Just curious, since I have several of the new Ironworkers C&C sets with finning on the coin, has anyone had any experience sending in a coin with finning to be graded? If this is a common problem with these coins then would they ever get a 70 with finning?
Sure! so long as the surface areas look flawless. So far as I know, finning does not affect grade unless it is minimal.
If it is significant, you could get it certified as a Mint Error (there may be an additional charge for this).
$60 at PCGS! Tier Price + $15 at NGC. ($15 + $15) I seriously doubt that the additional grading fee's would cover any premium in these coins since it simply is not "significant" finning.
I don't know that they don't for certain, but I've never heard of a coin being attributed as an error because of finning. Finning is just too common and not really an error anyway.
I'm sending 2 to ANACS on that special they have going and I noted"Finning" on the paperwork. We'll see what happens ...noting ventured nothing gained
Yes, finning is definitely an error. Here is a description of how it happens, for those unfamiliar: http://www.error-ref.com/finning/ And yes, the services definitely attribute it. Here is a PCGS example: http://www.apmex.com/product/82214/2013-1-2-oz-gold-eagle-finned-rim-mint-error-ms-69-pcgs Here is ANACS: http://coins.ha.com/itm/errors/2008...-11604.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 Depending on the severity of the finning and the rarity of the type, it may be worth a decent premium. Modern dollars seem to be fairly common with finning, from a quick web search.
I think I'll call NGC Tuesday and get their input as to whether they would grade it as an error or not. At least the more substantial one.
So I was requested to send pictures to NGC of the "finning" and they said it doesn't qualify for finning and sent this response. I am attaching some of the pictures I sent with the email. If it's not finning that qualifies to be listed on a label, then what the heck would you call it? Now my decision is do I send them all back and ask for replacements, which will take time since they are on backorder, sell them on ebay with pics of "finning"? Sheesh. And yes, I could easily cut my finger on some of these coins with this flaw on them like NGC suggests.
Forgot to add NGC's response to my email. "Though the advantages of using close collars over open collars were many, including uniformity of diameter and raised rims that protected a coin from wear, they did present a new set of problems for the mints to overcome. These collars had to be aligned properly with the obverse and reverse dies to avoid what U.S. Mint personnel called "finning." This phenomenon is better known to the coin hobby as a "wire rim," and it resulted from metal being forced through a gap between the perimeter of the die and the inside diameter of the collar. If all these pieces fit together perfectly, a complete seal was achieved, and no wire rim would be seen—at least not on coins struck for circulation. With proof pieces, however, the multiple strikes required to bring out the coin's design fully often produced a fine wire rim on one or both sides of the coin. On the proofs struck since 1968, especially those reeded-edge pieces made from the very hard copper-nickel-clad composition, these wire rims are sometimes sharp enough to cut a person's skin if the coin is not handled carefully."
I can only assume that the decision for qualification depends on the matter of degree of the finning. For example, this is what the coin linked to by physics-fan that qualified for finning designation looks like - Now compare that to your coin.
I would qualify that level of finning as an error. However, the commonly seen finning is just too minor (and boring) for me to consider it an "error". Just like machine doubling, it's just part of the process and it happens regularly.
Hmm... yes, now that I see the pictures, I agree that this is not significant enough to be designated as an error. This is a very small imperfection, and appears to be within mint tolerances. To be fair, in my original post I did say that it had to be significant...
