Mixed Lot of Errors #10 - Comments?

Respectfully, no. Please stop spreading misinformation.

This is your personal opinions and should not be presented as "known fact", because it is false.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I buy this; makes total sense. The reason I suspected there might be an area with no reading was that the collar was only partially engaged.

 

@StevenHarden thank you for changing the font. You made my eyes very happy.

My first impression of coin #46 was a thin planchet, but I by no means have the experience that @Seattlite86 and others have, so I guess it wasn't.

 

Do collar dies ever crack? I have seen pieces of reeding missing, as if the collar had a die chip. But I have never seen a crack on the reeding.

 

My personal opinion is not false , that's just not correct . I have been told this over the years of communicating with two highly respected error examiners from way back and I believe it may apply to others as well . They are on a extremely busy schedule and it is easy to overlook some small details in a few cases . Just ask a few of them and if they want to be truthful they will tell you the same thing as I did. The errors I was not talking about would not be as easy to see as the ones on this thread. Just because the old Rascal pup came back on the block does not mean he is trying to bite anyone so there is no need for others to get all ruffled up. LOL

 

Yes
http://www.error-ref.com/rotating-collar-cud/

and

http://www.error-ref.com/retained-collar-cud/

 

I want to add to this a little. When I asked in my first comment, the diameter of the coin, it was solely to determine if the coin may have been stuck in the wrong collar because it is obviously larger than normal, rare but not unheard of. But when you said that it wasn't perfectly round, that threw that theory out of the window.

 

1. You presented it as you called it: "a known fact," not as your opinion. You've tried to say it rings true for every error expert out there. This is false.

2. If I were to say "it's my opinion that the sky is orange". Just because I use the word opinion doesn't somehow mean it "can't be wrong". Because there are certain facts that surround those opinions.

3. Someone can claim a coin to be an error, and say it's just their opinion, but when there's no facts supporting the claim, that person is just guessing and add nothing to the discussion.

This is distracting from the OP's post, so I will not engage again. If you think 46 is an error, show us the facts.

 

On a thin planchet, the high points on the devices would show, as all metal would flow there. This is not the case with the OP coin. http://www.error-ref.com/rolled-thin-planchets/

This could also be an effort to mimic a tapered planchet: http://www.error-ref.com/tapered-planchets/

If it were an error, it could be extreme grease. More photos would help us, at angles too, to assess this luster.

 

@Hommer
@rascal
@paddyman98
@Seattlite86
@Mountain Man
@Jersey magic man

Thank you all for your comments.

I have some additional photos of #47 for you and anyone else visiting this thread to review. Notice how the parts of the lettering closest to the rim appears broken. Also, when looking on the reverse where "DOLLAR" is stamped, notice the weaker set of letters appear to bleed out toward the rim.

When looking at error-ref.com, I have noticed that @mikediamond has done extensive research in the area of Collar Deployment Errors as a subset of Striking Errors. I'm not exactly sure if this would fall into that category, but it's a though. If you're available out there Mike, I would love you hear your take on #47.

Here are the additional photos of #47(images of the rim were posted previously in this thread):






THANK YOU.

 

I know I shouldn't reply on your thread again because it don't take a bright mind to see that ole Rascal is not welcome on here by a certain few members that seem to live on CT. I'm not sure why they don't like me and I sure don't care what the problem is. The problem may be because I say it like it is and speak my mind. From these new images it appears that the clad layer was stretched so thin that the copper core is showing thru in some small areas to cause the dark spots . You may already know that but I told you anyway.

 

No, I think some people don’t respect your opinions because of the way you treated Mike Diamond in another thread. When He didn’t you give you the answer you wanted, you decided he was wrong because he didn’t have the coin in hand. Great way to build your credibility on forums.

Sorry to the OP for being off topic. Regarding coin #47. I don't believe the nonsense about a collar clash. Collar clashes do not show the full face of the reeding, only the scalloped edge. Unfortunately, I can't confidently add any additional information about this coin. My gut feel is that it was struck once, then struck a second time without the collar, but I can see no evidence of multiple strikes in your pic.

