The seller should get a good wack with a hammer too!
I agree ;o
I've always had this thing with sandwiched coins being passed off as reals, because my first error coin off ebay was a sandwiched coin, which I paid $20.50 for it when I was 10 (a little over 7 years ago). That was one month's worth of allowance for me then
However, I'm glad that I didn't let that get me down too much, and so I learned, and the coolness of errors kept me going and is still keeping me going
If nothing else, that auction is educational for newbies. The above comments point out why this coin could not be what the seller claims it to be.
A double-struck coin cannot have all of the original strike still showing in the area where it was struck a second time. A second strike would nearly obliterate the first.
The lettering from the "second strike" is reversed. If it was a legit double strike, the lettering would read normally.
The lettering from the "second strike" is also incuse. A legit double strike would have raised lettering.
The coin is still round, when a second strike that was off-center would distort the planchet.
And never let your guard down just because something is claimed to be in unopened mint packaging.
It's important for error collectors to understand the minting process, which would enable anyone to know this is not what the seller says it is.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
<< <i>If nothing else, that auction is educational for newbies. The above comments point out why this coin could not be what the seller claims it to be.
A double-struck coin cannot have all of the original strike still showing in the area where it was struck a second time. A second strike would nearly obliterate the first.
The lettering from the "second strike" is reversed. If it was a legit double strike, the lettering would read normally.
The lettering from the "second strike" is also incuse. A legit double strike would have raised lettering.
The coin is still round, when a second strike that was off-center would distort the planchet.
And never let your guard down just because something is claimed to be in unopened mint packaging.
It's important for error collectors to understand the minting process, which would enable anyone to know this is not what the seller says it is. >>
I could not agree with this post more!
for example, they rolled a cart over a small pile of coins? it is not
really accurate to say the seller is the one who damaged the coin
when in fact, the mint could have packaged it as it was.
just a thought that the seller might indeed not be as bad as we
are making them out to be.
What this auction is presenting is a very clever fake that was either perpetrated by someone at the US Mint (If the packaging proves to be intact) or by a very clever individual that was able to open the packaging and introduce this fake. The reverse lettering is the big tip off.
The name is LEE!
Hopefully, it won't show up in some other eBay auction but I'd keep my eye on this seller to see if he's the one creating these fakes. The closing amount on the auction will surely either encourage him or some other seller to do the same thing. It never fails.
The name is LEE!
The first strike was normal. During the second strike a previously struck nickel and an unstruck planchet intruded into the striking chamber. At the same time, something prevented the dies from approximating normally, creating an abnormally weak strike. My guess is that, were it not for those two intrusive discs, the two dies would not have made contact with the bottom coin.
Quite a few low-pressure, double-struck brockages were produced by the Denver Mint between 1968 and 1974, mostly among nickels and dimes.
Thanks for depressing the bidding.
Nice pick-up Mike.
<< <i>Actually it's quite genuine. That's why I bought it. It's probably a double strike, rather than a triple strike. Specifically, it would be an in-collar double strike. There was probably no rotation between strikes, although I'll be pleased if there was. A look at the reverse will tell me if there was any rotation.
The first strike was normal. During the second strike a previously struck nickel and an unstruck planchet intruded into the striking chamber. At the same time, something prevented the dies from approximating normally, creating an abnormally weak strike. My guess is that, were it not for those two intrusive discs, the two dies would not have made contact with each other.
Quite a few low-pressure, double-struck brockages were produced by the Denver Mint between 1968 and 1974, mostly among nickels and dimes.
Thanks for depressing the bidding.
For being genuine you used the word "probably" a bit too much?
But then I looked at this EBay listing again for a few minutes... not a whole lot to see on the through the celophane shots.
Top sorta looks like a incomplete clip, past that I'm not convinced from the sellers pics.
Would love to better pics once you receive it!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Actually it's quite genuine. That's why I bought it. It's probably a double strike, rather than a triple strike. Specifically, it would be an in-collar double strike. There was probably no rotation between strikes, although I'll be pleased if there was. A look at the reverse will tell me if there was any rotation.
The first strike was normal. During the second strike a previously struck nickel and an unstruck planchet intruded into the striking chamber. At the same time, something prevented the dies from approximating normally, creating an abnormally weak strike. My guess is that, were it not for those two intrusive discs, the two dies would not have made contact with each other.
Quite a few low-pressure, double-struck brockages were produced by the Denver Mint between 1968 and 1974, mostly among nickels and dimes.
Thanks for depressing the bidding.
I apologize if I interpreted the auction incorrectly...
The fact that the reverse was not pictured and how common these fakes are led me to be a bit too suspicious for my own good.
Please do provide pictures when you receive it!
<< <i>Actually it's quite genuine. That's why I bought it. It's probably a double strike, rather than a triple strike. Specifically, it would be an in-collar double strike. There was probably no rotation between strikes, although I'll be pleased if there was. A look at the reverse will tell me if there was any rotation.
The first strike was normal. During the second strike a previously struck nickel and an unstruck planchet intruded into the striking chamber. At the same time, something prevented the dies from approximating normally, creating an abnormally weak strike. My guess is that, were it not for those two intrusive discs, the two dies would not have made contact with each other.
Quite a few low-pressure, double-struck brockages were produced by the Denver Mint between 1968 and 1974, mostly among nickels and dimes.
