Fingerprints on coin in “original mint packaged” coins?

Two questions:
1. Is it reasonable to believe a fingerprint could get onto a coin While it’s being put into the cellophane?
2. Do you think that’s what happened with this coin?

It shows all the signs of being heat treated. I don’t think the pictures show that well, but I’m relatively certain this coin was put into the cellophane after the original was pulled.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have a '71 blue Ike with a finger print on the obverse. It came in the ogp cello.

Probably the same fried chicken eating mint employee.

 

IMO judging from the middle photo someone craftily slit open the bottom part of the cello packaging and switched coins. I'm basing this on the difference in the heat sealed cello. The sealed part from the RTY to the bottom of the coin looks plain while the mint sealed edges have that "waffled" look. Wait for more opinions from more experienced members

 

Someone switched out the 40% silver Ike for a normal one?

 

It's not unheard of for finger prints to be found on those.

 

I have about half a dozen of those too (complete with fingerprints in OGP)! Sadly they're ruined now. But I inherited them from my grandmother who kept the original receipts and mint shipping boxes, so I know they were not meddled with in the aftermarket.

Thanks for posting yours!

 

No, it’s silver. My suspicion is someone’s pulled out a BU blue Ike and swapped it for a loose AU one.

 

For the "pics or it didn't happen crowd" (I guess I only have 2 with prints but LOTS more without, thankfully):



Both have full luster but are taken from angles to amplify the prints.

I wonder how many this guy/gal packaged before his/her shift ended?

For what it's worth, the cellophane on the '71s I have seems to have degraded far worse than the '72-74s, which all still seem crisp and new. Looks like the same is true in the OP's example.

 

At least yours looks MS thank you for sharing and coming back with photos. I bought it for silver/fun but was a bit frustrated at its condition.

 

Have you considered taking it out of the packaging for an acetone soak? It should make the print less noticeable (but there will still be some etching of the metal that will remain).

 

Honestly, no. It’s both worth any more than melt to me. Just frustrating that it was advertised as UNC and original. I’m not certain this one is. Can’t be sure it isn’t either. I took a risk paying slightly more on bad photos. I’ll chalk it up to a loss and carry on.

 

Yeah, '71 Blue Ikes are notorious for the ogp coming apart. I have several, I'll have to check mine for prints...

 

I had a fingerprint on one of my Proof Palladium coins straight from the mint when they came out. I wasn't happy about that one. I gave a it a good dip and it still graded 70!

 

The mint has always been very stingy with information regarding mint sets and to a lesser extent; all their numismatic products.

As far as mint sets though there is good reason to believe the mint started automating their assembly. Before 1980 you can find lots of mint sets with every single coin a Gem and even some full of nothing but dogs. Gems are too scarce for this to happen by coincidence. 1980 and later are almost impossible with all Gem and nice coins.

Fingerprints started tapering off about 1977 and almost disappeared after 1979.

I can't account for the tapering off unless, perhaps, the automation occurred in stages.

Ikes are often printed.

Most moderns should be removed from the packaging and stabilized in 91% alcohol for long term storage.

 

I have received mint sealed Proof sets with fingerprints on a coin. I once had one with a big fingerprint on the dime. Yuck! You would think they would know better.