July 4th Quiz #4

It's a coin struck with a clashed die that has evidence of an attempt at polishing that clash out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would take any of the diamonds. Better than a "stinkin dime" any day.

 

The first things MOST SHOUD NOTICE in the image are the multi copper colored flecks on the coin. You can tell they are raised bits of debris because of the shadow at the edge of some of the flecks. Since these are copper color and since the coin is clad it can be assumed that these are bits of copper contamination left on some part of the mint machenery after the coin was struck that became attached to the coin. One member noticed that this is a mint error so the defective planchet did not completely fill the die chamber. That's one possible reason the flecks became attached to the struck coin.

 

That’s to what if for me. We’re do you come up with this stuff. Not a novice question

 

Cheechposted: That’s to what if for me. [ I'm sorry] We’re do you come up with this stuff. [I shall not answer this question so as not to offend you or anyone who might read my reply ] Not a novice question. [Questions are good. What part of my answer was confusing? Since the particles are copper and not snack crumbs, how would you guess they got on the coin?]

 

Okay, I have questions.

1) Are these flecks really "copper colored"? The color balance on the original photo makes the coin look almost like brass or bronze. When I try to correct it so that the main body of the coin is neutral (as I'm assuming a dime would be), I get this:



Those flecks look a lot less coppery in what I think is a more natural color balance. But, of course, I didn't see the original coin.

2) What leads you to believe that these flecks originated at the Mint? My first assumption was "pocket or cup debris", and without knowing more about the coin's provenance, I find that a lot more plausible than "metal flakes deposited at the Mint".

Whatever they are, it looks like the flecks are casting shadows, so they must have landed on the coin after it was struck (they don't look like any sort of lamination, especially not being a different color from the underlying metal). Were they easily dislodged? If not -- if they were "sticky" -- that makes it seem even less likely that they're metal flakes from a Mint mishap. Doesn't it?

 

OK. Yes 80x microscope is better than 5x cheater glasses.
BUT, first thing you do is look at the GIA certificate. Second a 10x/20x loupe would do.
That's all the people who certify said diamond used when I got to go diamond hunting
After all what good is a laser inscribed diamond without a certificate?

As far as coins, a 10x loupe is good enough... anything else is overdone.
My opinion if you can't see it clearly with 10x, the value of the coin does change.

 

Late to the party, I was thinking dandruff from another dime...

 

Who? What? Who's got dandruff is the question.

 

C'mon the Franklin next door...

 

Sorry. Having a "blonde" moment.

 

jeffB, asked:

1) Are these flecks really "copper colored"? [Take a look at the edge of a BU 2023 25c and uou'll see their actual color.]The color balance on the original photo makes the coin look almost like brass or bronze. When I try to correct it so that the main body of the coin is neutral (as I'm assuming a dime would be), I get this:
Those flecks look a lot less coppery in what I think is a more natural color balance. But, of course, I didn't see the original coin.

2) What leads you to believe that these flecks originated at the Mint? My first assumption was "pocket or cup debris", and without knowing more about the coin's provenance, I find that a lot more plausible than "metal flakes deposited at the Mint". [The press floor at the Mint was a dirty place. The coin preses were filthy. This was in the 1970's. Imagine how it was at the turn of the century forward to the forties! I'll post an image of the crap that gets on to coins from the minting process. I imagine this modern example of Mint "gunk" results when clad coins are forced out of a collar.]

Whatever they are, it looks like the flecks are casting shadows, so they must have landed on the coin after it was struck [YES!!](they don't look like any sort of lamination, especially not being a different color from the underlying metal). Were they easily dislodged? [Yes]If not -- if they were "sticky" [They were sticky and we left them on the coin as it makes the coin more interesting] -- that makes it seem even less likely that they're metal flakes from a Mint mishap. Doesn't it? [Probably from the normal minting process. The fact that the coin is an error that did notfill the die chamber helped caused this deposit is my guess.]

rte, posted: OK. Yes 80x microscope is better than 5x cheater glasses.
BUT, first thing you do is look at the GIA certificate. Second a 10x/20x loupe would do.
That's all the people who certify said diamond used when I got to go diamond hunting
After all what good is a laser inscribed diamond without a certificate?

...AND COIN GRADING STANDARDS HAVE CHANGED. a large majority of Top TPGS coins in slabs from the 1980's have upgraded. What happens when the GIA decides a diamond will need to be flawless at 20X to get the flawless grade? Don't come whinning to me when the diamond I picked out of the group was
flawless AT 50X!

As far as coins, a 10x loupe is good enough... anything else is overdone.
My opinion if you can't see it clearly with 10x, the value of the coin does change.

You are welcome to use any tool you wish to look at coins. Most professionals in a grading room use 10X or lower and much of the time their eyes alone. That's why l enjoy being able to help long-time professional graders when they ask me for an opinion several times a week about somethig they just are not quite sure of with their 10X glass. I'm able to give a very fast answer because I've always had a stereo scope on my desk to examine coins at every place I've worked for over fifty years. I like to see everything there is to see on a coin before I view it at 7X.

 

But again, what tells you that the debris originated at the Mint? Did you find the coin with this debris inside a sealed mint or proof set?

 

@JeffB You are acting EXACTLY the way I encourage all collectors to be! Never believe anything until you find out for yourself!

Unfortunately, if I were to answer this question other than saying "experience," I should be accused of being a know-it-all, bragging about where I have been, seen, and done on multiple occasions, and posting in a very snarky and condesending
way (It's my nature as a ) to someone asking me a valid and serious question.

So Jeff, since I was not around when this Mint error was made, you can regard this quiz as just something I made up until you see this for yourself.

You might see if you can find some coins with Mint "gunk" imbeded with various metal flakes on their surface. The way they are on the coin and what they look like will tell you if they occurred inside the Mint or became attached in circulation. Your bet bet is searching BU dimes and quarters dated between 1945 and 1964.

PS The coin in the OP is a good example of one type of unusual Mint-made debris. That's why it imaged it in the first place and posted it

PS I hjust though of a quicker and easier way to make you a believer.

Start checking the reeding of modern clad quarters you get in change or buy a bunch of bank wrapped rolls.

 

My thoughts were copper flecks from the planchet manufacture or a stuck planchet that was damaged beyond hope and stuck and removed from the die that left debris on the surface that was struck into it.

 

For example this one was in the mint package when I found it.
I would guess that one of the previous coins had a bad cladding, and some of the debri either remained in the coining chamber or became stuck to the die surface, then this 86 Dime was struck. :notice the struck thru pot marks in the surface, the copper tones from the core is embedded into the coins surface.
Struck thru debri.

 

Can the flecks be removed with water or solvent?

 

WHAT A WONDERFUL EXAMPLE!!! My envious collector meter at 100%! So far, I have only two copper coins (Indian and early Lincoln) with embedded silver flakes. I'll guarantee there are copper coins with embedded gold during striking

Depends on what they are made of, how deeply they are struck in to the coin, and the composition of the coin. You can see on the dime that some craters are copper colored. Either the copper came out of some of the clear holes or some other type of debris harder than copper was also between the die and planchet.

Sawdust struck thru's were fairly common on Morgan dollars yet in most cases the original sawdust has been removed by circulation friction or cleaning.

NOW FOR an easy question to see who is paying attention....

The copper colored flects on the two dimes are caused by two different processes. How did they get on the coin and how can you tell? @ -JefB

 

I think we have a member here that has a struck thru gold cent. I am almost positive I have seen photos.

 

I'd like to see that!!!