59D RPM Partially retained strike thru grease

I am showing doubts? Did you not read my posts? Sorry but you are so pathetically clueless that now I have to block you,and I HIGHLY recommend others block him (@rascal) as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Why was this edited? I forgot what I wrote.

 

nothing out of line that i remember...

 

I didn't read your post before it was edited. Possibly you gave some personal information such as your email address? The moderators will edit anything that exposes you to those on the internet that can harm you.

 

This does appear to be a struck through grease error in which some of the "grease" has been retained. I do find it odd that much of the grease appears to sit at a level slightly higher than the surrounding design. This may be because the grease is too hard and brittle to take an image and may resist being pushed any deeper into the planchet. Or it may simply be an illusion. The grease may simply stand above the level of the surrounding recesses left behind by the missing grease. Whatever the reason, here is a similar error that shows the same appearance:

 

Hello Mlke , I think you have it 100% right on the Op's coin .I know you probably know what I'm about to say so I'm putting it out here so maybe a new member on CT may learn something new. It appears to me that the globs or whatever we want to call them can be in different levels of hardness when falling out of the die. In really rare cases if they land on the new planchet on the side that was toward the die they can leave quite a few of the backward looking die details on the new coin when it is struck. Sometimes this can look similar to a die clash.

 

You are correct that the same kind of hardened black crud found embedded in the 1959-D and 1970-D cents is the same material responsible for dropped fillings. You are also correct that this "die fill" or "grease" shows varying degrees of hardness and coarseness. So it's more tarry in the 1959-D cent and grittier in the 1970-D cent. While dropped fillings and clash marks both leave behind incuse, mirror-image design elements on the coin, there's seldom any difficulty in distinguishing between the two errors. And these aren't the only sources of incuse, mirror-image design elements. But this discussion really should be assigned to a new thread.

 

Here's another reason why this hardened die fill might stand above the level of the surrounding, unobstructed die-struck design. If the superficial layer of a thick coating of die fill came away from the die face during retraction of the hammer die, the upper surface of that layer would lie above the surrounding design.

One error I'd love to see is a full coating of die fill that stuck to the coin as the hammer die retracted. The outer surface of that layer should carry a cast of the die's incuse design (the mold), and the details of that cast should occupy a plane above that of the coin's die-struck design. This is different from a layer of die fill that falls on a coin and receives a strike that receives an impression. In that case, the raised design would occupy the same plane as the normal design. I haven't seen an example of such an error either, in part because typical die fill is too hard to take an impression or, less often, is too soft to preserve an impression. So that's two error types I need to keep an eye out for.

 

This one doesn't say "MUSTOOL" but is it the ezact same thing?

https://www.amazon.com/Microscope-K...-1200X&qid=1586007473&sr=8-1-fkmr0&th=1&psc=1

 

yep,thats the one

 

did @juslystn get kicked out of cointalk??

 

Starting to look like it.

 

Shame that the OP got bashed seemingly right from the start. Retained strike throughs are possible, and my initial impression too was that it resembled a struck through grease, with the possibility that the grease was retained. If other objects can be retained on a struck thru, why too not grease? Glad to see Mike Diamond came in to clarify.

 

My article on this coin and others like it will appear tomorrow in the online edition of Coin World (5/11).

 

looking forward to it, as always. he claims he is mailing me the coin so I can put it in my book.

 

If he did it must be for something we can't see on this thread. I've seen worse disagreements than what's on this thread and no one was booted off Coin Talk.