Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;orbeus, post: 1725046, member: 53913&quot;]Actually, if I may, hold the phone a minute there.&nbsp; I too have recently come across a coin demonstrating this same sort of defect, and I can say with reasonable certainty that what you have there is neither plated nor in a bezel.&nbsp; And interestingly enough, nor is it silver.</p><p><br /></p><p>Since coming across this particular coin, I have begun scouring the forums for similar specimens.&nbsp; I have come across four so far, with mine bringing the total to 5.&nbsp; Mine is from &#039;56, and I will be creating a new thread with pics as soon as I am done updating existing discussions.</p><p><br /></p><p>The following details should be noted about this and other similar coins before an accurate conclusion can be drawn:</p><p>First, these coins are Cu/Ni, not silver.&nbsp; Or at least mine is.&nbsp; Luster and hue are consistent with modern nickels but not with other silver coins I own from that time period.&nbsp; Due to the raised edges that envelop most of the coin&#039;s wear points, these coins are likely to exhibit very little wear, even after several decades.&nbsp; The resulting luster is quite easily mistaken for silver, as Cu/Ni purports to mimic many of silver&#039;s observable qualities.&nbsp; Furthermore, a simple ring test will handily debunk the silver hypothesis.&nbsp; When struck on marble, the coin exhibits a dull thud like that of a nickel rather than the deep, bell-like resonance of silver coinage.</p><p><br /></p><p>Secondly, the ring surrounding the edge of the coin is not attached to the coin at the inner lip.&nbsp; Rather, the metal surrounding the face the coin is curled inward. Below I have included a (crude) diagram of what the cross-section of the coin would look like if one were able to look more closely.&nbsp; This seems to contradict the bezel theory, as said bezel would not be well-designed if it were to adehere only to the edge of the coin, allowing dirt and corrosives to become trapped around the coin&#039;s inside edge.</p><p><br /></p><p>Thirdly, and perhaps most supportive of the off-metal strike argument, all 5 coins have something else in common: the presence of a tool mark.&nbsp; Each of these coins exhibits some sort of prying damage to the rim.&nbsp; It is generally visible primarily from the tails side, and is always located slightly off-center at the bottom of the rim, i.e. between the two wheat stems or directly above Lincoln&#039;s head if you turn the coin over.&nbsp; This would seem to suggest the possibility that there had been a ring or clasp that had been pried or had fallen off.&nbsp; However, if such were the case, some jagged edge or weld/solder mark would likely still remain, and this does not appear to be the case in any incidence.&nbsp; In fact, the &quot;ring&quot; around the coin bears no indications of metal work whatsoever, such as seams or soldering points.</p><p><br /></p><p>And finally, perhaps significanly, perhaps not, all of the coins appear to have been minted between the years of 1955 and 1960, supporting the theory of a possible flaw in the one-cent dies from around that time that allowed oversize planchets to be processed.&nbsp; With all of this said, here&#039;s my theory:</p><p>I believe these coins to be off-metal strikes produced when a nickel planchet made its way into a penny die.&nbsp; Due to the size difference between said coinage, the die strike caused displacement of the excess metal, which, when pressed against the retaining collar, had nowhere to go but to &quot;ooze&quot; out from the edges of the rim and around the dies.&nbsp; When the dies separated, one side was pulled quickly away (typically the &quot;heads&quot; side), causing the surrounding edge to curl inward (think gift ribbon being dragged along the blade of a scissor to create curls).&nbsp; Meanwhile, the &quot;tails&quot; face remained firmly affixed to the die, such that it had to be pried away manually, causing the tool mark.</p><p><br /></p><p>While certainly not as valuable as silver dime-planchet pennies, it is likely that errors of this type are somewhat more rare, as any coin that had to be removed from the machinery by hand would have generally gone straight back into the furnace before ever leaving the mint, whereas a silver penny would have fallen right in with all the rest.&nbsp; There&#039;s a good chance what you have is a $500+ item.&nbsp; I really do hope you still have it, as unless I miss my guess, a real expert, able to observe the coin in person, should be able to authenticate that what you have is a highly rare mint error.</p><p><br /></p><p>Check out the others:</p><p><a href="http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=73671" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=73671" rel="nofollow">http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=73671</a></p><p><a href="http://www.cointalk.com/t13458-2/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.cointalk.com/t13458-2/">http://www.cointalk.com/t13458-2/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.cointalk.com/t194886/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.cointalk.com/t194886/">http://www.cointalk.com/t194886/</a>[/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