MS65 if it were without the adjustment marks???

Meanwhile, no one has answered the original question.

So I will rephrase it.

Here, we have a coin which has obviously been damaged by a meteorite from a galaxy far far away.. For some inexplicable reason, NGC has left the MD (meteorite damage) notation off the grade. In the abscence of the meteorite damage, would NGC have graded the coin, perhaps, as an MS65?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Maybe NGC gave it a silent net grade due to the adjustment marks/PMD/meteorite damage.

@ Doug & Chris, could you please answer the following questions:

1) Do you think it is possible that the graders at NGC missed the marks on the reverse? (Yes or No)
2) If the answer is NO, then will you admit that they disagree with your opinion that it is PMD? (Yes or No)
3) If the answer is YES, is it possible that NGC knows something about coins minted in Copenhagen, Denmark in 1900 that you don't know? (Yes or No)
4) Which is more likely, NGC deliberately ignored obvious PMD on a coin and graded the coin anyway or they had a logical reason to deem that the damage occurred during the minting process?

I am not saying you are wrong or right, merely that waldo has a point that neither of you even wants to recognize.

 

Maybe you are right. I was the one asking if he or anyone has references that discuss such rash adjustment marks on such a coin. I never said it was impossible, just saying I had not heard of it and asked for references. It would just be surprising any mint would knowingly put out such products. Even the new US mint, under a severe machinery and manpower shortage and desperate need for coinage never put out coins with such adjustments.

If any world coin collectors have any material they can cite I would love to read it. It would be surprising if NGC missed such a thing, but as you know in the field of toned coins Lehigh, they have missed things just as bad.

 

I have a different opinion on the subject but have been hesitant to offer it because I don't know much about this type of coinage and the photos are not near good enough to make an accurate assessment of the coin. But since I have already broken the ice, here is my theory.

Those marks, while very severe, could be planchet striations that survived the striking process. They were found on other gold coins from that era, specifically $4 Stellas. Perhaps the Copenhagen mint used a similar rolling process to prepare their planchets. That is something that NGC would definitely know and have seen on other examples. It would also provide a logical explanation for the marks.

 

Close-up that shows the adjustment mark a little better. For certain it was added (or subtracted more accurately) after it had been struck but before it was released for circulation. World coins with adjustment marks are fairly common, though almost always they have some degree of circulation. The fact that this one is uncirculated is what makes the coin so special. As for preservation, MS65 would not have been a surprise. Anything less than MS63 would have been a shock.

 

Same coin, different date. ANACS old little holder, MS64. Couple hits to the dolphin keep it out of the gem class.

 

Beautiful coin.

 

Well, in all fairness everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I have to say that Ron Drzewucki, the finalizer at NGC gets my vote of confidence on this one. (And not just because he is from Missouri, although that helps too!)

 

One thing that puzzles me, the scratches, (adjustments), appear to not touch the edge. Am I missing something? How could the file not touch the edges first?

 

That is a very good question. The assumption, at least in this discussion, was that a flat file was used. But hard to explain the lack of metal removal from the rims if that were the case.

 

This could cut both ways on an argument. One could say if it precludes it being a file it probably isn't adjustment marks, but one could equally say they are proof of adjustment marks in that the mint wanted to adjust weight but not affect stackability of the coins.

I am sorry if I have sidetracked your thread POW with asking about these. I am just honestly intellectually curious about what these are.

Chris

 

Frankly, in order for NGC to grade this coin, they would need historical precedent that coins minted during this era from Denmark still showed adjustment marks. Either that or the lines are not as severe as they appear in the photo and are actually planchet striations which are known on these coins. Either way, they had to have a damn good reason to put it in one of their slabs given it's obvious condition and your assumption that they screwed up wreaks of arrogance considering that all you have seen is a crappy photo of the coin.





Your whole argument boils down to your contention that no mint in the world used the practice of manually adjusting planchet weights in the year 1900. And we should believe you simply because you say so? Perhaps if you could provide a supporting reference to support your claim, then we could give more credence to your assertion. I understand the need for adjustment marks and the technological advancements in the minting process that made them unnecessary in the mid 1800's. But I can't conclusively say that these technological advancements were adopted by every mint, including the Danish mint in Copenhagen. And if they were, then the new technological advancement would bring the possibility of planchet striations into play.

