I'm still unable to see that "identical shape" from this photo, even after having been told what to look for.
It took two men. One to hold the coin the other to use a miniature jack hammer. End of argument, I win!
Visualize it like using a dentist drill to carve deeper into the tooth to hold the filling. Those bits are a fraction of a mm. My dentist gives me the old sterilized slightly dull ones for my "rocks" , and they are usually from .1mm-2.0mm and they are generally ball shaped end so they can move in all directions, not just up and down. Jim
I do see that they were punched, now. They aren't quite identical, if you ask me. I saw the bottom rightmost two punches as just one. But yes, I definitely see that they are punched. I wonder how delicate one must be to have the punch work as intended, without leaving even the most marginal of bumps on the other side. The four punches: at first I just saw three.
There is also the fact that the recesses of the hair do not show any luster, I see lighting but no real luster.
Damn, that's a helluv an eye! Again, I'm weak in the series but I couldn't find it. I know those typically flat in that area but picking out real from fake lines is another level. Thanks for the lesson! Have you even seen this done on smaller coins like Lincolns or dimes?
But why? Why make such a minor alteration - damaging a coin - for no real visible benefit? What was the likely motivation?
More detail on a coin usually means a higher selling price. It was done to make the coin look less circulated.
Is the change visible without magnification? It took some serious magnification to see it for me, I understand that less circulated equals more money, but did these minor "punches" really make enough of a difference to raise the selling price to someone who wouldn't look closely. Well, given what's selling on eBay these days, I'm going to guess you are correct.
Would depend on the year and mint mark I'd guess. Seems like a lot of trouble for a random date Morgan.
BadThad, posted:"Damn, that's a helluv an eye! Again, I'm weak in the series but I couldn't find it. I know those typically flat in that area but picking out real from fake lines is another level. Thanks for the lesson!" Have you even seen this done on smaller coins like Lincolns or dimes?" No. The bands on dimes are usually added as a scratching motion. MIGuy, posted: "But why? Why make such a minor alteration - damaging a coin - for no real visible benefit? What was the likely motivation?" When I was collecting, I could buy an 1884-O $ with full blazing luster and virtually no visible marks graded no higher than MS-64 becaus it was flatly struck with no hairlines. Put a complete strike on a coin as that and you have today's 67+ to 68. That's why. They don't do this kind of alteration to comon coins. Making a better date $ go from 45 or 50 to 55 or 58 can be $$$$. That's why. Professionals tell collectors do not "micro-grade." That's fine but when you have studied coins at high power under florescent light for a while, things jump out at you with your unaided eye - if you are looking for them. If you are not looking for them or don't know what to look for, you'll miss a lot of things. THAT's why I try to trick and mislead everyone. We live in a cruel world. You need to be able to see things for yourself rather than me telling you what you are looking at. Another thing. I work at a world far above the magnifications most use to grade and authenticate. When I post these small areas of a coin, you are in "my world" so don't be hard on yourselves and please don't feel I'm out to make anyone here look dumb! I leave that to the jealous little people who troll my posts.
To someone who isn't looking really closely, I imagine these punches would change the coin's naked-eye appearance from "typical weakly-struck hair over ear" to "wow, this coin was hammered, it's even got detail over the ear!" And they'd be right, but not in the way they though, apparently.