I would love an opinion on this..

Ah, finally. Recognition!


There will always be a difference of opinion, and I respect that. I am not looking to change yours.

I think one thing we can both agree on is that the OP's coin is authentic and not a counterfeit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Of course it is authentic, but the issue is authentic example of what. Yet, here we are with your claim " due to a large number of circumstances other than a counterfeit coin, such as die stage, circulation wear, or a bunch of other factors."

Please take a crack at the actual issue. Need a hint? Here you are faced with yet another SW tail, and you still want to explain it away with the most unlikely scenarios, that all of these SW tails were the product of all sorts of other stuff.

Dream on.

 

I don't quite think this is the appropriate thread to discuss such matters (if you would like to start your own that is fine), but I'll give it my opinion anyway.

My main theory is that the difference seen is a product of die wear. Dies progress through stages as they continue to strike coins. After having observed thousands of wheat cents myself, it is easily apparent that coins struck by a later die state can have inconsistencies in their appearance compared to coins struck earlier. This inconsistency is most obvious on the last digit of the date.
As to why there are "so many" examples of the supposedly different 3s...well, I believe that the difference is that some coins were struck in later die states, and some were struck in earlier die stages. To further this, you can find identical examples of the "poor mans 1955 doubled die", a coin with an anomaly affecting the appearance of the last digit in the date. In reality, what is seen is a product of a die stage. You can also find coins without the anomaly that were struck by the same exact die, the only difference being that the coins without the anomaly were struck earlier in the life of the die. Do you see the connection?

That's it...my opinion is that the difference is just when in the die's life the coin was struck. I don't think that is an unlikely scenario.

What I think IS an unlikely scenario is the presence of 2 different digits used. It seems that the only evidence of such is the claim "I can find multiple examples that look exactly alike", and you seem to be stuck in the notion that if there is an identical anomaly on multiple coins, then it MUST come from one die. However, there are many instances where this is not the case...some doubled dies having IDENTICAL die markers, yet were struck by a non-doubled die.

There is also strong evidence against your claim, namely, the process of making doubled dies. In order for there to be a different variety of 3, there would need to be 2 different master designs used that year, as that is when the actual design of the coin is created. And that means that master hub would have it, which means the master dies would have it, which means the working hubs would have it, which means every single working die that originated from that design would have it, which would result in hundreds of millions of the alternative digit used on coins. That does not even account for the fact that Philadelphia at the time produced all the master dies for the branch mints, which would mean that even MORE would be present. That is simply not the case. Without any evidence besides "I found some that look the same", I think your theory does not have enough to back it up to seem plausible.

While I do commend your interest and pursuit in the subject, I would recommend reading up a bit on die varieties and the hubbing process so you can fully understand where I and others are coming from. Sometimes it's not as simple as "these two look alike, therefore they must come from the same die". If you need some more help understanding the topic I would be more than happy to PM you and discuss, so we can keep the discussion on this reoccurring theory between the two people that seem most interested in it, you and I (though admittedly I'm not as interested in it as you are).

 

Oh no, the never ending SW pointing 3. I wish someone would list this as a variety just so this wouldn't come up again. I am sure the OP is as confused as possible now.

 

“I don't quite think this is the appropriate thread to discuss such matters (if you would like to start your own that is fine), but I'll give it my opinion anyway.”

Then why did you do this? and What? You were asleep during my former thread and then didn't notice that I linked it up here for you? Seriously? Sane people are supposed to put up with this sort of dribble?

"My main theory is that the difference seen is a product of die wear. Dies progress through stages as they continue to strike coins. After having observed thousands of wheat cents myself ,"

<who amongst us hasn't?>,

" it is easily apparent that coins struck by a later die state can have inconsistencies in their appearance compared to coins struck earlier. This inconsistency is most obvious on the last digit of the date.
As to why there are "so many" examples of the supposedly different 3s...well, I believe that the difference is that some coins were struck in later die states, and some were struck in earlier die stages. "

So what?


"To further this, you can find identical examples of the "poor mans 1955 doubled die", a coin with an anomaly affecting the appearance of the last digit in the date. In reality, what is seen is a product of a die stage. You can also find coins without the anomaly that were struck by the same exact die, the only difference being that the coins without the anomaly were struck earlier in the life of the die."

Irrellevant. To this coin.

" Do you see the connection?"


There is none.

"That's it...my opinion is that the difference is just when in the die's life the coin was struck. I don't think that is an unlikely scenario."

So do you claim that all the 43 dies of whatever mint mark show the same progression to the SW tail?