 

+1 on how he treated Mike Diamond poorly and why he is received as such.

@StevenHarden it's time for me to bow out and say this is beyond my ability. Notice @rascal that just because it's beyond my abilities that I didn't just blurt out "PMD" and run away. Those who study error collectors enjoy new and difficult ones to study. I'm afraid that I'm just a novice in this.

After thinking it over, I agree with @Oldhoopster about it not being a collar clash. Too much reading shows. My newest theory is that it was struck once, but the collar disengaged so many mms away and stopped, causing a "second reeding" after the first expanded. There's a chance the collar was angled, which may have caused the "second" reading on the top part of the obverse. Perhaps this strike had extra pressure as well. This theory is one that comes out of ignorance from having enough knowledge to know what happened. It would be great if we could get @Fred Weinberg to drop in and look at the coin above and give his insight. I also know that @GDJMSP and @desertgem have a wealth of knowledge on how coins are struck. They could possibly help as well.

 

The Kennedy in question is just a Double Struck and Both Broadstruck. I have shown an example from my collection before -

 

Thanks for the references.

 

I want to retract what I said about the dark spots on this coin . After taking a better look It looks more like retained struck thru fragments . I came up with this opinion because of the other tiny round sunken in areas that looks like some of the possible struck thru debris has dropped out and came off the coin. As for me and someone else falling out we have bumped heads before and always seem to make back up , this is just the way life is. Also while I'm here I have something else to add . I'm sorry for going out on a limb and saying all three coins were real mint errors. I must have had too many drinks. This is the same identical thing I keep warning others about. No one should confirm any coin error or regular from just looking at images of it. I will have to say that if they are fakes someone sure did a good job faking them. The only possible way I can think of being fake in my opinion that they would have to had been struck with home made dies. This could be possible and I have seen some really convincing ones. I have a few really good looking fakes in my collection. I'm betting a few have even ended up in slabs .I like it where the weight is about right on all 3 and hope they are not magnetic as some fakes are.

 

Sounds like your drinking now. Gibberish.
Stop drinking what can harm you! It's no good for your health!

 

@paddyman98 Thank your for your reply.

I checked out the thread where you posted your double struck and broadstruck 50c. The one you have shown is a quite a beauty and has many similar characteristics to the example I have. Would it be possible to see a picture of the rim of your example? (I’m curious if it is similar to the rim of my example). I’m not sure how rare these are, but the Philadelphia Mint did this in 1989 on my example and then again one year later on your 1990 example. So, maybe once a year?

—————

This is for everyone:

To me, error coins with multiple types of errors on one coin are often much more difficult to attribute than a coin with a single error. A coin with multiple errors may have one of those errors show characteristics that would otherwise make the second error seem unlikely or even impossible. As a result, there can often be a lot of debate over how that particular error originated.

I have noticed a lot of debate and disputing of the origins of these errors within this thread. While I welcome any comment or opinion by anyone, please keep the focus on the original post and the coins in question. I am very appreciative of the comments and responses I have received thus far from my postings on here and hope that will continue.

I would like the threads that I post on here to be open and welcoming to all people. I do not want anyone to avoid commenting because they feel singled out by anyone else for whatever reason. As I’ve said before, I appreciate any comments and encourage discussion on the topic. This means keeping comments focused and on topic. If you have an opinion please provide any quotes, pictures, or any other references that you believe will help your case.

If any of you have any personal questions or concerns in regards to how others are communicating on here, please take it up with me through a PM or through the system administrator.

—————

I intend on posting another thread of errors soon.

Thank you everyone.

 

@GDJMSP Thank you for the comment and welcome to the thread.

Do you believe the bounce would be caused as a result of no collar after the initial strike and there being more freedom for the coin to move around? I’m trying to understand the mechanics of what would happens between each strike to result in an example like this.