While browsing ebay, i came across this coin. The seller makes claim to it being a MS coin, which could be possible i suppose. He goes on to explain the marks on the obverse are from being struck through a cloth, I also notice some marks on the reverse which are similar, but less distinct. I was interested in hearing other opinions on this in my pursuit for knowledge.
If just looking at one side I would agree it may have been struck through a piece of cloth. But I see no way it could have happened on both sides because of gravity. A piece of cloth just couldn't stick to the hammer die. Nor would it be missed by the mint workers - they would have to see it since the coin was struck with a hand operated press.
It has a similar effect to the copper woodies with a mirror image on the reverse which might indicate the planchet as the source of the phenomenon. Perhaps roller marks from the planchet production?
Those could very well be hand filed adjustments marks that were left on the planchet. Although this practice was stopped in and around 1830, it appears this maybe the last of the Mohecans.
Would they file both sides of the planchet?...also hard to believe they would go 2 different directs on one half of the coin on both sides...if that makes sense
Lets just say we have adjustment marks going in one direction and then roller marks going in the other direction. On these type of planchets, roller marks could be visible on both sides after the strike.
I think perhaps the most likely cause of these marks was deliberate action taken after minting. For example, placing the coin between two pieces of cloth. Then putting that on a piece of wood, then putting another piece of wood on top and striking it with a hammer or mallet. The end result would be just like a squeeze job when somebosy tries to fake an error.
Wonder why someone would do that doug, though it does sound more reasonab than other explanations...if they only knew then what we know now
I would think the why would be obvious - so they could get more money out of the coin than they could otherwise.
Doug, If that was the case wouldn't the design be effected more then the fields because it is raised? To me it appears that the fields show more depth of the marks then the design itself. Look at the marks on the reverse... they are defined in the field and appear to be weaker in the design of the left wing. One could argue that the marks are "lost" in the design but I would think the heavy ones would be apparent.
I guess to some it might increase the value but to some I think it would detract value...maybe I'm wrong.
That coin does not have original surfaces IMO its clearly been heavily dipped. That being said, the way those marks seem to "disappear" into the design indicate some sort of planchet flaw.
Maybe, and maybe not. It would really depend on how the pressure was applied and at what points. Think of how a weak strike affects a coin, or mechanical doubling affects a coin. Either can literally happen anywhere on the coin and yet nowhere else on the coin. Same kind of thing is possible with squeeze jobs and for the same reasons. There really are endless possibilities. As for the marks being planchet marks, roller marks, adjustment marks - or anything like that - I believe it much more likely for them to be intentionally manufactured marks than any of those. You're not wrong at all. Just like with error coins, some collectors like them and will often pay outrageous premiums for them while yet others will only pay a fraction of normal value because of them. And that is what I am thinking happened here - somebody tried to manufacture an error coin for financial gain. That is afterall what a strikethrough is - an error.
Yes you can find coins that have adjustment marks on both sides, and the practice of adjusting planchets did NOT end in the 1830's. It continued into the early 20th century. But as production equipment improved less and less adjustment had to take place and eventually it was done by filing the edge of the blank and not the faces. This does not look like adjustment or roller marks though. Frankly it looks more like low quality repair work done to the fields of the coin post strike.
