Well, I for one appreciate the extra explanations and information. Too often here a response is two or three words and comes across as a canned response (PMD being one example, although to be fair often that is a question that has a really simple/straightforward answer.) As someone who doesn't know what shape the tool that sealed the 1974 mint sets was, I appreciate all the extra explanation and information that helps the answer "make sense." Just my two cents.
Or maybe that's what they were to to do.. Present a good looking package of coins. If you mess up on 1 sealed set then do it over again.
This might be a stupid question - but is "sealing machinery damage" technically a mint error, or "pseudo-post-mint-damage"
Nope..The word Doubled is only used when reffering to Doubled Die Varieties.. A planchet struck more than once is a double strike.
i actually bought one for 10.00 before i realized just damage, either by the mint's crimper or afterword, i am a bit teed off, lol wish i had seen this article and the other posted earlier on
Well, that's kind of Reason #2 why I posted mine - first, to educate myself and second, to potentially help others. To partially quote the famous words of Monty Python's The Bishop, I was "TOO LATE." (Sorry about Youtube's stupid ads)
i bought the coin and the very next day i saw a post about the cent, then yours, lol too late, and i figured since was my mistake, and the vendor was not misleading, it was my dumb-ass that bought the thing, so lesson learned...
I agree with @Fred Weinberg The spacing between the obverse markings matches the distance between the "pseudo-perforations" of the sealer markings. Here is how it happened likely: 1. At the time of contact with the sealer, the dime was way over to the side where the sealer would normally make contact. 2. Seeing the sealer only made contact with the dime along its outer rim, the pressure caused the dime to skid over (just like how a bar of soap squirts out of your hand) back into its proper "bubble". Thus the contact wasn't made where the dime is shown in the photos; it was along the periphery of the sealer marks, and the skidding explains the "lines" rather than the "circular patterns" seen along the sealed edge of the plastic. 3. As for the marks on the reverse, upon striking just the outer rim of the dime, it caused the dime to raise slightly and was therefore now not sitting perfectly flat as the sealer made contact with it; the dime was tilted a bit. This further explains why the obverse pattern consists of short, linear, longer, and equally-spaced markings. On the reverse side, it likely made contact with the edge of the sealer - not the flat side which would be perforated - which would leave a long, uninterrupted linear indent as seen on the reverse.