Is this actually "damage?"

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by SuperDave, Jan 19, 2017.

Page 2 of 6
  1. redcent230

    redcent230 Well-Known Member

    LOL
     
    redcent230, Jan 20, 2017
    #21 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Paul M.

    Paul M. Well-Known Member

    I kind of like this idea, except it doesn't account for the cloth pattern being on both sides of the coin. None of the theories floated here really seem all that satisfactory, although I do not believe it is PMD.

    I am tempted to buy this coin, but it's a bit more money than I want to spend right now.
     
    Paul M., Jan 20, 2017
    #22 + Quote Reply
  4. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    That was the very first thing I thought of when I looked at this coin - how does a coin get struck when both dies are covered with a cloth, or the planchet is wrapped in a cloth ? Answer it doesn't.

    Think about it for a minute, these coins were struck with screw presses, screw presses are vertical. So there is no way that a cloth could accidentally get stuck on the upper die for it would merely fall off. On the lower die ? Yeah that could happen, but the upper and lower - nahhhh, aint gonna happen.

    Screw presses were also fed by hand, one planchet at a time. So while it is possible that a planchet could be wrapped in cloth and fed into the press, the likelihood of that actually happening is slim to none. More than one person would have to be involved, and allow it to happen, but mainly there would be no reason to do that to begin with. What I mean is intentionally producing error coins for profit didn't exist at that time, so nobody would even think of doing such a thing. And it simply could not happen accidentally.

    The other thing is, back then coins were individually closely checked and inspected back then, both before and after the strike. So no coin like this would or even could escape the mint, it would merely be pulled and sent for melting.

    Given those things there is one possibility left - post strike damage. My guess would be that somebody tried to create an error coin in modern times. Probably using a cloth, 2 pieces of leather, and a vise, or some kind of press. This is the only thing that really makes sense, to me anyway. I also suspect that the TPG was able to see that it is/was post strike damage during their in hand inspection - thus the code.

    And before you ask, no I can't give you an exact reason why some portions of the coin don't show the pattern while the all the rest does. But it could have been intentionally in an effort to pass the coin off as a legitimate error. That is at least possible.

    What I do know is it didn't happen on a press when the coin was struck for the reasons I explained above, so that only leaves intentional post strike damage, however it occurred.
     
    GDJMSP, Jan 20, 2017
    #23 + Quote Reply
    micbraun, NOS, Seattlite86 and 3 others like this.
  5. cpm9ball

    cpm9ball CANNOT RE-MEMBER

    IHOP is running ads right now for pancakes with all kinds of crappy toppings on them. I guess they figure they can hide the crappy taste of the pancake batter that way.

    Chris
     
    cpm9ball, Jan 20, 2017
    #24 + Quote Reply
    Paddy54 likes this.
  6. kazuma78

    kazuma78 Supporter! Supporter

    Could have been a damaged planchet prior to striking
     
    kazuma78, Jan 20, 2017
    #25 + Quote Reply
  7. Cascade

    Cascade CAC Variety Nerd

    My thoughts exactly
     
    Cascade, Jan 20, 2017
    #26 + Quote Reply
  8. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Extremely unlikely. As I said, the planchets were inspected and weighed before use, and were placed on the anvil die by hand. So a defective planchet like that would simply be discarded before it ever got to the press, and if not at the press.

    Also, how exactly would a planchet get a textile pattern impressed onto it ?
     
    GDJMSP, Jan 20, 2017
    #27 + Quote Reply
    Paul M. and Insider like this.
  9. Paddy54

    Paddy54 Well-Known Member

    Jim
    I respect your opinion however in life as well as numismatics anything can happen . Unlikely yes... possible yes also.
     
    Paddy54, Jan 20, 2017
    #28 + Quote Reply
  10. Paddy54

    Paddy54 Well-Known Member

    Chris years ago when the wife and I would be heading down 95 to Fla.or Hilton head.....the wife loved Shoney ' s!
    We would have to stop there for breakfast .....the wife would do a full assault on the breakfast bar.
    After they went out of business the wife decided it was time to fly instead of drive.
     
    Paddy54, Jan 20, 2017
    #29 + Quote Reply
    green18, Seattlite86 and cpm9ball like this.
  11. SuperDave

    SuperDave Free the Cartwheels!