"What I think IS an unlikely scenario is the presence of 2 different digits used. It seems that the only evidence of such is the claim "I can find multiple examples that look exactly alike", and you seem to be stuck in the notion that if there is an identical anomaly on multiple coins, then it MUST come from one die. However, there are many instances where this is not the case...some doubled dies having IDENTICAL die markers, yet were struck by a non-doubled die. "

Had you actually been paying attention you might have noticed it going farther back, like hubs or master dies.

"There is also strong evidence against your claim, namely, the process of making doubled dies. In order for there to be a different variety of 3, there would need to be 2 different master designs used that year, as that is when the actual design of the coin is created. And that means that master hub would have it, which means the master dies would have it, which means the working hubs would have it, which means every single working die that originated from that design would have it, which would result in hundreds of millions of the alternative digit used on coins. That does not even account for the fact that Philadelphia at the time produced all the master dies for the branch mints, which would mean that even MORE would be present. That is simply not the case. Without any evidence besides "I found some that look the same", I think your theory does not have enough to back it up to seem plausible. "


Seems you completely fabricated the part about doubled dies. Where did you conjure that up from? Perhaps I can help you if you explain what exactly your claim is regards what your proffer as supposedly some claim by me as to DD. And do Quote the record please. You are making this stuff up in your head and imputing it on me. I won't bother with the rest of that part except to say this is shown to occur regardless of mint mark. Is it possible they started over mid year? Which of the tails is the earlier? You seem to be so deeply wrapped up in your checklist dogma that you do not even understand what you read.

"While I do commend your interest and pursuit in the subject, I would recommend reading up a bit on die varieties and the hubbing process so you can fully understand where I and others are coming from. If you need some more help understanding the topic I would be more than happy to PM you and discuss, instead of taking the thread more off-topic than it has already become (I tried to end the off-topic nature of it in post 21). "


Don't think that for even a nanosecond that you can pull off trying to patronize me.

I notice that before I finished this you have already edited your post. This quotes what was original when I got it.

Go back to my thread, rather than trash me or it here. It is on you to have brought this here.

 

I just know that I am really sorry that I asked for any opinion whatsoever this is crazy I can't believe you all can just go on and on and on like this. here is what I can tell you though my dad would not keep a coin that is a fake knowingly so I'm really hoping that the gentleman who said it was fake is wrong.

 

I had first tried to avoid this by making post 21, but on your insistence to "taking a crack at the actual issue", made post 23.
I think that we are going to have a difference of opinion no matter what evidence is brought to the table, but I don't think we need to reduce this conversation to quoting my post as "blah blah blah" and saying

I had respectfully laid out my hypothesis regarding your theory, and I do not feel that your response was appropriate. Consequently, I think I will refrain from responding to your posts and have contacted the appropriate people with the hope that things like this don't spiral out of control again.

My humblest apologies that it has escalated to this...it was never my intention and I really do feel bad about it. Please don't make a judgement about cointalk just because of the interaction between 2 members. The coin you posted is 100% authentic from what I can see. I am more than willing to help out new members, and do my best to stay on track with your questions.

 

Please do not feel this way. The member that said it is fake was just making a crack about a previous thread. It doesn't look fake to me. Please hang around and learn with the rest of us.

 

Lady your coin is not fake. Not to worry. It does exhibit the feature which I - and apparently I alone - consider to be a distinguishable variety of the 3. Others have some issues about this. They should have the sense to take it up in the thread about that feature, which is why I pointed the conversation to it. Why they didn't have the sage to go there is beyond me.

 

awordcreated after a coin die has struck thousands and thousands of planchets it starts to wear out and the coins it strikes will look different towards the end of this dies life. surely you can understand this simple thing . I believe this is what non cents has been trying to tell you , I just said it in more simple terms ....

 

Because it was just a 200 page argument that accomplished nothing.

 

Well then, is it your claim that the coin of topic is struck with a late stage die? And if so why? And is that also your explanation for all the SW tails?

 

You are too kind

We accomplished flushing out the deniers

 

I just don't see a reason to say all of this, it is confusing and insulting to a new person. And if it isn't worth any money anyway why keep going at it. I will just give it back to my dad who has loved collecting his coins for over 50 years and tell him to keep it with the other coins he doesn't want to sell. Really wasn't a big deal. Like I have said, I am learning and new at this and my Dad only collected stuff he liked so he wouldn't try to sell something fake anyway and wouldn't let me unknowingly do something wrong. So please take the conversation where ever you all had it before.

 

I completely agree that it was out of line for me and the other member to engage in this conversation here in the manner that we did, and I never intended for it to escalate to the point that it did. Please don't let this deter you from this otherwise great forum.