Who thinks this ebay coin is a real error

Maybe God knows what you mean ? but where I live I sure as heck would not ask for some to please shoot me because I would not last five minutes. folks are dying so fast from being shot and overdoses in
in my immediate neighborhood it is so common we don't even pay any attention to it now. Just last night my ex brother in law was killed , don't know why yet but he had lots of cash.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

LOL. Finally finished all 7 pages of this thread?

 

Hi Mike
do you remember who owns that other coin. I would love to be able to see it to see if it is from the same set of dies as the one I own. I would be willing to wager that it is from the same dies as my coin if it looked the same. if you know where that coin is please let me know. Troy

 

I wasn't able to borrow the coin from the seller, but he got a credit from NGC. It was an "enhanced error". Someone took a genuine broadstrike and squeezed it between two other cents. Your cent is an obvious squeeze job because the incuse pillars of the Memorial are present on Lincoln's head. There has never been a genuine clash where that's been the case.

 

Mike when you mentioned you had seen another slabbed coin that looked like mine I thought it may have been from the same dies as my coin. what you are describing here is about the easiest thing there is to identify and anyone at NGC should have known better. the coin was not probably a broadstrike that was used. when you make a sandwich with three coins and smash them the center coin will flare way out of diameter from normal and look like a broadstrike except the outer edge of the rim is flat like a normal cent instead of round like a broadstrike.

Mike don't feel bad about calling my coin a hammer job because all you had to go by was the poor photos. I even called it a hammer job and jumped on the ebay seller that had this coin. when I first received it out of the mail I was about totally convinced it was a rare dropped filling coin like I collect and never did examine the reverse side of it because of this for about a week. If there was some way for you to see this coin I would almost bet my life you would agree with me that ICG has it labeled correctly. I know it's highly unusal looking but it absolutely has none of the signs of a hammer job whatsoever. there are so many things that screams it is a mint error and it would take me all night to describe it. thanks Mike for the reply and I hope we can remain friends. we have had our disagreements in the past but how many coin folks don't .If we agreed on everything it would be a boring world. Troy

 

This is hilarious. ointnlaugh:

 

Is this just_coins back again??

 

Rascal,

I want to apologise to you for posting anything you perceived as being an attack on you. I thought that I could bring up valid points and question your coin and your perceptions/rationalizations in calling it as you did and continue to do, as well as discussing the processes that go to make up those decisions, etc. Obviously it turns out from reading this and other threads of yours that that is impossible. All I get for my trouble is verbal dancing and spinning and no real discourse.

As I said in one of my posts before, If I found I had a boss/teacher/mentor, etc. I would have to quit them, I find I have to quit you. I have learned nothing from this and it has turned into a comedy of errors, so to speak, even though there is no error coin behind this. I think one of the last points I had on this was your turning Newton's Third law, in that For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, into a supposition that because one side is unaffected the coin in question has to be a true mint error that was done while the coin was on the anvil die, and that that would hold true for all coins that show something on only one side. Lost Dutchman called you on that as that being not correct, yet you responded by asking what you said was wrong, and how everything you said was always correct. Then Mike Diamond came on and said it was a hammer job, and also indicated the coin you thought was a twin to this one was also an "enhanced error" and you still go back to say that he's totally wrong. The only thing missing was the fact that you didn't say how he could really learn from you or the internet.

Therefore, I think the best thing for me to do is ignore you and your posts. I hope the ignore feature on this forum works, because I honestly want to have a good experience and be able to comment without someone reacting the way you have.

So, good luck to you, sir, and we go our separate ways.

 

Kasia, the ignore feature does work, as long as you don't click on the part that says "view post". =)

 

Judging from the OP's photograph, I'd say that the lightsource for the photo was at about K10. I say this because the edge of the coin is definitely in shadow at K4. ABE's forehead is also in shadow and we all know that ABE is in relief.

Given that, the band that crosses Abe's face from the eye to the ear appears to be incused on the coin based upon the shadows on the upper area of the band.

I'm of the opinion that the only clashing which occured on the OP's coin is when the reverse of another Lincoln Cent was forcibly clashed into the obverse of the subject coin.




IF this were a severe die clash as proposed by the OP, I would expect more evidence of the clash to have appeared in the K6 through K10 areas of the fields on the obverse.

Additionally, IF the "die" were warped enough to cause such an appearance on the coin due to a clash, I would then expect the areas between K6 and K10 to be extremely weak on subsequent coins. Specifically, the subject coin. LIBERTY appears to be strong.

As it sits, it definitely looks like a squeeze job between two coins and a firm, and forgiving, piece of leather which avoided damaging the reverse of the subject coin.

Until shown otherwise, thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

 

Aughhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

A challenge for the forum. Please post an image of a clash that travels over the devices (raised parts of the coin).
I have a few hundred clash images but none show this. If you can find one but can't post it , please PM and I will post it for you.

