Reeding Present Only In (Apparent) Clip?

I recently acquired a Hungarian 1894KB Nickel 10 Fillér (KM-482) with some lovely errors, but also something I can't readily explain and I'm hoping someone here can. Calling @Fred Weinberg

Here are the seller pics:




So what I saw here was that the coin was struck 15% off center, and looks to have a curved clip at 12 o'clock. The reverse also appears to have a section that was struck through grease from 10 o'clock to 12 o'clock.

Now this type typically has a reeded edge, but since it was struck so off-center, I had expected the coin to have been struck outside the collar and have an entirely plain edge. To my surprise inside the clip (and nowhere else) there is what appears to be reeding, but it is, as you can see, curved inward.



So, I was already not expecting to see a Blakesley effect on this coin, since the side opposing the clip is unstruck, but now I'm thinking perhaps this isn't a clip at all. As this is reeded and curved inward, I was thinking perhaps this coin was struck edge-to-edge against another coin that had already been struck in the collar, with enough force to leave a clip-like indentation and impression of the reeding from the other coin. The thickness and "rim" around where the clip is is not increased or raised at all, and as the rest of the coin has no reeding, I think this means this had to have all happened at once with both coins present during the striking of this coin. Any coin edge-to-edge with this one would then have been overstruck with the rest of the impression from the obverse and reverse of this coin.

Does this theory make sense? Is there another explanation I'm overlooking? Are there other coins like this, and if so, what would you call this error? Any help is appreciated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice off-center. Waiting to hear from others about the reeded clip as well.

 

It's the "Hat Trick " of errors . Multi -error equals $$ !

 

The blakesley effect does not actually occur during striking - it occurs during the upset milling when the coin is gaining its raised rim, prior to striking. If this was actually a clip, I would expect to still see a bit of blakesley.

Can you show us the reeding on a normal coin? I've never heard of what you describe, but I suppose it could be possible.

 

physics-fan3.14, post: 5129799, member: 19165"]The blakesley effect does not actually occur during striking - it occurs during the upset milling when the coin is gaining its raised rim, prior to striking. If this was actually a clip, I would expect to still see a bit of blakesley."

Thanks for the info! Do you have a reference for what you posted? I'd like to read it.

 

Your theory of this being a "chain strike," where one strike overlapped this planchet and a previously struck coin next to it, is very plausible and quite likely. I would like to see a better picture of the reeded indent and the edge of a normal coin for comparison.
TD

 

Very interesting coin !

 

It does appear to be a concave chain strike, with the vertical ridges generated by a previously struck coin.

 

I have a slabbed MS66 of this type - same date. I took some pics here for reference, and I tried my best to get some decent shots of the reeding.

 

Thank you for this, I was not familiar with a chain strike. I did some reading on this type of error, and I read that one of the ways to tell was that with a chain strike the coin will be full weight, while with a clip, the coin will be underweight. Makes perfect sense since with a clip, part of the planchet is missing.

So I weighed the coin. 3.0g on the nose. Book weight for this type is also 3.0g, so this seems to conclusively indicate it is not a clip.

 

Very interesting error. Do you know the minting process of this coin? Being a foreign coin I am unfamiliar with, is the minting process that much different from the U.S.?

 

physics-fan3.14, posted: "The blakesley effect does not actually occur during striking - it occurs during the upset milling when the coin is gaining its raised rim, prior to striking..."

The next time you log on to CT will you please explain where you learned this? I'm not an "error expert" so I'd like to read about it to be more informed. Thanks.

 

Not really. I mean the US minting technology of that era came from Europe. I have some books on this, however, would imagine these were produced with a steam press.

 

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-incomplete-planchet-error.77334/

Between blanking and striking several steps occur, which may include (based on the metal, era, mint, and intended product) annealing, washing, polishing, and rimming. It is this last which is of interest in the incomplete planchet error. Rimming a blank helps smooth the surfaces of nicks and grooves, evenly distributes the metal for a proper strike, and creates the upset edge around the outside face of the coin, which is useful for a number of reasons. (Note that in precise terms, the metal disk is known as a blank before rimming, and it becomes a planchet after rimming.) To rim a blank, the blank is fed into the upset mill which contains a specially shaped groove. Placing pressure on both sides of the coin pushes and raises the rims – the same idea is used to “spoon” a coin. However, on an incomplete planchet, the coin is not round. Pressure cannot be properly applied at the missing area – which means the rim directly opposite is also not formed properly. This is known as the “Blakesley Effect,” named after the numismatist who first studied the phenomenon. After upsetting, the planchet travels to the coining room and is struck.

 

I have posted this clipped cent before. Can see the thickening on the reverse rim by America.
And on the obverse on either side of the clip.

 

Some great info in that thread, thanks. This all makes a lot of sense.

So it seems like what I have is a chain strike edge (coin against planchet), struck 15% off center.

 

Note to Kentucky,

Thanks, but you have posted a link from CT made by the SAME PERSON I've asked to PLEASE POST THE SOURCE for his opinion given in the link!

NO DICE! If I say the sky is black because I say so and because I taught that "fact" to a bunch of blind folks...

I wish to learn where he reached that opinion. I wish to know where this was published by a NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED error authority or error organization.

I wish to be educated before I believe what I read because I've never had it explained that way before. I was taught that the lack of metal in a part of the planchet causes the spread but ONLY AFTER the coin is struck. That completely contradicts the poster's opinion.

 

It doesn't contradict it at all. You're saying the lack of metal in that part of the planchet, when struck, is the source of the Blakesley effect. He's saying the source of the lack of metal in that part of the planchet is due to the uneven distribution of metal and lack of upset during rimming, due to it opposing an incomplete planchet.

So it's not the strike that causes the Blakesley effect, it's that the strike is generally unable to completely hide the Blakesley effect, because the lack of uneven metal distribution is too great to be compensated for by metal flow during the strike.

 

Ken Potter: http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/CurvedClipDiagnostics.htm

Mike Diamond: http://www.error-ref.com/blanking-and-cutting-errors/

 

Since you did not post a timely reply I went searching for myself and found this quote in a Coin World article by Mike Diamond a respected error authority. Apparently, we all seem to be in agreement EXCEPT when the effect occurs AND IMHO it does not happen in the upsetting process.

This part of Mike's article makes no sense at all: "During upsetting — when a blank is rolled and squeezed into a planchet — the latter’s proto-rim can only form when there’s resistance at the opposite pole. Any interruption in the blank’s circular outline will briefly eliminate that resistance, preventing formation of the proto-rim. [ALL OBVIOUSLY TRUE ] The planchet also bulges out in this area [ ??? Certainty not in the upsetting process as it is squeezed tightly to make the raised planchet. Therefore, the effect must occur during striking the planchet.] creating a tight fit with the collar. As a consequence, the design rim fails to strike up properly while the edge is especially well-struck."

Finally, it appears that I'm mistaken about what "Blakesley" actually discovered. Rather than naming the characteristic for what it looks like on the struck coin, the error guys have named it for its cause - an incompletely formed planchet. All this makes no sense to me. I seem to be reading that the term refers to BOTH what it looks like and how it was made. Nevertheless, I'll go with the error guys as it is their game and they make the rules. Thanks for your reply!