2016 fort moultrie quarter the man with no hands had a son

I had posted one of these previously hoping to find out what it was but with no luck. I had asked if it was a lamination and was told the copper would be exposed. (should been able to figure that out on my own) I would still like to know what this is... but I have found a similar version with less of the "error" the stronger one is my OP and the lesser one is the recent find. if unable to find what out what it is, can we figure out if the problem is with the coin itself or with the die and it is a progressive thing. you'll notice there is similar occurrences on both coins, in the same areas, with the same issue. so I ask...is this a die issue? or a planchet issue? thanks. first 2 pictures are of my OP and 3-5 is the new one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I am no expert but all I am seeing is coin bag marks. From one or more coins bouncing off another. Sorry edited I see some of what you are saying now. I will wait for someone that knows,

 

I hate the new USB microscope technology! People are posting super close-ups that provide us little room for appraising an error in relation to its surroundings. It's like placing ones nose against the bark of a tree and trying to decide if the leaves are turning to fall colors or not.

Chris

 

Maybe post a clear pic of the full obverse and reverse,and the experts will answer. I'm certain of it.

 

Agreed

 

on the stronger one you can barely see any of the details around the legs and on the smaller one you can't see them. why is closer not better? isn't this like showing a full obv pic of 72 ddo and asking you to correctly attribute it? i'm always willing to learn if you are willing to teach.

 

It seems odd to have a planchet defect in the same area, or even a struck through.
I would think that this might be a progression of some sort though.

 

You can't compare the close-up of one coin to the close-up of another. Each one must be examined on its own merits.

Don't you agree that the details of the two images (first image in Post #1 and first image in Post #7) look different? Sometimes, backing off a bit gives you a different perspective.

As for this coin, I can't tell if it is a lamination error, a strikethrough or whatever. I can't tell if it is raised, recessed or retained.

Chris

 

Hey Chris the USB camera club is taken up donations To buy you some cheese to go along with your wine. What kind of cheese do you like.

 

To give Chris Some credit, Those things are not true, the only one that I have found, and know that can take a close detailed pic. is @Rick Stachowski. Ya'll need to take some notes or, play with your scope some more!

 

Unfortunately I tell it like it is. Just to please the masses I tried to provide a full shot of the coin. But in reality close-ups of an error will tell you a lot more about that error than standing back a mile and looking at it. Example standing back and looking at the full photo of a barn, yes you could see the whole barn and get a perspective but in reality you're missing the ants that are on the barn. Now with the close-up of the ants you can probably even distinguish what kind ants they are. Try doing that by standing back and looking at the whole barn. As in many cases on coin talk many members miss what is actually happening with an error because they complain about a close-up of an error. I have recently come across one coin I think that will point out what I'm trying to say. I'm only gonna post a full photo here no close-ups of the error. This is a challenge to Chris and other members who believe they have progressed far enough in their abilities to correctly identify the error in question without a close-up. I will admit this is an unusual error and one clue is that two things happened on this error. And only one is an actual mint error. Let's see what happens. If you gone to complain about close-ups let's see you do it without a close-up. If you're up to the challenge please identify the error. Later I will post the same error on my thread. USMC60

 

I got this thread confused with another my bad,
Full detailed pics are needed to clarify the error in most cases, not to say that you don't need close up pics, in addition.

In the case of the lastly posted pic, I couldn't tell you what is going on, error or not, the details are not sharp, and the lighting is adding to much flash. If the lighting was better, and I had some direction to what it is you are seeing, It would be helpful. Not sure if that is all lighting or, if the editing made it that color. In my opinion, the editing changes the image, I am not sure if that is needed with a usb, but it definitely distorts the image. imho

 

No biggie I do that sometimes myself. But for the pic itself I found it better with the filter it plainly shows the right leg of the soldier just above the boot. Only point I was trying to make is close-ups are needed. To be able to give a general idea of an error. And especially on this one. This one I almost put back into the pile going back to the bank. Until I took a real closer look at it. Like I say I give full pics just to satisfy certain individuals. It is understandable some errors are visible with a full photo in that case a close-up of the error is just that a close-up of what you see in the full photo. And I totally agree with you about the two megapixel distortion. You know the saying the more megapixel the better the image. And there's only a little glare up at the left side of the coin.Okay Im Enlarging the questioned area.Still the photo needs to be enlarged to make out the error. Even what I see right now I would've put this back into circulation. This is the last pic that I will post here on this thread. I will bring this particular error up on my thread later I am sure everybody will find it interesting when I do.

 

What you have is a combination of die scrapes and a (largely) field-restricted struck-through error. A gritty paste was stuck to a feeder (or other moving part) and this scraped the die face and spread the gritty past across the die face like chunky peanut butter. This was then struck into the coin. I've written about these errors in Coin World.

 

ty for your response. did it start as a small build up and then increase? i'm confused as to why one is small and one is a lot bigger.

 

It's hard to determine the direction of a struck-through progression. It requires the presence of a growing set of die markers.

 

So, could that peanut butter like bugger, also impact the die, maybe even going as far, as causing an interior die break?

 

The grit could scratch the die, independent of the feeder (or ejector or whatever moving part is involved). It would not produce an interior die break.

 

So, is this progression, so to say in reverse? The largest strike through was first?
Are you able to post a link, I would like to read up on the subject.

 

thank you very much