Grading help please

The same way that this grades MS63 - http://mikebyers.com/10679064.html

And that this grades PF65 - http://mikebyers.com/21486908.html

Or that this grades MS66 - http://mikebyers.com/3385146-007.html

But I'm with ya Mike, I don't understand any of it, and never have. In my opinion, none of these things should ever have any grade. Be authenticated ? Yes. Graded ? Absolutely not.

But, if one accepts errors such as the ones I linked to being worthy of being graded, then one must also accept this one being graded.

Actually I would expect just the opposite to happen, which is what we see. When coins are designed, whether they be designed with coin alignment or medal alignment, the design of the rev and obv is done in such a way so as to allow enough metal to be available in the different areas on each side to fill the dies. Put another way and in simplest terms, high places here are low places there, and that is what allows the dies to be filled.

So if you have two obv dies or two rev dies, rather obviously that doesn't happen. And what results is you're going to be short of metal in same areas on both sides. And have enough in the same areas on both sides.

An alteration ? To me that implies a genuine coin being altered to its current state. And I don't think that's what happened here. But could it have been deliberately made outside the mint in order to deceive ? I'd say that is a distinct possibility. But I think it equally possible it was made inside the mint, accidentally or deliberately.

 

And by the way Mike, you found this link and posted about it. So you should go and add it to the others I showed you the other day in the Numismatic Resources section

 

You ! Did ToughCOINS Mike post this link ???

 

I think you overlooked the fact that because each side is neither coin nor medal aligned to the other, but rotated 60 degrees off, the intent of the designer goes out the window, as the opposing details are not where they should be. In this case, the metal appears to have flowed the same way on both sides, despite the rotation error. I find that very difficult to explain.

Semantics aside (yes, I consider bringing together parts of two separate coins to be alteration), and that is what i suspect has taken place here.

 

I didn't overlook it, that's the point I was trying to make. The metal is going to flow no matter what. And if there isn't enough metal there to fill the dies, and both dies are the same (as in 2 obverses), then both sides are going to show extreme weakness in the same areas no matter which way the dies are aligned to each to each other.

Think about Jeffs when the dies are aligned correctly Mike. They are pretty much all notoriously weak. And it's because there's not enough metal for the design. So if you put 2 obverses together - this is what you're gonna get.

And that's why I said what I said the way I said it. Because I kinda figured that's what you meant. But I didn't think everybody else would realize that.

 

I looked at it pretty closely, sure looks like 2 different dies to me.

 

A good coin designer orients elements of the design to be volumetrically complimentary side-to-side, so as to balance the radial flow of the struck planchet as much as possible.

I infer that to be the reason that Monticello, a predominantly horizontal element, was chosen for the reverse to compliment the predominantly vertical bust of Jefferson.

On a normally struck Jefferson nickel (Jefferson obverse and Monticello reverse, of course), the deepest recesses in the dies would be oriented perpendicularly, promoting the desired definition of Jefferson, Monticello and legends.

On a Jefferson nickel rotated 90 degrees (Jefferson obverse and Monticello reverse, again), the deepest recesses in the dies would be aligned with each other, promoting unconstrained metal flow North and South, and more constrained flow East and West than normal. The result would be poor definition of both the portrait and Monticello, but good definition of the date and legends.

On an obverse / obverse coin such as we are discussing, but not rotated at all, the deepest recesses of both front and back would be similarly aligned, producing terrible portrait detail, and very strong legends.

Rotating one side of that last example by 90 degrees to better constrain metal flow would likely produce a nearly normal level of detail on both sides.

While 60 degrees of rotation is certainly not 90 degrees, I believe 60 degrees should have greatly improved the detail rendered to the subject coin . . . yet that is not what we are seeing.

Who out there can convince me that my expectations are unrealistic?

 

I understand the point you're making, but it doesn't "have" to be that way. And not all are.

Here's a picture taken from the US Mint website of how dies are made - start to finish.




That picture shows both obverse (top row) and reverse (bottom row), with the finished product on the far right. And yeah they're different, but it's pretty plain to see there's not a whole lot of difference between the two. And those same dies were first used by the US Mint as early as 1965, and as late as 1999 - this is documented. My point being they had a press capable of using them for at least that entire time frame. And the coin we are talking about, the nickel, is a 2000 - right in the ball park.

The question still remains, could 2 obv or 2 rev dies be used ? From looking at those I'd have to say yes. Could I be wrong, yeah maybe. But I might be right too.

Now I'll grant you those dies are test dies, that is well known. And there are coins that exist that came from those dies, certified, documented, slabbed. So maybe, just maybe, this 2 headed nickel also came from similar test dies.

All I'm saying Dave is that the possibility exists. Personally, I suspect the coin came about as a result of deliberate action. But even if it did, that still doesn't mean it's not a genuine US Mint product - just like those Martha Washington coins.

Of course it's also possible it was contrived and made by somebody outside the mint. In any case, we can only speculate.

 

I completely understand what you're saying, but I think you're missing my point Mike.

The only place that metal can come from to fill the dies is from what are the fields of the finished coin. And on a Jefferson nickel there's a lot more field area on the rev than there is on the obv. That's pretty plain to see.



And yeah, the central devices are at right angles to each other just like you said.

But now imagine that you take 2 obverses and turn them at right angles to each other. I don't have the software to do an overlay, but even this gives us an idea of what we'd have.




On the one the metal's going to come from the sides, on the other the metal's going from the top and bottom. And if you change the angle slightly from 90 to 60 it's still gonna be the same kinda thing - the metal is going to come from the fields no matter which way you turn it, or how much.

And when the metal comes it's going to fill the lowest, and smallest, and closest places first. That much is a given. And the areas that won't be filled, the areas that will remain flat and blob like - are the higher areas. That much is also a given.

And what did we end up with ?








Exactly that. The lowest, smallest, and closest areas to the fields are filled, or at least partially filled - on both sides. And the highest areas of the coin are not filled and are flat and blob like because there was simply not enough metal when you have 2 obverses.

And you can see a similar effect on a normal Jeff, the central hair is weak, and the central part of Monticello is weak because there's not enough metal to fill it all. And the only way you can get it all to fill is if you increase the strike pressure making the fields (the source of the metal) even thinner that they are normally.

Now I don't know if this makes sense to you, but it seems as plain as day to me.