Question about Morgan mint errors

There is not a debate.

HOW is it an "ERROR"?"Because" is not an answer.

Clipped Planchet.
Multiple Strike.
Blank.
Defective Die.
Off Center.
Broadstrike.
Lamination.
Brockage.
Wrong PLanchet.

Savvy? Those are examples of Misstrikes and Errors.

Struck through grease? And? What is the difference between that and a weak struck coin? Both are struck at the Mint. Why aren't both conditions designated as "Errors"? After all, both were struck at the Mint, no?

Surely, you know this (or maybe not).

Don't be so quick to assume I am simply being a PITA for enjoyment (although I do that a lot).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

See below. You posted while I was on my I know stuff mode.

I will give you this Jeff...you usually glean I am going somewhere with my commentary.

 

Wellll, maybe on the Planchet? A spill?

 

Actually, for accuracy, it is "see above". I posted, then read you Post and thought it was after mine.

Oh well, Blarney happens.....

 

Coins are not supposed to be struck through grease but they are. This makes them an error in minting. The more grease on working parts of the die makes for less design on the planchet.

 

I appreciate the thought. Coins are struck with various "imperfections", no? The Grade is then determined accordingly, no?

Why shouldn't any coin that is not perfection of design intent and boldness not be an "Error"?

The existence of the Grease issue as something important is a result of TPGs making a market, and that is all it is. It is nothing special and, while it is a anomaly, labeling such a piece an "error" is a coin to far.

 

A struck through, whatever the obstruction between the die and planchet, is a struck through. There's the error. It's in the obstruction, itself, defacing the coin. There's no such obstruction in a weak strike. In a weak strike, die and planchet are unobstucted. The p.s.i. is just low and the detail didn't come across for it. That's most often just a consequence the p.s.i. the Mint happened to have used. It was the standard p.s.i. at that Mint. Other times, the p.s.i. isn't maintained, and it fluctuates, some. There's no "error." The coin is fine. The devices are weak, because it was weakly struck. And in those cases, sometimes it's noted on the slab.

 

Now I understand what you’re saying. But remember, the more you magnify a coin the most likely you are to spot imperfections and every coin would then be an error coin. The line must be drawn somewhere. To me, a 10x is sufficient.

 

In 10 words or less?

Here it is: a coin that was struck damaged at the mint.

 

No, no, that is not a very good description at all. In reality, that is a very misleading description.

 

Yeah, now that I see it, I do agree. It was phrased..... very wrong at least.

How about this: a coin struck improperly at the mint.

 

I don't think that works, either, using the timing and method the answer conveys.

 

Aight. I wanted this coin so I didn't post photos. I'm not positive this is a strike through but won it at auction for a little more than 50 bucks including shipping. The reverse is where I see it.

 

Where do you see struck thru grease or a strike thru of foreign material? I am not seeing it.
Some years were just weakly struck and or had working dies that were just weak for a better way of saying it.

 

At 7 oclock on the reverse through the wreath to the bottom of the coin. The photo was a web.p file and didn't enlarge when coverted to .png.

 

As for the debate of mint error or not. I agree that there are just ugly struck coins. Minor struck thru's shouldn't get the nod unless you can truly tell what object it was. And I don't agree that a deformed looking area of a coin should be anything other than the lowest grade possible. IE MS60 if in mint state. AU50 if AU.
A full covering of the die and a major grease event then I say yes give it the go.

 

It was cheap enough to take a chance on. Although I have too many 1896's in MS condition already. It's a sickness.

 

Super question.

 

Yes it’s not. I know that much

 

That’s ten. @charley That’s a kick in the butt