Personally, I don't believe the lines are adjustment marks. I think they are roller marks, or planchet striations, or whatever terminology you would like to use, but I do think they lines are mint made and not PMD. The lines appear to perfectly parallel to my eyes in order to call them adjustment marks. The fact that NGC saw this coin in hand and determined the lines to be mint made speaks volumes IMO. BTW, what do you propose in the course of PMD is responsible for creating such perfectly parallel lines on only one side of the coin?

 

If I may ask a question. I thought PMD could occur at the mint. I was always taught that non-PMD occurred all of the way up until the coin was struck. A second after the coin was struck if the worker dropped it on the floor that was PMD, (even though it may have physically occurred in the mint). Would a mint mishandling a coin after striking be labeled PMD, or "as minted"?

I believe this could be important since you are saying you believe these marks occurred after minting by in the mint, so therefor the definition of PMD would come into play.

I would readily accept that these could have been caused by rollers in the mint. However, my background tells me that even so that would have to be labelled PMD, but again that is just from what I have been taught.

Btw thanks for finding another one with similar marks on the reverse Paul. Its really helpful to the conversation.

 

The planchets are rolled prior to being struck and the lines that appear on the coin after striking are remnant from the planchet preparation process. Therefore, roller marks/planchet striations would not be considered PMD.

I know that it appears from the OP's original photo that the lines must have been created post strike, but if the coin is prooflike, which it appears to be, even faint roller marks would appear very severe in a photograph. Similar to the way hairlines appear on proof coins.

I am not claiming that I am right, just providing an alternate theory to explain why NGC would grade a coin with such obvious marks. If NGC didn't think they were from post mint damage, what mint process did they think caused those lines? IMO, roller marks make more sense than adjustment marks due to the uniformity and parallel nature of the lines as well as the fact that technological advancements had made manually adjusting planchet weights unnecessary by the date in question, as Doug pointed out.

 

Actually an extremely good guess. It would also explain why the marks are not in the rims like I observed earlier, as turning up the rim should have removed any traces of such marks.

If true, its just surprising how bold they appeared. I thought metal flowed more in the striking process, making such lines a near impossibility.

Great thoughts.

 

Well, I have spent quite a bit of time looking at the enlarged image. Of course in hand it would be better. My only recurring thought is why the striations are not into the rim and denticles. The only explanation I can come up with is Paul's, that they were very deep on the flan before striking, and the strike elimated all traces around the rim and denticles, and lessened the severity elsewhere. I know they look very severe on her shoulder, but that is a highpoint that would make it harder for enough new material to flow into to fill them. I will admit I have never seen such severe flan damage show on a coin. Is it maybe because gold is so soft that not much pressure is required to strike them?

I have no love lost with TPG's as many of you know, and question their judgment all of the time, but I do think they were correct and this most likely is prestrike damage, even though still very severe looking.

Just my opinion. I do respect both Doug and Paul's opinions, and thank the OP for posting a cool coin for us to discuss, even though we have derailed his thread.

Chris

 

Without seeing the coin in hand, I don't have much confidence one way or the other that they are roller marks or PMD. They do appear too be to deep for roller marks, but they also lack the characteristic bridging that occurs at the junction of the fields and devices of PMD. Without seeing the coin in hand, it is impossible to tell for sure. Did NGC screw up? Maybe! Are they roller marks? Maybe!

FWIW Doug, I believe you about the time frame of manually adjusting the weight of coins with a file and have already admitted so earlier in this thread. What I don't know is if every mint in the world stopped using that practice by 1900. As an analogy, I bet I can find a hotel somewhere that still uses hard keys even though the technology of electronic card keys has been available for 30 years. However, is it extremely unlikely that the Danish mint manually adjusted the weight of their coins in 1900? YES!

And yes, I know that you specialized in world gold, specifically ducats. I don't doubt that you have a wealth of knowledge about the subject, but rather than coming off as the omniscient numismatist, simply take the time to explain why adjustment marks were necessary and what technological advance occurred in the early/mid 1800's that made them no longer necessary.

Oh I know you dare. In fact, your default position is always that they screwed up. I don't blindly accept what they have to say, but I do make a concerted effort to understand why they make the decisions that they do. And for the most part, I usually understand. In regards to the coin in question, without seeing the coin in hand, I have to assume they had a reason to grade a coin with such obvious marks. However, if the marks were made post strike, I would fully agree with you that they screwed up.

 

The amount of metal that those "adjustment marks" would have removed would not have been enough to take the coin into or out of tolerance IMO.