MS65 if it were without the adjustment marks???

So, another example is out there. Very interesting. If you want to confirm it is from the same die (at least same obverse die) check the date and see if the second 0 in the date looks like it is an overdate. Mine looks like it might be a 0 punched over a 9. In fact, I submitted it to NGC that way with the hope they would recognize the overdate and put it on the slab. No luck on that part.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Love the brilliant minds slugging it out. This has turned into a very interesting and informative thread........

 

Here are 2 different coins from the same series ,same date ,with similar die striations that show on one example Obverse & on another the Reverse

 

I was using "striations" as loose term but , the dictionary defines its as :

stri·a·tion noun \strī-ˈā-shən\
Definition of STRIATION
1a : the fact or state of being striated b : arrangement of striations or striae
2: a minute groove, scratch, or channel especially when one of a parallel series 3: any of the alternate dark and light cross bands of a myofibril of striated muscle

 

Okay - somebody is wrong. In the numismatist I just received yesterday there is an article about Sarah Brown in the back. Part of the article quotes a 1894 letter that states the lady would file and adjust that number of pieces. According to the article adjusters(like Sarah Brown) would weigh each blank, if light they would toss them, if heavy they would file them using an 8 inch file. Then a second ground would look at them and toss those that did not meet mint specifications. So at least from the early 1880's to mid-1890's adjustments were still being used with files at US mint in San Fransisco.

Now I do agree that those do not look like mint adjustments, too parallel for me - but I am no expert on these. Just a humble old opinion.

 

Doug,

He simply used the wrong term. He meant planchet striations, not die striations.

 

So your theory of the crime is that someone is putting uncirculated Danish gold 20 Kroner through counting machines? Do you have a motive? Because I would love to hear that.

The absurdity of that conclusion is eclipsed only by your deductive reasoning that roller marks should be eliminated from contention because someone posted a coin that has marks in multiple directions. In your words, the marks are "so similar". Really? How many of the other coins posted show marks going in multiple directions? The coin that I showed earlier in this thread has roller marks, 100%, without a doubt. Care to deny that? Using your logic, since it is obvious that the coin I posted shows roller marks and the marks are so similar to the OP's coin, it is kind of obvious that the OP's coin has roller marks. A ridiculous deduction I know!

But hey, it is nice to see you going down with the ship, AGAIN!

 

Who are you Yogi Berra? You want more coins. Okay, here they come!




Another




Another




& Another




Another

 

I'm almost positive these are marks left on the sheets of metal by the rollers prior to the planchets being punched out of them. Everything I'm seeing points to them being on the coin prior to striking.

 

They are not treated as bullion and they certainly have numismatic value. The auction description which includes the Krause Price guide demonstrates that fact. A bullion coin would not trade for double the price from VF to UNC.

Description:
Christian IX gold 20 Kroner 1890, KM791.1, MS65 NGC, popular mermaid type. AGW 0.2593 oz. Krause catalog price(s) for this item: $275 in VF, $420 in EF, $550 in UNC.



Furthermore, you act like counting machine marks are so common that every time you run a coin through one, the marks will magically appear. If these marks are caused by counting machines, then I have seen more counting machine marks on 19th century Danish gold 20 Kroner in this thread than I have seen in all my years collecting coins. And you use the terms plausible and likely, what a joke!

Uh, yes you did. These are your words quoted directly from post #44 in this thread.

You specifically pointed to the fact that the marks going in different directions precludes the possibility that they were roller marks. If you are now claiming that none of the other coins have marks in multiple directions then you can't possibly employ the logic that the similarities in the markings precludes the possibility that they are roller marks.

The apparent similarities in the markings merely suggests that they were caused by the same process. Your claim is that they are PMD. The similarities that you have pointed out make it extremely unlikely that the markings were caused by an individual and suggest that they were caused by a mechanized process. You seem to be hanging your hat on counting machines whereas I think they are roller marks. I have news for you, I am never going to believe that someone running 19th century Danish gold through counting machines is more likely than roller marks which are known to have plagued gold coins of this era across different countries. Furthermore, your theory is dependent upon the assumption that nobody at NGC knows what counting machine marks look like and can't attribute them properly.

