wonder what caused this???

Discussion in 'Error Coins' started by john65999, Nov 28, 2021.


is this proof cent with"reeding a mint error or pmd??

  1. real error

    0 vote(s)
  2. nope, try again!!

  3. do not rightly know

  1. john65999

    john65999 Well-Known Member

    reeding on a proof cent?? or pmd?? s-l1600.jpg s-l1600.jpg
    Tamaracian, sel w, capthank and 3 others like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.
  3. JPD3

    JPD3 Well-Known Member

  4. Inspector43

    Inspector43 Collecting Since 1948 Supporter

    Looks like someone tried to mount it in a bezel.
  5. alurid

    alurid Well-Known Member

    Got hit by the press that seals the poly holder that the mint put them in.
    Marks are on the face not the edge of the coin.
    Post strike, mint damage.
  6. Collecting Nut

    Collecting Nut Borderline Hoarder

  7. love old coins

    love old coins Well-Known Member

    It might be damaged but it actually made the cent look better!
  8. paddyman98

    paddyman98 I'm a professional expert in specializing! Supporter

    What @alurid stated is correct.
    We have seen examples still inside the US Mint packaging with that damage.

    Interesting if you think about it though..
    It is post strike damage but pre circulation meaning before it left the Mint. It is some sort of in between Mint Error/Damage issue :wideyed:

    I would call it a Quasi-Mint Error ;)
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
    john65999, Penny Luster and ldhair like this.
  9. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

    I'm thinking it has something to do with the packaging process as well.
  10. JPD3

    JPD3 Well-Known Member

  11. paddyman98

    paddyman98 I'm a professional expert in specializing! Supporter

    Excellent images. I'm keeping it for my reference image folder. Thanks!
  12. JPD3

    JPD3 Well-Known Member

    It was something coin guy R. Cooper put out about 3 yrs. ago when asked the same question by someone. I thought it was good enough to file away, too.:)
  13. Oldhoopster

    Oldhoopster Member of the ANA since 1982

    Even though @paddyman98 is correct and the damage occurred before it left the mint or mint authorized packaging facility or vendor (does the mint package all the proof sets in the San Fran facility?), packaging damage has never been considered a mint error.

    The OP has started a few threads claiming that MD and DDD have a premium value and should be treated as mint errors. We shouldn't give him the impression that packaging damage is valuable as well. Just my opinion.
  14. Mr.Q

    Mr.Q Well-Known Member

    If the damage is real damage or the damage is not real damage but may be considered damage or could be damage, is it real damage or not real damage, who is blame for the damage. Oh heck, I don't know, ask paddyman.
    JPD3 and john65999 like this.
  15. Cliff Reuter

    Cliff Reuter Active Member

    An interesting coin to say the least.

    IMHO, an image of the edge would be helpful.

    It does look like the image from R. Cooper of packaging equipment damage but .... proof sets came in hard plastic containers, not soft packs in 1993.

    The "reeding" appear to be frosted like original devices of the coin (not shiny like the fields or shiny that can be caused by damage) and to be contained to the rim gutter of both dies. (Unless this "frosting" is an optical illusion, I'm wondering if this may be a die issue.)
    Those ridges/"reeding" appear like they happened before the "frosting" was applied.

    Hmmm, .... now I'm wondering how a reverse and obverse die, which are manufactured at different times (and not paired together until the striking chamber) have similar die damage to the rim gutter.

    Maybe it is damage from a bezel, if it turns out there is no "frosting" on the "reeds"?

    A couple of questions about mint packaging on uncirculated mint sets and packaging equipment.
    ----Packaging equipment can't damage opposite poles of a coin, can they? ----Wouldn't the damage from packaging equipment have to be a single side or adjoining sides (right angles)?

    Thanks in advance for any insight.
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
    Revello, John Burgess and john65999 like this.
  16. Mountain Man

    Mountain Man Supporter! Supporter

    I got go with packaging damage and also ask the question:
    Or is it done at a third party facility, meaning it left the mint?
    john65999 likes this.
  17. CaptHenway

    CaptHenway Survivor

    Glad to see that I am not the only person who caught this.

    Not Mint Set crimper damage. What it is, I do not know.
    john65999 and Cliff Reuter like this.
  18. alurid

    alurid Well-Known Member

    With this information its just got to be plain old PMD.
    Maybe it got damaged being remove from said hard plastic case instead of being put in a soft one. Really makes me wonder about it.
  19. Collecting Nut

    Collecting Nut Borderline Hoarder

    It’s the government. It could be it was sealed in plastic for uncirculated sets and was removed from by the mint and resealed in hard plastic. Damage is damaged.
    john65999 likes this.
  20. Cliff Reuter

    Cliff Reuter Active Member

    I'm hoping the OP will include close-up images of the edge so we can tell if there really are "frosted" surfaces on and around the "reeds".

    EDITED: I've included an image by the OP with arrows I've added concerning my question about the "frosting".

    I agree that incuse areas on a coin are generally PSD, but not always. (And the one part of the minting process that affects both sides of the rim at the same time by the same piece of equipment is the upsetting mill. I don't think this is a result of the upsetting mill.)
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
    Tamaracian and JPD3 like this.
  21. Oldhoopster

    Oldhoopster Member of the ANA since 1982

    The mint didn't put proof coins in uncirculated sets.

    I think the key question is: How could this occur during the minting process? I don't know how it could. A respected numismatic researcher like @CaptHenway can't offer an explanation at this time. No other member has offered a plausible theory of where in the minting cycle it happened.
    So, if it can't be explained as having occurred at the mint, can it be an error?

    A couple of observations. You may have noticed the same things, may find them intetesting, or may think I don't know certain parts of my anatomy from a hole in the ground, but I'm posting them anyway.

    * the indentation pattern matches on the obverse and reverse indicating that it couldn't have happened before the striking process
    * to leave indents, wouldn't the anomalies on the collar have be raised? What could cause that?
    * some indents have distortion towards the fields. Wouldn't the dies block this during the strike? At what point could that metal flow/distortion occur? Certainly not after the hammer die retracts. There is also some distortion towards the edge on both sides. Wouldn't the collar prevent that, especially on the anvil die side?
    * can't say for certain due to the pics, but some indents appear to have raised/displaced metal on the sides. Once again, how could this occur during the striking process

    As others have said, the 1993 proof sets were packaged in hard plastic, not the soft pressed plastic that can be subject to packaging damage. However, it looks like packaging damage and nothing seems to point to it occurring during the minting process. I think you have to conclude it's post strike damage until more info is provided
  22. John Burgess

    John Burgess Well-Known Member

    Yeah I've got to agree. The proof set, purple or black in 1993 was a plastic lens and not cello.

    That's not to say it isn't a cello issue though Littleton and other aftermarket sellers sell proof coins as individuals bagged in cello and it could be damage that occurred like that. I have an odd one that for sure is PMD doesn't look like yourse but it's odd. My theory on the below. Some sort of can opener most likely. Maybe run through some loose gears?
    IMG_2021-11-29_19-37-24.jpg IMG_2021-11-29_19-38-28.jpg
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page