Gusmyster

A couple of sellers are listing the Washington Dollar with contact marks on ebay for sale. About a month ago I recieved two US Mint bags of Washington Dollars. Each of these bags contained one of these coins, image attached. It looks as though the coin was caught up and gouged by the letter inscription machine. What do you think?

Also, I pulled about 20 coins from the two bags that have what appears to be a series of scratches between Liberty's face that extend under the raised relief and pop out on the other side in line with each other. Is this from improper polishing of the die (scratched die)? Sorry no photo of this one.

myster

Attached Thumbnails

 

Gusmyster

Here's a fairly representative photo of the scratches...

Attached Thumbnails

 

JeromeLS

I must say, the first coin pictured looks very like it is post mint damage, and the second one is just random bag marks...

Gusmyster

Neitherof the photos show post mint damage or bag marks. I have multiple examples of both coins pictured that I pulled directly from a Mint-sewn bag sent directly to me from the mint. They are guaranteed untampered with. Both coins that in the photos I provided were posted on ebay by a person unknown to me.

myster

sumorada

same here,as for the first coin shown i have several of these that have no edge lettering,and some with,i'm one of the few that believe the no edge lettering coins were not caused by a bin of coins not reaching the edge lettering machines,but rather a malfunction of the machine which allowed coins to pass without the lettering which would also explain the documented denver mint no letter ones, as for the other picture, IMO it's a poorly polished die.............thanks for sharing the pics.....

Conder101

Just because they are in bags direct from the Mint doesn't mean they can't have post mint damage.

Post mint damage simply means that something damaged them after they were struck it doesn't have any thing tp do with where the coin was or who had it when it was damaged.

__________________
Slab collector and researcher
reported as of 12/29/06
132 companies 332 production varieties

Philly Dog

If you every go through the mint tour and see the (I call then train coal cars )filled to the top with coins you can really understand how damage can happen

gatzdon

Last time I went to the philly mint, all I saw were cloth covered windows. I did see a room where nobody was working and noted all the coin blanks all over the floor. I did complain that how can they charge for such a tour and they claimed what refund (the lady didnt get the joke). It was a very disappointing day. I've never gotten a chance to get back to philadelphia since.

I still can't believe that they ship these dollars to the coin wrapping companies in $140,000 bags that are moved by forklift. Just one hard set down of that bag and every coin in the bottom half has instant bag marks.

n_sandler4

Conder, these were indeed damaged in the striking process. I have two of these coins with gouges on the edges. Both came from sealed rolls, and the gouges are in the same spot, on the "Trust" in "In God we Trust" and on "Unum." I believe that the coin in this picture probably has the gouges in the same location. I believe these coins were somehow ejected incorrectly from the edge lettering process.

Here's some pictures of one of my coins with this error....

GDJMSP

Have you seen pictures of the edge die ? It is a large block with an arced slot cut into it that is the same thickness as the coins. It is open on both ends and the coins are rolled through the slot by a wheel. They roll in one end and out the other. There is no ejector, they just roll through.

Do you understand what happens when the coin is run through it ? If you look at your picture where the gouge on the edge is you can see that the rim is there on top of the metal that has been pushed up. That means the gouge occurred after the coin left the edge die. Otherwise the metal could not have been pushed up. It would have been contained by the edge die itself because the slot in the die is exactly as thick as the coin itself. You can also see the ragged edges where the letters on the edge were cut by whatever made the gouge.

So what made the gouge then ? You say it had to be done during the striking process because the coins came from a sealed roll. But that's not so because of the process the coins go through. As you know, after the coins are struck they go into large bags which are shipped out of the mint and to the Federal Reserve - or they are shipped in the same large bags to a private company who then rolls the coins for the mint. Either way, coins that end up in rolls go through several hands, other than those of the mint, before they end up in rolls. They also go through several more machines - counting machines, rolling machines and boxing machines.

So when you think it all through it becomes obvious that the gouge was not caused by the striking process because it could not have been. It is damage that was caused, more than likely, by the rolling machine.

__________________
knowledge ..... share it

Daggarjon

Great pics!! thanks for posting them. I bought 6 rolls of the washignton coins when they first came out and i heard about these 'godless' coins. Only 1 of mine was different, and it had the same kind of damage as in the pics you posted. However, mine is over the 'U' in unum.... Error, post mint damage... i may never know for certain.... but the damage has appeared on more then a few of these dollars, and only the dollars, so i will keep my coin, if only for its oddity =)

Gusmyster

Mike,

So let me get this straight, the feeder finger imparts these scratches onto the planchet prior to the strike? I guess that makes sense and would explain why they dissappear under the raised surfaces of the coin and then reappear in line with each other. Excuse my ignorance, but could the same effect be generated by a scratched or improperly polished die? Or is that simply not possible?

Myster

mikediamond

These striations are much coarser and straighter than scratches associated with intentional die abrasion ("die polishing"). They show a consistent directionality, while die scratches fly off in all directions.

n_sandler4

On each of my coins, there are two gouges, one on "trust" and also on the u in "unum." I hate to say it, but I still believe that you guys are wrong about post mint damage....Daggarjon's post merely increases the number of coins with this gouge or damage in the same place....I don't know what to believe...GDJMSP, I believe you are one of (if not the most) knowledgeable collectors on this forum, but I still have to go with my own gut feeling, that these coins were indeed damaged in some way by the edge lettering process...

GDJMSP, would you say that there is absolutely no possible way that these coins could ever be damaged in some way by the edge lettering process?

Oh, and your welcome for the pics, Daggarjon...It took a while to get ones that I thought were reasonably focused....=p

JBK

This seems to be getting out of hand.

We use the term "post Mint damage" very often, but what we really mean is "post strike". Those nasty edge gouges were made after the coin was struck and lettered. If it happened a split second afterward or a year afterward, it is just damage nonetheless.

The main issue here is, could this damage be proven to have been caused at the Mint? If the same damage could be caused outside of the Mint, then the damage - even if caused by mint machines - has no value since it could be easily faked.

Also, it is not up to people here to prove that it isn't mint damage, it is up to those who claim that it is an error to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is mint damage. Based on the fact that the damage occurred after the minting process, it could never, in my mind, be proven to be an error.

Lastly, with the involvement of outside companies to roll the coins, I don't see any reliable way to ensure that the mint caused it. And besides, as long as an "error" can be exactly recreated outside of the mint, then it is not worth debating.