I have not changed my mind at all. I said that my theory was that the marks on the coin posted by the OP were caused by roller marks. I also stated that I could not be sure because I had not seen the coin in hand and that from the photo, the marks appeared to be to severe to be roller marks. I then posted a photo of another Danish 20 Kroner that I was 100% sure (my opinion) displayed roller marks. As for your little psychobabble, of course I don't know for sure, but neither do you. This is a debate about something that neither person can prove. All we can do is present our opinions. When I say 100% sure, I mean that I believe what I say to be true without a doubt.

Ouch, I just fell off my chair and hit my head. Are you really trying to claim that you keep and open mind? WOW! Let's take a look at your open mindedness during this thread shall we:

Only after I posted my first example of a Danish 20 Kroner showing roller marks (post #33) did you soften you stance just a little.

And now you are open to the possibility that the marks were caused by a roller. Seems that posting examples does change your mind! Is it your contention that the marks on all of the new examples that I posted were caused by counting machines?

If this is true, then you should be able to provide examples of many 19th century European gold coins with similar markings. Or did the counting machines conspire only to damage Danish 20 Kroner?

I agree but there are some series that are plagued by obvious roller marks, $4 Stellas for instance. And while I showed some examples of Danish 20 Kroner with these marks, there are plenty that exist without them.

Ouch, fell off my chair again. Your little gimmick of telling those that disagree with you to keep and open mind is so lame. You did it to PrinceofWaldo in post #12 and have done it twice to me in one post. The truth is that I have kept and open mind and demonstrated that throughout the course of this thread. If you want proof, here are two quotes from my post #39:

The problem is Doug that you equate and open mind to agreeing with you. Perhaps you should work on that!

 

While you may feel that way because you couldn't get me to agree with you, my guess is that there are many members of this forum who have learned a great deal simply by watching our debate. Whenever I enter a debate with you, I do so knowing that I won't change your mind. But if I can get one other person to consider my dissenting opinion to yours, I consider my efforts a success.

And FWIW, there are times that we agree. It just seems that when we disagree, we do so vehemently. Personally, I find threads like this interesting, stimulating, and educational.

 

Sarah Brown, John Browns daughter, was an adjuster and it talks about an Article written in October 17th 1897 about the day in life of an adjuster. Sarah Brown was an adjuster. I think you need to see the actual article. It mentions using a file several times. I can't argue with the writers of the article.

 

Simple reason as to why I think they're not PMD...

When I look at the coin, the marks are most obvious in the fields, or where metal flow is the least on the coin... Yes, metal flow still happens there, but nowhere near the extent as it does in other areas. In the areas where the metal would have flowed up and into the devices such as the portrait or rim, they are far, far less pronounced. That leads me to believe they were on the planchet prior to it being struck.

If this was post-mint damage, I'd expect the high points raised out of the fields would have WORSE damage than the fields.

 

After reading two articles on the subject, it appears that the Brown family moved from Iowa to Red Bluff, CA in the year 1864.

Sarah Brown, Artist and Abolitionist--Saratoga Historical Foundation

In 1881, they moved to Saratoga, CA. According to the Numismatist article:

Sarah Brown, Mint Adjuster--The Numismatist-April 2012

From this we can conclude that her employment at the mint was between 1881-1885. After all, if she returned to Saratoga, they would have to have lived there in the first place. However, this all appears academic because even though they were still manually adjusting coins with a file in the 1880's, the article clearly details that they filed the edges not the face of the coin. But that doesn't mean that they followed that same practice in Copenhagen.

 

Conder101 makes a similar observation about PMD in a thread on the NGC forum last year.

How Gold Coin Blanks Were Adjusted for Weight

BTW, I encourage everyone to read the entire thread linked above. You may recognize one of the key participants.