Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;JCro57, post: 3179233, member: 92083&quot;]Ok. Last time. Please don&#039;t misconstrue my tone here as I am genuinely trying to say this politely and am honestly not trying to be sarcastic in any way: You are addressing a point I have not asked.</p><p><br /></p><p>I absolutely, 100% understand and already understood many years ago that error coins with marks on them occurring during the mint process - including faults in the making of the metal sheets - are not considered &quot;damaged&quot; by numistatists or the TPGs. </p><p><br /></p><p>However, despite that, there still is physical damage to the planchet. If a coin die somehow skids and leaves a scratch on a struck dime, that scratch is etched into the coin. The planchet now has scratch marks and is &quot;physically&quot; damaged. Error collectors like myself make the exception that because it occurred during minting, numismatically speaking it is not &quot;damaged.&quot; We consider &quot;damage&quot; to be done after it was minted - left outside in salt water for 2 years, run over by a lawnmower, left in a pvc holder, etc. </p><p><br /></p><p>The point I am making is that some error collectors are so picky, that even some physical damage done during minting to a genuine Mint error is unacceptable to them. For example, the manganese outler I posted above has some physical damage: it is slightly bent a bit has a couple scratches. But numismatically speaking, it is not &quot;damaged.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>So, some people might say, &quot;I don&#039;t care if it isn&#039;t PMD; I don&#039;t want a coin that looks like that.&quot; If you wanted one of those but it looked like that, would its physical condition turn you away despite knowing it isn&#039;t PMD?</p><p><br /></p><p>That&#039;s all I was saying and asking.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in