<< <i>

<< <i>Four
>>



I'll raise you one...
Sean Reynolds >>



This pair of clips fills my full house - but, even though that still doesn't beat Jon's quads and your five of a kind, I'm going to raise you a fragmented planchet, one off center strike, and uniface reverse!

<< <i>PennyLady,

In my opinion, the coin in the post above is a triple clip, not a double. Look at the reverse pic, which I marked up below. The flat edge in the struck area is where the third curved clip was, under the increased pressure of the off-center strike the metal flowed out until the curved clip was nearly filled in. The two points where the struck edge changes from a convex curve to straight are the edges of the clip. I can confirm this by looking at the rim opposite the strike, on the reverse you can see the Blakesley effect from the obliterated third clip.

If you send a copy of this post and picture to NGC, they might agree to reholder the coin with the proper attribution.

Sean Reynolds >>



That's very interesting Sean. I thought that flat edge is what I referred to as a fragmented planchet, but your theory makes more sense. I actually have to take three other errors back to NGC this week at the ANA because they "messed up" on them as well, so I think I'll add this to the pile. I had sent them two lamination cents with the detached lamination piece included, and asked that they put the fragment either in a dual coin holder or in a separate holder but all they did was slab the coins and return the fragments. To me, the coin is not worth much without the detached lamination piece. Also, I sent in my 1886 clamshell, shown below, and all they did was call that a reverse lamination! Go figure!!! I even listed it on the invoice as a clamshell/split planchet error. What's even more crazy is that I had a Lincoln clamshell that was probably 80% split around the rim, and they did label that a clamshell error. Any way, when I called NGC, they told me to bring the coins to their table at the ANA to discuss it.

<< <i>

<< <i>PennyLady,

In my opinion, the coin in the post above is a triple clip, not a double. Look at the reverse pic, which I marked up below. The flat edge in the struck area is where the third curved clip was, under the increased pressure of the off-center strike the metal flowed out until the curved clip was nearly filled in. The two points where the struck edge changes from a convex curve to straight are the edges of the clip. I can confirm this by looking at the rim opposite the strike, on the reverse you can see the Blakesley effect from the obliterated third clip.

If you send a copy of this post and picture to NGC, they might agree to reholder the coin with the proper attribution.

Sean Reynolds >>



That's very interesting Sean. I thought that flat edge is what I referred to as a fragmented planchet, but your theory makes more sense. I actually have to take three other errors back to NGC this week at the ANA because they "messed up" on them as well, so I think I'll add this to the pile. I had sent them two lamination cents with the detached lamination piece included, and asked that they put the fragment either in a dual coin holder or in a separate holder but all they did was slab the coins and return the fragments. To me, the coin is not worth much without the detached lamination piece. Also, I sent in my 1886 clamshell, shown below, and all they did was call that a reverse lamination! Go figure!!! I even listed it on the invoice as a clamshell/split planchet error. What's even more crazy is that I had a Lincoln clamshell that was probably 80% split around the rim, and they did label that a clamshell error. Any way, when I called NGC, they told me to bring the coins to their table at the ANA to discuss it. >>



UPDATE: I'm at the ANA show and resubmitted these errors to NGC. They were very interested in fixing the problems, and immediately (by immediately, I mean the had reholdered the coins and got them back to me within 2 hours) reclassified the 1886 clamshell error as a "Clamshell Lamination." Then they also agreed with you Sean that the double clip was indeed a triple curved clip error and so labeled it. Regarding the detached lamination pieces, NGC said the pieces were too small and they didn't want them rattling around in the holder and couldn't put them in a separate holder. They suggested I leave the pieces in a flip and tape the flip to the slabbed coin. Any way, NGC was very helpful!

Sean, you're the ERROR man indeed! As I posted earlier from the ANA, NGC agreed with you that the off center clipped planchet was indeed a TRIPLE clip and not just a double clip, so here's the new label for my now properly designated TRIPLE CLIP. And they also agreed that my 1886 CLAMSHELL wasn't properly designated as well. So here are the coins with their new labels! (Both coins were photographed raw before I sent them to NGC so Todd just added the labels onto the old photos, so you won't see evidence of the NGC prongs on these two coins.)