Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;TS10, post: 1727318, member: 47611&quot;]dsmith23, I shall look into their services, thank you for that information.</p><p><br /></p><p>ldhair, In the first post, I wrote, &quot;There are what looks like high and low spots where the grease squeezed under tremendous pressure escaped between the planchet and die.&quot;,</p><p><br /></p><p>and in the 2nd post I wrote, &quot;Regarding this coin though, I don&#039;t think environmental damage is the cause as there is no obvious oxidation of the coin&#039;s metal. I do have coins that have environmental damage, and under magnified observation doesn&#039;t look at all the same. I&#039;d also think environmental damage would not cause the pillars to be slanted as such. Grease flow seems to fit as the deformation of the words seem to get worse toward the bottom of the reverse side as the grease flowed in that direction. The wavy rivulets on the obverse side on Lincoln&#039;s image could have been caused by a rapid vibration which shifted the coin&#039;s orientation, and also affected the monument too because the die metal didn&#039;t shift to cause that slant. The damage to the rim may possibly have been caused when the rapid flowing grease caused the rim to be forced out and up, causing it to become thinner the higher it flowed. It is hard to say whether the rim&#039;s folding over was at the mint or post release.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>I was very clear in my posts. Please read my posts and show me where I wrote that I think it was not. You writing, &quot;I think&quot;, shows that you should read them more carefully, and then post a reply. I have put a lot of thought into this. I live in part by 2 rules, &quot;Think before you say&quot;, and &quot;Think before you do&quot;. If you live by those 2 rules, you will find yourself with less things you regret saying or doing. Of course they aren&#039;t the only 2 rules I live by, but they do help tremendously. You said, &quot;I have never seen a coin that came from the mint with this look or one in good plastic as an error coin.&quot; From your statement, I get the impression you either have been to the mint, or work in a mint. Either way, in 1982 16,729,361,847 (that&#039;s 16 billion, closing in on 17 billion). That is a lot of coins. Put it this way, if you looked at 100 coins per second, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year without breaks or sleeping, it would take you roughly 5.3 years to look at them all. Isn&#039;t it possible something like this slipped past?</p><p><br /></p><p>You are correct that there is no way to prove exactly what caused this. But given the evidence of the coins appearance and my experience, it is what I deduce. Grease cannot be compressed to any significant amount. It is on par with hydraulic fluid, or even sea water at the deepest depths. So when the die comes down and there is a lot of grease on the planchet, something&#039;s gotta give way to the tremendous pressure. The die is of a harder material than the planchet. The grease under pressure is harder than the planchet, it is the planchet that is going to have to give way to the flowing grease. Anything that is compressed also generates heat. Bending a clothes hanger wire compresses the molecules which produces friction, which produces heat. Compressing air produces heat. Ever feel a Nitrous Oxide tank that has been rapidly filled? It&#039;s hot. Take a spark plug out of a car engine and press your finger/thumb over the hole as hard as you can and have someone crank the motor. The compressed air will shoot past your finger/thumb and give you a very nice hot burn.</p><p><br /></p><p>I asked what can cause the pillars to be slanted like they are and got no reasonable answer. As stated before, I know what a coin in acid looks like, and it is not like my coin. I know what a coin looks like when heated to its melting point, and it definitely does not look like my coin. The fine features would all be melted away. When the metal melts, and puddles, when it cools what makes it go back to its original design? If that were the case, then when all those crushed recycled soda cans are melted down and cooled, they should all go back to their original shape. Why is this such a hard thing to understand? When you put a coin in acid, metal is removed from the coin. How so then does this removed metal find its way back onto the coin and go back to its original areas (letters, numbers, pillars, etc.)?</p><p><br /></p><p>I posted the measurements of the coins diameter and thickness. As stated, there isn&#039;t any significant metal loss compared to the average 1982 coin. There goes the dryer theory, as that theory requires the coin to lose metal due to metal to metal frictional contact. Do you see any smooth areas flat areas on the obverse and reverse sides that would match the semi flat surface of a dryer drum, especially the rim which would be the first poinst of contact? I don&#039;t.