Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Get Real, post: 2510975, member: 81585&quot;]I do agree that on the reverse it looks cut although &quot;Cut&quot; is not the term that I would use. It has taken some time to review this coin and come up with a way to explain why I don&#039;t think that it is PSD so bear with me. First I would like to say that this coin has been around for 50 years so I am not saying that it hasn&#039;t had some abuse over the years. My point is to the root of the damage and when it may have occurred.</p><p><br /></p><p>First, Look at the picture below. It is a close up of the Reverse showing that the two surfaces are in fact perpendicular to each other. The walls show hairline striations perpendicular to the face which is typical of being sheared not cut. These same striations appear when any metal has been punched in a press, the first 50%-80% (depending on composition) of depth being clean and the remaining 20%-50% being rough from breaking. This coin does reflect the same features as I just described and although not impossible to do in someone&#039;s home its probably not likely.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]534014[/ATTACH]</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This next picture is to give a visual of both sides of the coin and the orientation of the damage. I don&#039;t have the tools to do an overlay so this will have to do, sorry! It also shows (In Red) the curvature of the die strike hasn&#039;t been disrupted as well as some missing material (Shaded in red) that would be near about impossible to do without disrupting the rim. The other comments I will explain in another picture.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]534020[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;This next picture is the root of most of my non PSD suspicions. If you look at the edges of the damage on both the Obverse and Reverse, they show the metal pushed out beyond the missing material creating a ledge. To me that indicates that the material was missing prior to the die striking the planchet.&nbsp; Please note this ledge does not appear on the rim of this coin, which further strengthens my theory. I think we already agree that the material was removed from the Reverse side, so also note that these close ups reflect what I explained on a previous picture of shearing. The Reverse is a clean perpendicular cut with downward striations indicative of shearing and the Obverse is somewhat jagged indicative of tearing or breaking.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]534023[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>This next picture is mostly to give you another perspective and to show how metal has been removed and/or moved.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]534024[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>To clarify, I do understand that on the Obverse something was pushed into the coin dividing and moving metal to an area that was void of material.&nbsp; My question is what comes first, the chicken or the egg! It appears to me that first either metal was removed or a planchet with a snippet missing was used prior to going through the upsetter. Next would be the head scratcher, something being pushed into the coin coincidentally at the very location of this missing material. Last the coin being struck. I do realize the complexity it would take for that sequence of events to have happened but I am just following the evidence.</p><p><br /></p><p>Let me know your thoughts.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in