Washington Contact Marks?

I'm clearly seeing alot of these gouges in the presidential dollar. They are all the same with a gouge on one side with a metal lip on the surface of the coin and a small indentation on the opposite side. If this is caused by machines other than the ones used in production why don't we see other coins with this same type of damage (for example Sacagaweas....aren't they the same size as the Presidential dollar and wouldn't you see a few Sacs with the same type of damage if they go through the same machines following minting?). I have not seen any Sacs with this type of damage/error.

Myster

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

GDJMSP,thank you for your opinion, i totally agree,as most know by now the bulk of the "P" MINT ERRORS have been found in rolls dated feb 12th which only tells us that on whatever given day the mint had a problem and those (the bulk) were rolled at CWI on feb 12th, the guesses as to how many are out there so far has been based on bin size which i don't think has anything to do with it,at 1000 a minute and supposedley someone manning the machine,how many could have gotten through on that day before they did something,how closely are they watching?i can't believe that this could have gone on for any length of time,what do you think 20min,40 min? and who is to say it did'nt happen 5-6 times that day?

 

The gouge is definitely post-strike damage and probably post-production damage. The straitions on the reverse face are die scrapes, possibly from a mis-timed feeder finger.

 

There you go folks. I do not believe that you will get a more accurate professional opinion than the one listed above.

post strike. Thanks Mike

Jim

 

This still doesn't answer my questions from my previous post.

myster

 

Maybe I missed the questions you mean.

What caused the gouges? - Most of the postings give the poster's opinion on that question.

What caused the scratches? - References to "post mint damage" and to "bag marks" seem to me to respond to that question.

Is there a third question in your original post that I am not seeing

 

The questions were:

If this is caused by machines other than the ones used in production why don't we see other coins with this same type of damage (for example Sacagaweas....aren't they the same size as the Presidential dollar and wouldn't you see a few Sacs with the same type of damage if they go through the same machines following minting?). I have not seen any Sacs with this type of damage/error.


myster

 

Do the horizontal strike Schuler presses use feed fingers?

 

Great pics!! thanks for posting them. I bought 6 rolls of the washignton coins when they first came out and i heard about these 'godless' coins. Only 1 of mine was different, and it had the same kind of damage as in the pics you posted. However, mine is over the 'U' in unum.... Error, post mint damage... i may never know for certain.... but the damage has appeared on more then a few of these dollars, and only the dollars, so i will keep my coin, if only for its oddity =)

 

Mike,

So let me get this straight, the feeder finger imparts these scratches onto the planchet prior to the strike? I guess that makes sense and would explain why they dissappear under the raised surfaces of the coin and then reappear in line with each other. Excuse my ignorance, but could the same effect be generated by a scratched or improperly polished die? Or is that simply not possible?

Myster

 

On each of my coins, there are two gouges, one on "trust" and also on the u in "unum." I hate to say it, but I still believe that you guys are wrong about post mint damage....Daggarjon's post merely increases the number of coins with this gouge or damage in the same place....I don't know what to believe...GDJMSP, I believe you are one of (if not the most) knowledgeable collectors on this forum, but I still have to go with my own gut feeling, that these coins were indeed damaged in some way by the edge lettering process...

GDJMSP, would you say that there is absolutely no possible way that these coins could ever be damaged in some way by the edge lettering process?

Oh, and your welcome for the pics, Daggarjon...It took a while to get ones that I thought were reasonably focused....=p

 

This seems to be getting out of hand.

We use the term "post Mint damage" very often, but what we really mean is "post strike". Those nasty edge gouges were made after the coin was struck and lettered. If it happened a split second afterward or a year afterward, it is just damage nonetheless.

The main issue here is, could this damage be proven to have been caused at the Mint? If the same damage could be caused outside of the Mint, then the damage - even if caused by mint machines - has no value since it could be easily faked.

Also, it is not up to people here to prove that it isn't mint damage, it is up to those who claim that it is an error to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is mint damage. Based on the fact that the damage occurred after the minting process, it could never, in my mind, be proven to be an error.

Lastly, with the involvement of outside companies to roll the coins, I don't see any reliable way to ensure that the mint caused it. And besides, as long as an "error" can be exactly recreated outside of the mint, then it is not worth debating.

 

I would agree with your point that this could be "post strike" damage, however, I believe that as more of these surface, it might be possible to discover some sort of marker that differentiates between a real example of this "error" and a fake one, just as there are diagnostics to assess the authenticity of a clip... I believe that as long as it is provable that these happened at the mint, such as the fact that all of the ones that I've seen have the damage in the same location, they should be classified as a mint error.

 

Perhaps I should clarify. You are indeed correct about all of the situations in which a coin should be considered damaged. The main point I'm trying to convey is that it seems to me that since these coins are being found with the damage in the same spots in relation to the edge lettering, this damage HAS TO BE coming from either a defective edge lettering die, or at some other point in the edge lettering machine, before the coins have a chance to move freely and thus randomize the placement of the gouges in relationship to the edge lettering. Doug, according to your definition of what a mint error is, I believe these should indeed be classified as an error, simply due to the fact that these are being found with the damage in the same location.

This is fun isn't it? I love a good ol' fashioned friendly argument=p

 

It is not edge lettered in any particular orientation, but the gouges are in the same position relative to the edge lettering.

 

I'm going to have to agree with what GDJMSP is saying.

 

^That's what I mean.

 

These striations are much coarser and straighter than scratches associated with intentional die abrasion ("die polishing"). They show a consistent directionality, while die scratches fly off in all directions.