 

It CAN happen in the shallower raised device areas. (Memorial columns on Lincoln's neck.) When it does the clash tends to be incredibly strong in the field areas (unless the die has received EXTENSIVE repolishing) I don't believe it can appear in the deeper areas/higher relief as it pretends to on this coin. If it did, I would expect to see the ENTIRE design clashed into the die.

 

What you are saying does appear to make common sense .although sometimes we as error coin collectors do run into a few mint done things that are completely out of the ordinary and these tend to confuse us. If you could see this coin in hand it would be easier for you to understand. I'm not much good at trying to explain things as you can see from my posts and I have bad photos. my guess is that the reason the clash marks only shows in this one area is that the reverse die had a upwards warp or whatever the heck we want to call it in the same exact area as the die clash. this is visible on the reverse side of the coin and looks like a warped coin but this is only on the reverse side . there is so many things going on with this coin it would take a long time for me to describe everything. one thing I did notice before I put the coin in the mail is that some of the letters of America is also pushed up on and into the inside of the fragile rim. My belief is that if the retaining collar had not been in place this would have definately pushed the rim over a little.

I welcome all of you good folks opinions whether good or bad as long as you keep them about the coin and not me. I try my best to treat everyone good but sometimes it gets hard to keep ignoring.

 

I know of nothing that could cause a die face to warp outward and I've never seen an example of a coin struck with a die face that was warped outward. Die faces can SINK inward due to improper hardening and the constant pounding against the planchets. This produces what was described in that definition of a bulged die. (The term comes from sloppy language usage in the 19th century where a lot of early US coins were said to have missing central details due to bulged dies. The loss was actually due to the sinking of the die faces but the term "bulged die" stuck. Sometimes they would be called struck with buckled dies which was much closer to being correct. Unfortunately people tend to use bulged and buckled interchangeably.)

 

I definately realize what you are saying here is true and sometines our own words gets confused because each error person has different ways of thinking. I have been told that there are many error pro's on this forum and I'm having a heck of a time figuring out who they really are. Mike Diamond is the only one I personally know. I'm beginning to think that some of you do know a bit about error coins and are just trying to confuse me by just acting dumb. Am I right ???? This is just my own opinion. Hopefully I will learn who folks on here are as time goes by.Condor I'm not talking about you , I am talking about the ones acting like they don't know anything at all. I do love talking about coins with you folks. Troy W

 

Not a problem at all. check out this froum posters coin. one of the dies that made it has been buckled or warped from both sides of it near the edges of the die shaft and created a upwards curvature all the way across the die to allow the dies to become clashed like this. this shows that a warped or buckled die can reach into the deepest depressions of the other die. I can see a lot of Jeffersion's face details on the building of his coin and I'm sure it is easier to see in hand than the photo shoes. in my opinion a coin like mine or the other OP's coin should be worth more than a common die clash coin. I looked thru one roll of coins a few minutes ago and found a strong clashed die 1985 cent that has the building rotated on the OBV. of the coin and like my other coin the reverse is rotated by a few degrees. the coins from the 80's are bad about having rotated reverses

.http://www.cointalk.com/t196158/

 

You know something Rascal? I think folks would be more receptive to you if you actually did talk or converse about this stuff you come up with. But the reality is, which you undoubtedly cannot see, is that you don't talk nor do you converse, instead you "talk at". You never ask questions, you only tell folks how they've either "totally missed it" or are acting dumb just to perplex you.

It certainly appears that, despite your constant pleas for folks to "talk" with you about this stuff, you only want your point of view heard.

For example, conder101 replied, quite intelligently, to your reference to die warp yet you've totaly blown off his reply with your own personal diatribe about how nobody seems to know what the **** they're talking about, all the while trying to make conder101 feel appreciated with your "Condor (sic) I'm not talking about you" comments. (It's conder101 as in Conder Tokens)

I suppose I could only agree with you on one part of the above reply. The one where you "love" talking about coins. Unfortunately, I think you really love to "hear" yourself talking about coins since I've yet to see a single post where you've actually tried to communicate with anybody other than refuting their presentations and explanations and "telling" them what it actually is!

Submit the coin to Mike Diamond for personal examinations. After he's seen it in hand and tells you it's a squeeze job, submit it to John Wexler. Ken Potter might be interested along with Fred Weinberg. I'm truly interested in seeing that you get a "true, paid professional" to look at your piece.

Once all the documentation is done, please post the results. Then again, maybe you won't have to since, if it is as rare or unique as what you claim it is, I'm sure one of the afore mentioned individuals just might be eager to publish the results in either Coin World, Numismatic News or perhaps CONECA's Errorscope.

I think the dance is over.

 

And right back to fairy land. :too-funny:

 

Well I'm begining to think that some people don't know much about errors but like to act like it. So now we're even. Happy?