Post Your Best Favorite Error Coins.

100% with the mods on this.

They are a business. And if you pay them enough, they will slab anything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Cool!

 

Thanks

Just wish I could learn what CAUSED it.

 

I think it was a Raised die overlapping the wheat leaf, Mine is raised sunken Die craters in Kennedy 1964.

 

My thought is it's a retained cud. I borrowed your pic to circle what I think is a piece of the outer perimeter of the die. After the die broke this piece then was pushed in against the die.

 

I hope you'll forgive my ignorance...what is a Raised die?

That was my original thought as well, though in another thread I had about this coin (quite a while ago) that theory was advanced, and discarded. ikandiggit explained that it was not a "retained cud", but then we chose to wait for one of the "Lincoln Experts"..who never arrived. *heh*

So...I'm still unsure. :scratch:

What I can tell you is this...the "area" is definitely raised, not indented. And it completely obliterates any trace of the wheat stalk. To be honest, in-hand, it looks for all the world like a "copy" of the coin's rim.

 

Remember, when it's raised on the coin, it's lower on the die. The reason the part of the wheat stalk is obliterated is because that part of the die is broken away. I think the reason it looks like a copy of the rim is that it actually is a part of the rim. If the reverse die is the anvil die then it's on the bottom and that piece of the rim could just be laying there held by gravity.

Disclaimer: I'm by no means a Lincoln expert so thake this for what it's worth!:smile

 

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut....

If it IS a piece of the die or rim...then it would be HIGHER than the die, resulting in an INDENTED area, right??

I'm certainly no minting or Lincoln expert either...but I'm not seeing how any broken piece of...well...anything...could cause this, since it's raised on the coin??

 

The piece of the die that breaks off will usually sink down below the rest of the die. You can only go by what the coin says. The part that's raised on the coin has to be lower on the die.

 

I'm feeling exceptionally stupid today then... (Nothing new)

But I'm just not picturing it.

If there's a piece of something there, then the coin would be recessed...it isn't. As you say, this part HAS to be lower on the die.

Ok, fine...but if something's MISSING from the die, then why isn't that area simply void?? Why such a perfect copy of the raised rim?

If it's the edge of the die that's simply "sunk" a bit somehow, then how did the "normal" part of the rim get struck completely??

Sorry...really not meaning to say you're wrong, rather that I am ignorant, and just can't picture what you're describing.

Anyone care to come up with a handy visual aide? *lol*

 

Not an expert in errors, but what I believe he is saying is that a retain portion of a coin broke the die, and pushed in that section on the die. Then the cud fell off. Your coin was next to be struck, and when the die hit it the damaged part, being pushed in, resulted in a raised section. Eventually dies like that will lose the broken piece, (it will just fall out), and then a true cud will be struck on the next coin struck after. Usually when things like this happen the die shatters not long after, this is why they are not more common.

Chris

 

Maybe this will illustrate. Think of this as a side view sectional of the die. In the upper right is where the piece of the die broke off. The little blue thingy is where the broken off rim part is laying.

Maybe we should just go with Redwins raised die explanation. :rollling::smile

 

Me either, obviously! *lol*

Ok..I follow you. And, at least in my cloudy brain, that's how I understood his explanation as well.

But here's what I'm not getting about that:

Let's start with a complete, "correct" anvil die for the reverse.

Some cud...some bit of a previous coin...gets trapped in there and "broke the die, and pushed in that section of the die". Ok..I'm fine with that.

But now...with that section pushed in...there's a void there, right? There's no die where it should be..it's empty space...with the die being "pushed in"...lower than the rest of the die.

So...

What formed the GOOD rim where it belongs?

 

Ok...that's what I had in mind (great drawing btw)..but my question (which I was typing as you posted, apparently) remains...

What formed the "correct" rim? There's a void there at the "top right"...no rim should have been formed on the edge in that area.

I'm fine with that one too! Of course...I don't know what one IS, soooooo.... *lol*

===================

I appreciate the patience with me, guys...really not trying to say anyone's "wrong"...just trying to understand. The process fascinates me, and I like being able to visualize it when I can.

 

[video=youtube;6hg-pCJFMZo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hg-pCJFMZo[/video]

 

Here we go again.