Thanks for depressing the bidding.
so basically a mint made sandwich between two already struck coins.
i am not sure why an unstruck planchet is mentioned? It could have
just as easily been struck coins.
the dies simply did not strike fully creating the sandwich of two coins.
maybe preperation for a full run?
i am just guessing but all i know is that being in mint packaging that
did not look tampered with lead me to think it was created at the mint somehow. even if after being normally struck.
-------
and lol @ kranky. i love how people here act like they know everything. keep teaching all the newbies your stuff!
--------
and i think 417 is hardly depressing the bidding. that is an insane
price in my mind for that type of error. 50 bucks is too much but alas
in this market people throw around hundreds without too much thought.
<< <i>
<< <i>Actually it's quite genuine. That's why I bought it. It's probably a double strike, rather than a triple strike. Specifically, it would be an in-collar double strike. There was probably no rotation between strikes, although I'll be pleased if there was. A look at the reverse will tell me if there was any rotation.
The first strike was normal. During the second strike a previously struck nickel and an unstruck planchet intruded into the striking chamber. At the same time, something prevented the dies from approximating normally, creating an abnormally weak strike. My guess is that, were it not for those two intrusive discs, the two dies would not have made contact with each other.
Quite a few low-pressure, double-struck brockages were produced by the Denver Mint between 1968 and 1974, mostly among nickels and dimes.
Thanks for depressing the bidding.
I apologize if I interpreted the auction incorrectly...
The fact that the reverse was not pictured and how common these fakes are led me to be a bit too suspicious for my own good.
Please do provide pictures when you receive it! >>
Well I feel we are all students of numismatics no matter how many years within the hobby we are all still learning.
Raw errors on EBay have always been something that must be look upon as venturing on to thin ice.
Taking the glass is half empty route of precaution can be a safeguard when something looks suspicious.
A few times I have saved an error on my watch page that just wasn't something I couldn't wrap my mind around being genuine.
I guess I'm not much of a risk taker when it comes to EBay, as the notion of getting burnt is something that's not high on my want list.
Not a sandwich (unless you consider it an open-faced sandwich). Two coins were struck together, leaving a brockage on both. The top coin was, of course, struck off-center.
<<I am not sure why an unstruck planchet is mentioned?>>
That's the curved line that passes through Jefferson's head. It's the impression of the proto-rim of the planchet. That coin would have ended up being an off-center nickel with a mirror brockage of Jefferson's head on the reverse face.
<<It could have just as easily been struck coins.>>
If that were the case you'd see a brockage there, too.
<<The dies simply did not strike fully creating the sandwich of two coins maybe preperation for a full run?>>
You've evidently bought into the myth of the "die adjustment strike". The vast majority of weakly struck coins in the marketplace are the product of spontaneous equipment malfunction.
<<I am just guessing but all i know is that being in mint packaging that did not look tampered with lead me to think it was created at the mint somehow. even if after being normally struck.>>
It does bear a resemblance to a false brockage, created when coins are mashed together in mint machinery after the strike. But it's not.
<< <i>Not a sandwich (unless you consider it an open-faced sandwich). Two coins were struck together, leaving a brockage on both. The top coin was, of course, struck off-center. >>
If two coins were struck together, then how did the coin in the auction retain so much detail where it was re-struck?
I'm not in any way doubting your theory of what occurred with that coin, I am just wondering how the detail still remains so prominently.
<< <i>
<< <i>Not a sandwich (unless you consider it an open-faced sandwich). Two coins were struck together, leaving a brockage on both. The top coin was, of course, struck off-center. >>
If two coins were struck together, then how did the coin in the auction retain so much detail where it was re-struck?
I'm not in any way doubting your theory of what occurred with that coin, I am just wondering how the detail still remains so prominently. >>
Since the striking pressure was abnormally low, none of the first-strike design was obliterated or even significantly flattened. That's typical in these low-pressure brockages. It's unlikely that the obverse die even touched the surface of the coin where it wasn't covered by the coin and the planchet. And even if it had, an absence of rotation by the bottom coin would have produced complete overlap between first and second-strike images.
Please keep us updated with pictures when you receive the coin!
@fc, sorry to have disappointed you. Feel free to correct me any time I ever post inaccurate information as I have no desire to pretend that I know more than I do. WIth the level of knowledge that experts here have, what would be the point? This coin did not fit any mint-made explanation I had heard of in 30 years of collecting, but there's always more to learn as this thread shows. If it takes someone with Mike's knowledge to spot this as a legit error, I don't feel too badly about that.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
TD
This is the top coin from an error similar to the one in the mint set.
And here's the bottom coin from a similar error, this one much more weakly struck and also struck off-center on the second strike. It was purchased from Fred Weinberg.
when you on photobucket site
first left click whare it says image code for your pic
when replying to thread right click in the text field left click "paste"
The listing got removed Mike! Did eBay cancel it because someone screamed fake??
The name is LEE!
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
very easy
I have to admit here, that last night I saw the thread, did not know it was yours and was going to say fake, Im glad I didnt.
let us know what the outcome is
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
So much for the hammer technique.
If this coin had been sold raw, outside of the mint set, would you have bid on it Mike?
The name is LEE!
We bash the auction because we think the coin is fake, and then the expert comes along, and we all praise the coin.