Post a seriously damaged coin that you still like

This one is the worst of all, don't think anybody can beat this one Who in his/her right mind would make a hole exactly were the mint mark is? What a shame!! Some people have really some bad ideas!!
Franz Joseph I, 1 Ducat; 20 mm, 3.45 g, 0.8 mm thickness. Mint ??? impossible to determine.
Reference: KM 2267
Obverse: Old laureate head of Franz Joseph, facing right, with thick whiskers.
FRANC IOS I D G AUSTRIAE IMPERATOR
Engraver: Friedrich Leisek
Reverse: Arms of Austria superimposed upon a crowned double-headed Imperial eagle.
HUNGAR BOHEM GAL LOD ILL REX A A (King of Hungary, Bohemia, Galicia, Lodomeria, Illyria, Archduke of Austria)
1882
Engraver: Friedrich Leisek
Edge: Reeded

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here is a 1757 Great Britain 6 pence which has something scratched in the fields of the reverse. I can read "1763" in one quadrant, not sure what the other characters or letters are. the other is a very worn 1788 Barbados penny.

 

I agree.

Now, what about error coins that were struck on a damaged blank before they left the Mint?

 

Show some examples so I know what you are talking about? If it is a legitimate error made at the mint, that is a completely different category than post-mint damage.

 

If I would turn down the Dexter 1804 dollar, I'd certainly turn down any of those coins. Sorry, scratches, wheel marks, and chop marks (especially chop marks!) are absolute turn offs. I don't care what coin it is, I wouldn't own it.

While I respect your opinion, I just can't agree. Graffiti, test cuts, banker's marks..... cannot stand them. If I were collecting a series and literally the only coin available had one of these problems then I would have to buy it to complete the set, but for most series there are enough other options that I will avoid any of these things. While the coins you show are mostly attractive, the problems they display just completely turn me off.

The test cut on that owl is seriously off-putting, especially since these were such a high mintage and finding problem-free coins is extremely easy. The other coin you show exhibits crystallization, which is a completely natural process and I don't consider that to be in the same category as graffiti or bankers marks. Crystallization is more in the vein of toning - sometimes it is a good thing, sometimes it goes too far and can be a bad thing. I would avoid extreme crystallization like that piece, but I'm not sure that is "damage" like the rest of the coins in this thread.

 

Right. I was just asking if you felt the same about error coins "damaged" during the minting process (not PMD).

See, for the non-errors I collect, I do not want any that have laminations, scratches, or anything that would garner a "Details" grade. Not even free.

But many errorr coins have distorted letters, scratches or gouges caused during striking.

For example here are a couple from my collection. They all have forms of damage, just not PMD.

 

I have always avoided damaged coins. But some of the coins posted on this thread would be interesting to own. Chop marks and counter stamps were part of how a coin was used and wouldn’t bother me as much as holes, scratches and so forth. As for graffiti, it would have to have some historical significance (such as a military pocket piece) versus just being carved up by some random person with time on their hands.

Overall my philosophy is, if I can’t afford the coin in problem free good or better, then I can’t afford it.

 

The only graffiti I would accept would be:

1) A trial piece from the Mint where they used a marker or etcher to mark their notes about the trial run.

2) A significant historical figure, like Ronald Reagan, inscribed an "X" over a hammer and sickle image on a soviet coin.

 

I found this Kennedy Half Metal Detecting.. I find it intriguing


And these Metal Detected Quarters.. Probably mowing machine damage -

 

That half looks like artillery shrapnel.

 

These are the key phrases here. If it was made at the mint, its an error and thus collectible. If it was made after the mint, its damage.

 

Right. But I am asking do you like error coins that are "damaged" (gouged, scratched, clipped, etc.) during the minting process.

I mean a scratch on a coin is still a scratch whether caused during striking or someone at home with a screwdriver. Error collectors (myself included) make the exception if it happened during minting as it matters when/where. But some do not care where or how and don't want one with one.

For example, here is my triple struck quarter, but the neck on the centered strike has a big gouge on it, but some are not forgiving of a mark like that even it was caused by the strike.



I am asking if you are one of those who says "Nope. Don't want that one."

 

Many people share your opinion, of course, and that's why these coins trade at a discount.

I guess we could argue over whether cleaning and polishing constitute damage, although I won't, because I agree that they do.

For that matter, I'd argue that wear is damage -- it's a post-mint alteration of the coin's surface. In fact, so are bag marks. So, to be consistent, I think you have to restrict yourself to MS70 and PR70 examples.

Worthless? But you just said:

...which means you acknowledge that they have worth. Right?

 

What I am saying is that if it happened during the minting process, it isn't damage. The "gouge" on his neck is from the coin being off centered in the minting chamber, and is a direct result of the error. That isn't damage.

They do not have any worth to me. They do have worth to someone else, though.

 

I guess I am not being clear. I know and understand everything you said. I know the difference between PMD and non-PMD.

I was asking if you would collect an error that had those kind of marks even if it was Mint-caused.

For example, some love off centers, but only if they don't have even Mint-caused marks.

 

I don't know how much more clearly I can state it: if it was caused during the minting process, I don't consider it damage and thus consider it collectible.