I have an 1891-cc coin with the "2" in its' date filled in between the base leg and the bottom of the curve. The fill could be a cud or die break or what? What effect on the value? This is non-slabbed probable MS 63/64 Help would be appreciated. thanks
Howdy bbguy - Welcome to the Forum !! I hate to say this, really - but I think you've got an altered coin there Do you have a pic of the entire coin, obv & rev you can share ?
See attached. the 92 obverse pic does not show it well as the shine of the scanner tends to "hide" this. I am attaching two close ups (10 power) as well. thanks
Hmmmm - now I'm confused. The full size image of the obverse, when blown up, appears to show what looks like a normal overdate. If you look closely - you can plainly see the gap that is supposed to be there between the top of the bottom line of the 2 and the curve of the 2. But your close-up images show this space as filled with what I believe to be added metal. You can plainly see two different lines where metal was added twice in the blow-up pic. But it is not there at all in the pic showing the whole coin You sure you're using the right pics ?
yes, correct pics. there is a "sheen" to the "blob" and it would not show up on the scanner as it would reflect the light. The 10x pic shows it a bit better. This is a raised point on the coin and it shines a bit more from rubbing, which has shined its' surface. Believe me, I scanned the coin and I took the other pics and I have the coin in front of me right now....LOL thanks for the reply....
Based on your comments - I am convinced you have an altered coin. Your pics are really quite good - especially the close-ups. They even show where the metal was added. You can see how it was pressed into the space - and that it was done twice. Because of this - I would have to consider the coin to be all but worthless except as a valuable & expensive lesson. Sorry - but that's my honest opinion
I understand what you are saying and I would follow with these comments, and seek feedback: 1) the date does not seem to be altered, as under magnification there is no other date underneath or recut, so....? 2) the mint marks also appear unaltered under magnification 3) the possibility that a piece of silver was pressed in at the same time that the coin was struck Check out the side by side attached. The photo on the left is from an 1892-cc (pci slabbed), the pci pic had to be taken through the plastic so there is a bit of shine to it. I am also attaching the mint marks side by side (pci still on the left). Let me know what you think. thanks
I don't know how else to say this - but can't you see in your own pics that the extra metal is overlayed right on top of the 2 ? Please - I mean no disrepsect nor am I trying to knock your coin. But that is what I see. There is no way this happened at the Mint. You can literally see, in the pics, what appears to my eyes anyway, to be additional metal that has been placed into the space at the bottom of the two. You can even see the indentations where a tool was used to shape the metal. The edges of the added metal overlap the edges of the digit. If this happened at the Mint - the metal would flow together - it does not. You can clearly see the lines all the way around it. I see no problem with the mint mark. And for the life of me - I cannot imagine why anyone would have done this.
Why would somebody do that intentionally? If it was mine, I'd send it off to be certified as an error and consider the fee as tuition for my education.
While there is the possibility that the coin originally had a repunched date - or possibly it is just minor doubling of the date - look at the left side of the two - that's it. The only thing I can think of is that someone altered this coin hoping to fool somebody into thinking it was even more valuable than it was already. But whatever the reason - in my opinion - they did such a poor job that it was not likely to fool anybody.
I agree with GD on this one. The only slim possibility is that some foriegn material was on the die when this coin was struck. Doesn't appear to be the case in the photos provided. The overlaying of the metal doesn't add up. I would have to assume that this coin was altered for whatever reason. Many times, the person who did the altering did so because they did not know the value, or just did not care at the time. I have seen many altered coins that just have no rhyme or reason other than someone just having fun at the time.
I appreciate all of your thoughts on this. I will hope that somehow the bad things are not true...LOL I bought this coin about 5 years ago and did not give that much for it (maybe a couple of hundred). I find it rather sickening that it would be worth as much as $2500 today, were it not for this problem. I will continue to investigate and if I get confirmation or otherwise, I will post to the forum..... thanks again...
I'm a little reluctant to reply to your post. I've only been collecting coins for a few months and I just joined this forum today. More than likely, the experts are right... but I've seen similar filled 2's in other Morgan dates. Some are smooth from the chipped die, but others showed distinct lines that looked like a separate piece of metal was manually added. If you have a VAM book, 1902-O VAM-1 and 1902-S VAM-1 have filled 2's. There are also some from 1921. Check the photo here .
Interesting link - I've never heard of the guy before, but then I'm not an error or variety collector. Even so - I would still have to say the same thing about the coin he illustrates. For I cannot see how a die break can result in metal being overlayed as the pics illustrate. Of course I have been wrong before and undoubtably will be again. But because of the link you posted - I did check the VAMS at vamlink.com. I can find no such VAM listed there - but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I also find it interesting that Mr. Joyce has devised his own VAM listings for this coin and a few others while he uses the recognized VAM listings for all the other coins on his site. But I must say - you have now arroused my curiosity. I know one of the recognized leading experts in this field - I'll ask his opinion and post the results here. For as I say - I am but a rank amateur in this area.
Here’s my 2 cents. It is pretty obvious that some metal got lodged in the 2 after minting. The metal is not part of the coin since it is clearly set on top of the struck coin with the edges of the piece clearly visible and a small crack in between the 2 and the blob in some places, thereby eliminating the possibility of a die chip.. It was not a “struck-through” because if it were foreign material on the pre-struck planchet, then it would be pressed down and the 2 would still be normally formed, just with a foreign piece pressed into the surface. The only remote possibility is that it is a die chip WITH foreign material in exactly the chipped area, so that it was pressed against the coin but still stayed as a “blob” after striking, filling the chipped area on the die. This is pretty far-fetched, though. I saw the pic of the VAM mentioned, and it looks similar, but it seems that the “seam” around the chip is actually the edge of the chip that happens to follow the lines of the 2 (stress at the 2 must have chipped the die accordingly) but rises above it slightly. This is just my take on this issue.
I bought Rob Joyce's book on 1921-D Morgans. It has some great info and pictures. From what I understand, Van Allen and Mallis (VAM) only assign numbers to unique varieties with significant characteristics. The dies breaks and other minor differences identifed by Joyce and Hart were too minimal for new VAM numbers. However, they wanted to track these varieties for cataloging and research. They used their initials and came up with the JOH numbers. The VAM book specifically mentions that some of the 1892-CC VAM-1 variety have the base of the 2 filled in... like your coin. It does look more like an extra piece of metal was added, but I've seen similar photos with filled 2's. Not sure why someone would fake a VAM-1 with a filled 2. It's the least desirable VAM for that year and mint. Maybe it's real. They still find new VAMs. I just sent one to Van Allen last week for a new VAM assignment. I put a note in the Error forum last night. I have a quarter with extra metal connecting the 1 in the date to Washington's neck. No replies yet, but I wonder if this is a similar error (or altered coin). Where did the extra metal come from?
I'm going to be honest here. The link, and the reference, that this member has provided, are pretty convincing. Now, I know that you shouldn't believe everything you read on websites, and I am far from being an authority on die chips and die breaks, but does any one else see the similarity between the OP's closeup and the first picture in nesvt's link? Also, isn't it perfectly understandable that a broken piece of die, would leave an outlined image on the coin? I mean, the chip may be deeper, or shallower, than the numerals in the date, and if so, the chip could stand taller than the number "2". And if it stood taller, wouldn't that explain why it "shines" more than the surrounding areas? I would like to hear some feedback on this. I find it very interesting.
I would have no problem believing that it is a die chip, an opinion that I hope is reflected in my first post in this discussion. It has the same look as the edges of a couple of cud nickels I have. Some BIE cents also have the same look. The $10 to have it certified would be worth the money IMO.
