Increasing amount of Problem Coins in Detail Free Holders

There has been a repeated pattern of new members that go straight for the jugular, in the same manner and the same way. If that's not you then I apologize, but it's hard to ignore a pattern when you see one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It is not, but I have noticed the pattern to turn to personal attacks when it becomes hard to defend an opinion.

 

Well the one that sold at Heritage about 2 weeks ago DOES have those exact kind of lines...and they match up with the one you posted. It is also a different example of the exact same Prova striking of the coin than the one you posted...so I think you need to look again and harder.

 

This coin was NOT struck twice. I do not think that you understood what I meant by overstruck on an older coin. French coin is not my forte and I do not know exactly what the original host coin was. However I am aware that the French was active in overstriking during the late 1600s to 1700s. Gold coins were not an exception.

Overstriking is an event where mints take older coins and use it as planchets to strike 'new' coins. This is an example from Italy.

Original host coin



Overstruck coin



You can see part of the "20" on the crest. This underlying feature is what you see on the so called 'gouge'. This is not post mint damage.

As I collect overstrike coins, I notice the features immediately. This is a page of examples that I have collected over the years. Maybe it will help you understand what I mean by overstrikes.

http://gxseries.com/numis/rus_imperial/overstrike/rus_overstruck.htm

 

We seem to have the same opinion. Only there appears to be a difference in how the opinion is delivered. That is the only point of contention here.

 

I know him very well from other fora. If he's being nasty it's in reaction to being attacked. He doesn't start fights on other fora. Only Coin Talk, the nastiest corner of numismatics.

 

I took the liberty of pull that coin up for you. Thanks for mentioning it. Do you really think it has the same marks? It looks completely different to me

 

Apologies I had skipped over your post. My reply was directed towards BRG5658. I am aware of what an overstrike is but I do appreciate your thorough explanation. It appears I may very well be wrong regarding the Louis D'Or but I'm going to do some further study in any case when I have time just to verify what's been said I suppose what's really throwing me off is the shear size of the mark as opposed to the overstrike you just posted with your Italian example and other representative types on your website

 

lol I hope you're being sarcastic with that statement. The last thing that comes to mind when I think of cointalk is nastiness

 

I won't be using them for any "grading" ripoffs thanks for the input=another unsatisfied customer....

 

Yes, it has the same marks.

Taking into account the differences in photography, there are still obvious places on the two coins where the die preparation lines match up. I have taken the liberty to illustrate just 3 for you below, but there are many.

 

That's one of the few if only major area where they share some similarities. I think taking a holistic view and looking at the reverses for example is quite revealing that the vast majority of hits on the 1st coins aren't die polish lines although granted some are like the few you were kind enough to point out

 

Then you must have very little experience with online forums. 4Chan is friendlier than this place. I am constantly astounded by the level of personal ferocity which is allowed here. It's unique to my experience, and I've been moderating multiple online forums for fifteen years and have 5-figure postcounts at half a dozen.

The stopper regarding the coin we're discussing is the concentration of lines at the edge of devices. That can only happen at the mint. Postmint scratches cannot reach the edge of device and field. The only way for those hairlines to be postmint is if they proceed over the device (for instance, the arm as illustrated by brg5658 above). And even then many of them will weaken at the junction.

I'm not stating as fact that they're die polishing, but not much else - cleaning included - can make a coin look like that. I say that because there doesn't seem much rhyme nor reason to the lines; I could almost believe the die got accidentally scraped across something, you know?

 

@fred13 we will have to agree to disagree. What I see on that Prova fits my understanding of the minting process, and I don't see any scratches or cleaning. I see die preparation lines.

Regardless, your original premise of this post is spot on (there are a good number of problem coins in problem free holders).

Best, Brandon

 

Yeah I totally understand your point and everyone else's. I myself am definitely changing positioning a bit and am drifting to it being die polish lines. The only thing that keeps gnawing at me is why the die polish lines don't line up better. Again for a regular coin absolutely fine right? The dies would get polished several times which is normal and expected. However for a prova coin with limited mintage it just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps part of the answer lies with the eccentricities of the Roma mint at the time. I just can't seem to think of a better explanation

 

You certainly have a much better mannerism than I when it comes to dealing with nonsense. 100 percent I am too blunt sometimes and let the frustration show from nonsense attacks to distract from the subject at hand.

 

Because they're not being applied in parallel. You don't polish using a monolithinc stroke in a single direction - you vary direction so as not to wear a groove into the coin. I would be far more interested in the lines if they were perfectly parallel.