1776-1976 Bicentennial Eisenhower dollar

Yeah, using ghetto parlance is going to get you real far.

And what, what, what if the coin IS trash? It is, after all, what we have here before us!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is not an error coin, it is a normal bicentennial dollar that has some kind of environmental damage. My guess is it spent time in the ground which caused the discoloration that you see.

If you look closely at the rim, you can see the nickel and copper layers visible...this is not a coin where the nickel peeled off. If you want extra confirmation of that, weigh it. If it had lost a layer or two of nickel it should be significantly underweight.

 

Note to @GDJMSP: is this the kind new numismatists coming into the field that is supposed to give me "warm fuzzies"? This kind of analysis replaces maybe a dead rat, but no demised collector.

 

@gold standard db
Many of the threads on CT show up in searches and are accessed by a lot of new collectors that are looking for accurate information. Please do not take this as a personal attack, but your information is so far even being remotely accurate, it is important to make sure that new collectors aren’t confused.

You do not need the coin in hand to determine that it CANNOT be a peeled clad. 1) The pictures show a coin is to be the correct thickness. 2) The coin has a strong (normal) strike. If a clad layer was missing, there would not be enough metal to fill the details, and if some of the layer peeled off after striking (lamination error), any details in the devices would be weak and/or indistinct.

Welcome to CT and continue to build your knowledge of errors and the minting process. Your opinion is welcome, but please don’t continue to insist that it’s accurate when, in this case, a little more knowledge of the minting process is needed.

 

First thing I said was weigh it. And I speculated first. Waiting for other input. Sigh. Wasnt insisting, was attempting to conversation the topic.

 

Hi Cris,
thank you that is why I wanted to be sure, I read an article about a few rare Eisenhower dollars that caught my attention I will try to attach it, thanks again
Dottie

 

Precisely WHAT about that link (BTW, you can just pop a link right into a post) has ANYTHING to do with the coin you found? That coin in the link is a San Francisco coin, which didn't STRIKE (supposedly) circulation Ikes in 1973. All 1973-S Ikes are supposed to be either proofs, which this one isn't, OR a 40% silver uncirculated. Your example is a plain old Philly bicentennial, which was struck by the gazillion. These seemingly tiny details are KEY and NOT IMPOSSIBLE to keep track of. But it requires disciplined thought.

Now, how did the 1973-S happen? The best guess is some joker at the mint tossed a clad blank intended for the clad (clod?) proof production line into the 40% silver uncirculated bin, and VOILA! Lots and lots of "errors" are intentional mischief by mint workers. Why do they do it? They're dumb as bricks, orrrr they may be intentionally creating rarities they try to get back.

 

Come on everyone, this thread is twisting all over the place in all the wrong ways. As @cpm9ball first said, environmental damage and nothing more. If you have another one to play with, leave it under the floor mat in your vehicle for a couple of months and see what happens. Or any other coin for that matter.

 

Dottie, I'm sorry that your (very reasonable) question caused this thread to become mired in a "back-and-forth" argument.

As for your Bicentennial Ike, there is only one that I know of that is of any significant importance and that is the "No S" Proof Bicentennial variety. The search for this coin was recounted by Tom DeLorey in the book, "The Authoritative Reference on Eisenhower Dollars" (page 190) which was co-authored by John Wexler, Bill Crawford and Kevin Flynn. Without going into a lengthy account of this story, suffice it to say that a 40% silver "No S" Ike was reported discovered by someone in Washington DC. It's existence was because the Philadelphia Mint produced the proof specimens of the bicentennial coins (25c, 50c & $1) for a presentation ceremony, but they were supposed to be returned to the Mint afterward because only the San Francisco Mint was supposed to strike proof coins. Apparently, not all of the coins were returned.

Chris

 

nvmd

 

You just can't stop, can you! Let the OP have her day, and go somewhere else.

Chris

 

Sorry to say, but "There You Go". You are 38 years old, typing on a X-Box, spelling wrong, poor grammar, lack of punctuation, etc. You need some broader shoulders my friend ( or a computer that is not prone to making these mistakes on ). This IS a nice open chat forum but people start to become annoyed when someone goes on and on with "hurt feelings" when that persons feelings get hurt is making the mistakes.

 

As I understand it, proof coins today are struck on specially prepared planchets which combined with the highly polished dies and increased pressure of the strike creates the proof effect. Were the planchets specially prepared at this time as well? The reason I ask is I would think that a higher quality planchet combined with the softer silver metal would result in an PL specimen for this error...and the photos of the coin (in the article) don't seem to illustrate that.

To be perfectly honest, I have seen people mention proofs have "specially prepared planchets" on CT before but don't really know what is done to them. I guess I always assumed they were polished before hand so the medium struck would be as uniform as possible.

Also, just so it's clear...I'm not talking about the OPs coin. I'm talking about the coin mentioned in the article the OP posted.

 

There is a film out there called “Secrets of the U.S. Mint”. I think it was on Discovery years ago. I have it on a recorded DVD/RW. Proof planchets are handled specially so they don’t get any pre-striking severe marks that the double striking can’t strike clean, but they are not polished per se. It would be easy to “lift” a clad blank, pre-upsetting, and get it into the Uncirculated “Blue Ike” production line. The film may be on YouTube. Not my thing.

Having a clad planchet on a line set for producing Blue Ikes MIGHT result in a soft strike, but by 1973 the Blue Ikes were much more well struck on average than in 1971. They simply took more care.

 

OK, that makes sense to me. I'll look for that video.

 

Nothing like sitting back with a cold one watching an internet fight.
Ahh. Good times.
Getting back to the OP coin, it looks like this coin was dug up, and then someone tried to shine it up. Resulting in patches of ED and other patches of colors and streaks. Just my opinion. There is a Type-1 and Type-2 of this coin. The Type-1 being rarer/lower mintage. I would guess it is the Type-2, but comparison photos
of both types would determine that.
1976 P Type 1 - Low Relief - Bold Lettering
1976 P Type 2 - Sharp Design - Delicate Lettering

 

Both coins shown in post #1 (the ugly one and the comparison coin) are Type 2.