Are rims "unstruck" areas on classic coins?

Here are my three MS66 Capped Bust Dimes. Gem plus and largely mark free. These trueviews don't show the luster well, but they show all the detail. The rims on all 3 are "upset." The last one honestly looks like a ding, but it graded MS65+ and then MS66 when regraded.... so multiple graders saw it, twice.

My question is as stated in the title: When these planchets were struck by the dies, were the rims not affected by that strike? in other words, is that technically an unstruck area of the coin? @Insider

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wow ! Nicest I've seen .

 

There are 10 PCGS MS66 1833 dimes, according to CoinFacts. And I own 3 of them - all new discoveries.

 

You make history I guess. Good for you .

 

Sorry, but I don't understand why you're asking. What about them makes you ask?

 

If you click on the pics, and focus in on the rims, there are tiny ticks and marks on all 3 of the coins. Some worse than others. Despite this, the coins graded MS66. Is that because the rims are "as struck?" So rim condition can't be taken into consideration when grading because "they're all like that?" My question is one about the minting process.

 

Good question .

 

OK, now I understand the question.

My first guess would be that they are getting a "pass" on those apparent "rim dings". They are looking the otherway.

If that's not the case, then I think you are sniffing up the right tree.

 

I mean, jeez, those are amazing coins. I'd look the other way!

 

I just don't know why else the rims would be so marked up when the obverses and reverses are so pristine. These were minted with a screw press, and I don't know the process exactly, or the planchet preparation.

 

Good point.

 

Stop hogging 'em!

 

The rim has always been part of the die for closed collar coins.

I recall @TypeCoin971793 describing the dentils on early US coinage extending beyond the intended radius of the coin because they were struck on an open collar.

However, dimes began being struck with closed collars in 1828.

Thus, the rims of your coin should be part of the struck area of the coin. Any marks you see will count against the coin. However, the rim tick you show on that coin is extremely insignificant compared to how flawless the rest of the coin is.

 

Similar idea, different series: I was personally told by Mark Salzberg, the head of NGC, that this coin would easily be a 66* FBL coin if it weren't for the minor nick on the obverse rim at about k3. As it is, he graded it 65+* FBL.

A $15,000 nick....

 

Interesting. Perhaps the toning is hiding more marks on the observes and reverses than I can pick up.

 

Obviously, I can only comment on the pictures I see.

But, yes, toning is well known to disguise contact marks.

 

Would you please explain the k3?

 

It's numismatic short-hand for "3 O'clock"

k3 is 3PM on the dial face.

 

But the ones below the TR are acceptable...?

 

Here are some dies from before the use of collars by the US mint. Note how the dentils go all the way to the edge of the die and fall away. Any metal beyond the edge of the die will have a raised appearance and would not be struck.



And here are some dies from after collars began being used. The dentils stop before the edge of the die, and there is a flat rim that would have struck down on the raised lip of the coin, thereby flattening it and removing pre-strike damage.

The small-diameter dimes were struck using a collar, unlike the large diameter dimes. Look at these three dimes. They all had a misaligned die that caused a thin lip along part of the edge. That means that the dies for the capped bust dimes had the flat rim beyond the dentils.



So to answer your question, maybe, since the rims would have seen much less pressure than the rest of the surface of the coin. Especially on a screw press. That means any pre-strike damage on the rims of the planchet after going through the upsetting mill may not have been fully struck out. The easy way to tell the difference is if there is metal movement and if the metal looks flattened in any way.

Also note how much flatter the rims on the 1837 above are compared to those of the 1831 and 1833. The steam press was introduced in 1836, so that suggests that my hypothesis is correct. Also supporting my hypothesis is that the rims are rougher opposite to the raised lip, which is the side that saw a lower striking pressure.

Looks like a planchet flaw to me.