QUIZ: Why are the details missing on the Indian's head?

Schmutz is a general term for the mixture of grease, grime, dust, powdered metal, etc., that ends up clogging dies.

Here's one with retained schmutz on the reverse.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here’s a question? If a coin is struck on a wrong planchet, let’s say a cent on a dime planchet, why are the details ( and those closest to the rim ) still there? In some cases fairly sharp. The dime planchet is smaller and thinner. Is it because it is a different composition? Another is, if you have a standard size and weight planchet struck at correct pressure, within collar, with a debris filled die, wouldn’t some devices have to be sharper or the coin be thicker in some parts to compensate for the volume displacement. I would have to guess it depends on how much the Schmutz would compress. Just wondering what others think.

 

If it were circulation wear, there wouldn't be full luster (or, with this level of wear, any luster on the "worn" area).

If it were a worn die, the details around the edge would be trailing toward the edge.

I don't suppose there was a big chunk missing out of the middle of the reverse die?

 

Beefer518, posted: "I also thought it would have been a whole lots of grease, but (based on the image provided) I still would lean towards grease (gunk) filled die.

Why would I still think that?

Because from what I know/understand, when a planchet isn't fully or well struck there are imperfections on the planchet that don't get 'struck out', and are clearly visible on the coin.

Here is one of my (somewhat) weakly struck Booker T Washington's that shows the planchet imperfections quite clearly. This is graded MS66 (NGC):

View attachment 1200643

Now if we look closer at the high points of the coin (most of BTW's face), we see all the raw, pre-strike planchet imperfections quite clearly. They aren't from coins hitting each other, but from unstruck planchets co-mingling on their way to becoming coins. Not the essentially non-existent marks in the lower points and fields like you would see in a circulated coin, or a coin suffering bag hits:

View attachment 1200657

So wouldn't it stand to reason that a weakly struck coin, that is still in uncirculated (MS) condition would also show these pre-strike flaws of the planchet?"

IMO, YOUR COIN IS NOT WEAKLY STRUCK. It is a normal strike and most of these com this way! However, the point you are making about original planchet surface imperfections (OPSI) is correct, they often remain on the high points of coins- especially in several series.

 

Thanks, I've noticed (as you posted) that most "Schmutz" happens around the periphery of coins.

-jeffB, posted: "I don't suppose there was a big chunk missing out of the middle of the reverse die?"

Why is that not the case? What would a coin struck with that die look like?

 

The reverse of the flatly struck nickel:



I will not show the edge so please don't ask!

 

When there's a void in a die, corresponding areas on the opposite face aren't fully struck. The metal gets pushed into the void, rather than being struck up fully.

I've never seen a coin struck with a die that had a big void in the middle of the design, though; I've only seen this in association with large cuds. (To be more accurate, I've seen images, not seen the coins in-hand.) I don't know how you'd get a void in the middle of a die, short of deliberate damage.

And, of course, we see now that there's no giant blob on the reverse.

 

What's going on there with the reverse rim at 4-5 o'clock? It looks beveled.

 

-jeffB, posted: "When there's a void in a die, corresponding areas on the opposite face aren't fully struck. The metal gets pushed into the void, rather than being struck up fully."

OK, but you have not thought this our completely. What happens to the other side of the coin with the missing chunk out of the die? What's that side look like?

-jeffB, asked: "What's going on there with the reverse rim at 4-5 o'clock? It looks beveled."

Good eye! Nothing special. Lots of coins have beveled edges.

 

I think it's more that I'm not explaining clearly.

When a coin is struck with a die that has a large void, metal flows into that void. That's what happens with a cud (a void bounded by the die's edge).

On the face struck by that die, you see a "lump", without strike detail (unless the part of the die that broke off is retained and "sunken", in which case it still might hit the planchet).

On the opposite face, you'll see a weak strike in the corresponding area -- instead of being forced against the recessed parts of the die, the metal flows into the void in the other die.

For the coin starting this thread, I don't know what happened. If it were a weak strike or a rolled-thin planchet, I'd expect weakness in the date and other peripheral features, and I don't see it. If it were a greaser -- well, I guess grease can land anywhere, so maybe that is it.

 

Correct: "When a coin is struck with a die that has a large void, metal flows into that void. That's what happens with a cud (a void bounded by the die's edge)."

Therefore, this coin cannot have been struck with a chunk missing from EITHER die because there is not a great big raised lump of metal where the planchet flowed into the missing part of the die.

 

As we could plainly see, after you posted the reverse photo, which you did after I posted my question.

 

Very interesting thread. I have never seen a 35-S that weakly struck. If it was a 26-D, for example, I would not have been so surprised.

 

Can we ask why you won't show the edge?

 

What are you writing about? There is nothing raised on that nickel that would indicate the die was broken!

You can ask all you want but I don't post images that have nothing to do with the question. I'll tell you what. Take a look at an AU to MS Buffalo nickel and you will have a good idea of what the edge of this coin looks like. Although, this coin is flat, apparently its edge did come into FULL contact with the collar so it looks normal.

 

Good enough. Thanks.

 

A very classy reply to a grumpy old so you deserve a better answer.

If a coin has something I wish to show, let's take an easy example, an overdate; the only important area is the date. The edge, and the rest of the obverse or the reverse is unnecessary to see UNLESS I want to show diagnostic markers for the overdate variety on other parts of the coin.

 

I really don't know what you think I wrote.

If there had been a big void in the reverse die for this coin, it would have produced a big raised lump on the coin's reverse, and that could have caused the poorly-struck area on the corresponding part of the obverse. (Metal would flow into the reverse void instead of the obverse die.)

Since I couldn't see the coin's reverse, I couldn't rule out this possibility, although it already seemed unlikely.

Once you showed the coin's reverse, it was clear that this wasn't what happened.

Is that clearer?

 

@Insider, is there going to be an explanation on this coin?

 

Yes, and you are going to start it! I'm in the middle of something.

What would the surface of a coin with a large loss of design look like if it was due to:

1. Friction wear from circulation?
2. Struck thru debris?
3. Flat strike?