    This one pretty much bluescreens me whichever direction I approach it from. :)
     
    SuperDave, Jan 20, 2017
    #30 + Quote Reply
    Paul M. likes this.
  12. mynamespat

    mynamespat Well-Known Member

    I think the argument that the grading company graded it correctly with information we don't have looking at a seller's photos is strongest. Maybe the edges of the devices show obvious signs of a vice job. Maybe the coin was already in PCGS's database or pedigreed elsewhere from before it was altered. I would lean towards the latter considering this is such a small population to begin with.
    I don't think we can assume that mistakes didn't leave the mint. Even if it didn't have any monetary worth or collectors desirability at the time, people just tend to collect things which they find interesting. I have a small collection of tooling and parts that were mutilated by machine crashes. They don't have any sort of value other than the base metal, but I think they're cool.
     
    mynamespat, Jan 20, 2017
    #31 + Quote Reply
    Paul M., Seattlite86 and BadThad like this.
  13. Cascade

    Cascade CAC Variety Nerd

    Unless they were just having a little fun on a boring repetitive day. Something quite foreign to you I'm sure Doug :p
     
    Cascade, Jan 20, 2017
    #32 + Quote Reply
    Paul M. likes this.
  14. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    Personally, I think it is a strike thru, And because the grader didn't know what to with it. He should have said "92" cleaning, instead of "98". My opinion
     
    Pickin and Grinin, Jan 20, 2017
    #33 + Quote Reply
  15. BadThad

    BadThad Calibrated for Lincolns

    Was it hot in that room Doug you old fart? I knew you were old but.... :p
     
    BadThad, Jan 20, 2017
    #34 + Quote Reply
    green18 and Cascade like this.
  16. BadThad

    BadThad Calibrated for Lincolns

    By golly, I'm going with this. Guess I'm easily swayed but this makes a lot of sense.

    I'll add...the devices are harder than fields. It may have been just enough pressure to only effect the fields. The softest area is the bust area, and it caught some of the impression.

    I'm sure this coin had some discussion at PCGS.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2017
    BadThad, Jan 20, 2017
    #35 + Quote Reply
    Paul M. likes this.
  17. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Fred Weinberg authenticates errors for PCGS so he saw the coin. I sent him an Email to explain it to us. We may have an answer next week. The only thing that does not make sense to me is this: The deepest parts of the die (stars, hair relief) that are the high parts of the coin are unaffected by the pattern of squares. That indicates a struck thru and not a squeeze job. Doug's post that it is on both sides argues against that. Hummmm...:facepalm:
     
    Insider, Jan 20, 2017
    #36 + Quote Reply
  18. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    I was thinking about making the old guy post. I would like to read, some of the Books @GDJMSP, has read.
     
    Pickin and Grinin, Jan 20, 2017
    #37 + Quote Reply
  19. RonSanderson

    RonSanderson Supporter! Supporter

    1. Only the fields are affected, not the devices, except some very shallow parts of the bust.
    2. Both sides are affected.
    3. The characteristic is like a die clash, where an inverse image is created on each die from the other one, then imparted in reverse onto the next coin.
    4. I would speculate that they were knocking crud off the dies with a file. They ran a new impression but got the file caught between the dies. This would be a form of die clash, but put the impression of the file on both dies.
    5. When this coin was struck, the impression of the file was imparted from both dies onto the respective sides of the planchet.
    After all, it's free to guess.
     
    RonSanderson, Jan 20, 2017
    #38 + Quote Reply
    Paul M., Paddy54 and gronnh20 like this.
  20. Paddy54

    Paddy54 Well-Known Member

    Well as a collector in general , and a half dime collector... I also as others have post ,would love to have this coin in my collection .
    Collectively as a group we may never agree or know what cause this effect.
    It may be a mystery for all time. I will surmise that since 1805 and the hands whom this coin has passed may have looked at this and wonder what was going on.
    Great find and post Dave,thanks for sharing .
    And again we may never know the cause ,at least we got to see something that made us all try and wrap our collective knowledge around it.
    One very cool piece of numismatic history!
     
    Paddy54, Jan 20, 2017
    #39 + Quote Reply
    Dynoking, BadThad, Paul M. and 2 others like this.
  21. mynamespat

    mynamespat Well-Known Member

    I spent longer than I care to admit looking at this coin trying to justify a die clash. I think the biggest problem with it being a ridged object, like a file, is the way the disfiguration continues up onto the bust. ..and I kind of doubt something like a rag would leave an impression on a die. Maybe something sandpaper-like?
     
    mynamespat, Jan 20, 2017
    #40 + Quote Reply
    Paul M. likes this.
63 more messages...
Page 2 of 6
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page