 

What on earth is a 'raised die'.
No such animal.

agreed, retained cud.

 

I think the "good rim" as you're referring to would be created by the collar around the planchet. In looking at the picture, I originally thought that part of the die broke off. That would make it a cud. This is reinforced by the fact that the "lump" in the middle of the wheat stalk looks like a piece of pie. I mean, relative to the rim, it's triangular rather than parallel. (I know I'm explaining that wrong, but think of it like a pie that's been cut, but someone took the crust from one of the pieces.) When the piece broke off, there would be a new "edge" to the die break. When the metal fills the void, the initial edge would take on the characteristics associated with the break, however, with pressure from both top and bottom, there would be the introduction of resistance (I'm guessing from air or possibly grease) to the flow of metal by the pressing plates.

I have zero knowledge of how coins are made (in the sense that I've never been to a US Mint), but I'm guessing the planchet gets squeezed between two dies and two anvils. The bottom anvil would create a point of resistance, assuming the die broke and fell off. However, if it chipped off, there would be a possibility that some metal would still be stuck to the die. That could create the rim/lump/rim impression that is on your coin. Again, this hypothesis is based upon never seeing a coin press.

Edit from here on... didn't want to start a new post and bump the thread:

Regardless of the penny/dime value on the market, I still don't understand why the poster won't submit the card to PCGS or NGC or even ANACS, for that matter, to get graded/slabbed. Accugrade has a horrible track record, not just for over-grading coins, but worse yet for authenticating fake or altered coins.

If the error is as valuable as the poster believes, it would behoove him to submit the coin for authentication by a respected grading service. That would be his only chance at getting reasonable market value for the item.

All of that said, I started thinking about the value of the coin:

If the coin owner declined a satchel of money in 1995 and opted for the coin, the impression the owner wanted to establish was that the coin was worth a substantial amount of money. That said, was the transfer of ownership of the coin recorded with the IRS? I'm sure they would be very interested to find out that someone gave away a $640k coin (estimated based upon what I know fits in my briefcase/satchel in $1 bills - 64 100-bill straps). If the coin was claimed, what was the value that the coin was taxed upon? I'm fairly certain that based upon the cash being declined, tax law would mandate that the coin be valued at the amount of cash declined -- at least for the purposes of what the IRS would tax.

If the taxes weren't paid, that would be 15 years of tax penalties. I'm guessing the coin owner didn't pay the $352,800 tax bill (52% on it being valued as a gift at $640,000) to the US and their state, so the penalties would push that number close to $500,000. That would establish the basis for capital gains on the coin at whatever amount was claimed in 1995.

Now, that said, I suppose the owner could have claimed $1500 as the value of the coin for tax purposes in 1995. That's fine. However, for the purposes of insurance, in absence of recent sales records, tax records are used for the valuation of insurance claims. That would mean the coin is worth $1500 for insurance purposes without recent sales records or an appraisal. The offer of $10,000 could be used to establish an appraisal, but it would be necessary to prove that the offer was contractually reasonable: The buyer had the money to complete the transaction and would have entered into the purchase without any coercion by the seller or other party.

So, for tax purposes, the coin is worth $640k, but for insurance purposes, it's worth $1500. Now, that said, the owner is trying to sell the coin for multiples of a million dollars. In declining legitimate offers in excess of a million dollars, the IRS would claim (and rightfully so) that the owner was aware of the value of the coin at the time of the original transfer. Without evidence of transfer (meaning tax records), the IRS would assume the transfer occurred as of the date of the offer of sale by the current owner. Once provenance were tied to the father of the child that died in 1988, the IRS would pursue taxes on this new amount from the estate of the father and from the current owner of the coin.

I don't know about everyone else, but if I owed gift tax or transfer tax on an item with a value in excess of $1mm, I would not be declining offers on the coin and boasting about its value. I would instead submit the coin to a Christy's for auction. At least that way, the IRS would only come after me for the final sale value (less auction & marketing fees).

 

Actually the unstruck planchet has a rim from the upsetting mill.

 

Oh dangit..you're absolutely right! I saw that in a video somewhere once, that the rim existed PRIOR to the strike...and completely forgot about it.

Thanks for the reminder...that sure makes this a whole lot more understandable now!