</p><p><br /></p><p>Does my coin look anything like the road rashed coins I posted pictures of? No it doesn&#039;t.</p><p><br /></p><p>non_cents, you wrote, &quot;As to &quot;proving us wrong&quot;, you still have yet to prove how this is a mint error.&quot; That is not how I proved you wrong as your first post you wrote, &quot;I would say that what you have is an acid-dipped cent. It has been damaged outside the mint and is not an error.&quot;, and as stated (how many times already?) I know for a fact what an acid dipped coin looks like and it does not look like my coin. So I have proven you wrong right there. You also (none of you) have not answered my questions. Have any of you dipped a coin in acid, melted a coin, or put a coin in a dryer (or did an accelerated version of a dryer coin test)? Not a single one of those who so easily posted that it was an acid coin, &quot;Because of the slanted plllars of the building it looks like this coin has been in a house fire or maybe someone used a torch on it. In my opinion the coin has been in a near liquid state from a heat source and the metal almost started flowing.This would also cause the pitted look.&quot;, &quot;the damage to the rim points to having been in a commercial clothes dryer. I suspect the distortion of the surfaces is from the same.&quot; &quot;Damaged. Not a mint error. Probably acid.&quot;, and on and on. All thoughtless conjecture without a single shred of decent evidence on the coin to back it up. Isn&#039;t there a resident expert who comes on this forum? Someone with a background in metallurgy, hydraulics, mintage processes?</p><p><br /></p><p>Have you ever given thought as to the harm your conjectures may cause some new member? What if their coin was something special? And just because you have more time on this forum does not automatically make you right, or more knowledgeable than a junior member, does it? What if that person believes you sincerely and sells it for a couple of bucks when it was worth a lot more. Are you going to pay him the difference he lost? If not, either don&#039;t post what you don&#039;t know, or make sure what you post is truth. If you&#039;re not sure, it would be best to just read it and leave it at that.</p><p><br /></p><p>You also wrote, &quot;Sure, maybe it isn&#039;t exactly damaged in the way that we said it is&quot;. Maybe it isn&#039;t exactly damaged in the way you all said it was? Not even remotely close. How&#039;s that? And, do I appear to be someone who goes into hiding? If you think so, you have no idea of who and what I am. I could say the same about you. You know from the things I&#039;ve posted that your assumption is not correct, yet you still don&#039;t admit it publicly. I admitted I was wrong to rickmp even though I knew I was right. That&#039;s why I looked it up to confirm it, and then I posted that I was correct the first time. If I am the type that would go into hiding, I would have just ignored his post. I met it head on. I posted, &quot;When I am wrong, I don&#039;t hesitate to admit so. Can the rest of you do so?&quot;, and not one of you has responded to that. All I see is, &quot;Send it in. Send it in...&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t see any, &quot;You know what? Your theory on this makes a whole lot more sense than the ones we posted and you dispelled.&quot; It should be obvious to you that I know things, have things, do things. But you all still seem to want to hide your heads and say the world is flat. But I will accept your challenge on the condition that if I am right, you go and apologize to every person your jumped the gun on and gave a possible/probable wrong diagnosis of their coin. You should do that anyway without any challenge and without me telling you. It&#039;s what honorable people do. I&#039;d also like to suggest taking up a collection to send Jim_M&#039;s coin in, for I truly believe he got a raw deal in someone telling him that his coin basically was worthless.</p><p><br /></p><p>So tell me who this &#039;expert&#039; is, and I will look him/her up and see what their backgrounds and educations are. If they are satisfactory, I will send it in without hesitation. But they can&#039;t be just a grader of coins. They must have backgrounds in what I mentioned above, and they must be honest. But they&#039;d only be doing what I did (calculated guess/process of elimination), assessing a coins state from the evidence at hand by its appearance. A true way would be to replicate the process I said caused this. If someone knows the pressure used on the master die to press the planchet, perhaps we can make a reasonable facsimile as it shouldn&#039;t be hard to make a copper planchet, engrave some kind of design, then add grease on it and ram the die home. It would also help to know the speed the die is rammed.[/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