I GUARANTEE You Have NEVER Seen An Error Like This

I mean, WOW.... The only issue is this: Purposely created at the Mint or purely accidental? Hmmmm.........

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Gotta be an after-hours mint special.

 

I had my doubts reading the title but no, you're right. I've definitely never seen anything like that. I'm curious if any mint employees have ever been busted either doing something like this or smuggling out other coins?

 

I don't like it.. I love it!
*** Sullivan item? (I meant Jon Sullivan!)

 

What's the name of that sandwich?

 

Curious, the posting shows PF67. What TPG graded it? Also, someone is owed 89 cents.

 

Holy... that is the motherload, eh?

 

I'm guessing NGC.

 

Imagine the movie: "A Night at the Mint."

 

x2

 

The description says 2 coin set NGC in pale blue.

 

OP...thanks for using "have" in your title

 

at least 4-5 times i am aware of

 

No; it's his brother, Jon, who is an error dealer now located in Florida.

 

I think the most improbable, and most damning of them all, is the fact that this is a so-called proof strike. Proofs were carefully minted, inspected and controlled. This is absolutely, 100%, no questions asked, an artificially contrived so-called error, and essentially worthless as such in my opinion. This ranks right up there with "dimes on nails" in my book.

 

Out of curiosity, do you think Dr. Frankenstein could have fit a nickel planchet in there as well, to sort of round out the detail? That might have been a lively and compelling monster, and a reflection of the tragedy of our numismatic plight.

 

Back in the 70's. It would have been determined that this error could not have happened without "help" (fake error) and the item would not be issued a certificate.

Thankfully, times have changed and all kinds of errors are being made all over the world.

PS I love it.

 

That would have absolutely been the right call, and it is a black mark on PCGS and NGC that they "certify" these manufactured nonsense pieces.

 

This is rightly and formally known as a "Mint-assisted" Error.

Though these are genuine "error" coins in the sense that Eisenhower dies were not supposed to strike either of these planchets, neither coin in this mated pair meets the true spirit of what it means to be "Mint errors."

If it was intentionally staged to produce this 2-coin set, there was no "error" that occurred. The planchets are not defective in any way, there was no striking malfunction, the dies themselves appear to be normal (no clashes, rotation, die breaks/cuds, etc.). The coins were produced exactly as someone intended.

In some ways, they are similar to "illegal" or "unauthorized" strikes like the 1913 Liberty Nickel.

What confuses myself, and likely many of you, is the sheer inconsistency of U.S. Mint policy when it comes to seizing coins that they consider "solely the property of the U.S. Mint" and are thus illegal to own.

Clearly, this coin was not authorized. So, like 1974 aluminum cents and 1964-D Peace Dollars, they are deemed illegal to own and will be seized by the Treasury. Yet five known 1913 Liberty nickels were illegally struck, but they remain in private hands and are worth millions; those were not seized.

With Mint errors that were unintentionally created, if they get out into circulation in bags or rolls without being assisted by Mint workers, that is tough luck for the Mint. But then why does the Mint not seize coins like the ones which make up this Eisenhower dollar?

I just can't seem to find a clear answer as to when a coin is deemed illegal to own and considered U.S. Mint property if it was unauthorized and when it is not.

However, many error collectors don't care if it was intentional or not. They will pay good money for them. I have to admit, if I could afford it, I would be among those buying them.