Yes folks icg got it right

Most of the time ICG graded coins cross at the same grade at PCGS???? I think you'll find plenty of proof that they don't...unless you sent in 3 for crossover, and 2 crossed at same grade (which would be nothing short of miraculous). Most of the time they WILL grade but at LEAST 1 grade lower, if not 2. I have 4 coins in ICG slabs at PCGS right now.....specified minimum grade crossover was 1 point lower than ICG's grade, and it's 50/50 at BEST, that they'll come back in PCGS plastic. I only did that because I had 4 free gradings.

Why do you think ICG graded coins, same grade, same series, same date, same mintmark, sell for multiples less than PCGS, OR NGC graded coins? Sure, once in a great great great great while, they CAN/WILL cross, but smart money is a MINIMUM of 1, if not 2 points lower.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not an error collector, so please take my comments with a grain of salt. I took the liberty of re-posting your picture as reference.

I collect a lot of early 19th century US coppers and, from time to time, find a specimen with well defined clash marks so I'm not totally ignorant on the subject.

Dies are a "negative" of the coin (meaning low points on a die equate to the high relief points on coin...and vice versa). When dies clash, clash marks are only impressed on the high points of the die since those are the only points that actually touch. When the flat fields clash, no marks are left. However, when a flat field clashes with a recessed device, a very slight amount of metal flows into the recess, leaving a slightly raised (mirror image) impression of the device of the other die.

The fields of a clashed die can be polished to remove the clash marks, but if done enough, this could affect the relief of subsequently struck coins. Coins struck with the clash marks (before the dies can be polished) are a very interesting error. However, I would say that your coin is not the result of clash dies for a few reasons.

Most importantly, the mark from Lincolns eye to his lower ear can not be the result clash marks made by the base of the Lincoln Memorial. Since the Lincoln Memorial is a recessed device (on the die) and Lincoln's profile is also a recessed device (on the die), there's no way for one to mark the other; the flat fields contact first and those recessed devices would never touch.

Another reason is that letters that are the result of a die clash would be a mirror image (on the clashed die). Once a coin is struck with the clashed die, the letters appear normal once again.

Also, since the flat fields are the only points that actually touch when dies clash, the Lincoln Memorial image would be more uniform across the field and stop at the devices (which are sunken on the die).

Lastly, a die clash only transfers the outline of the device of the other die; not any detail (the detail is recessed). You can clearly see detail of the Lincoln Memorial.

Just one more thing...I recall reading that dies on modern coin presses don't actually touch when a planchet isn't present. I also recall reading that modern coin presses only allow dies to be inserted one way, discounting the possibility of die rotation.

Hope this helps...Yak. :cheers:

 

Variety: Meant to be that way, typically consistent.

Error: Accidental, not meant to happen and rarely identical.

 

Excellent post!

Actually, modern coin presses and even the older presses, are adjustable so that the die surfaces do not meet. This feature enables different thickness planchets to be coined. However, with the stresses exerted during the minting process, they occasionally work their way out of adjustment thereby letting the die surfaces meet as evidenced by this authentic clashed 1995 Lincoln below:

 

Actually this is over simplified and not 100% accurate. I hesitate to get into this subject in any depth here as it may distract from the entertaining nature of the thread.

Richard

 

I know I should stop replying to the posts on this thread of mine but I like to help those that I think is interested and might need help.In your post you said: "

Another reason is that letters that are the result of a die clash would be a mirror image (on the clashed die). Once a coin is struck with the clashed die, the letters appear normal once again."

This is directly opposite of what you are trying to say, when coin dies clash together this leaves a raised design of the other die that would look like the design of a struck coin. then when this clashed die strikes planchets this clashed die area transferrs the design back onto the new planchet in a sunken in and backwards extra design elements that will look exactly like the altered hammer job coins when folks try to duplicate a clashed die coin. I sure hope my information can at least help someone. Troy .

​

 

I guess this must be a "typically consistent identical error variety"............(12 known)

Chris

 

What I posted is a basic rule of thumb. But, there is of course a huge gray area, like the coin Chris posted. Something like a die gouge is especially tricky. I mean, when you have multiple examples of the same coin with identical die cracks, that's usually not considered a variety. I personally don't see any difference between cracks, chips and gouges on a die as far as attributing a variety versus and error.
I have always taken a variety as a difference in the design or orientation of features on the die. It's a lot easier when looking at old coins that were made from individually crafted dies. In the modern age, differences between dies hubbed from a master die are sometimes considered varieties. But, this is due to random mechanical forces rather than intent.

 

You have a good coin here , thanks for showing it. at one time these coins were thought to be from a die kink then it was decided as a die gouge. I have two extremely rare state quarters that are lost here somewhere in my coin safes and I can not find them . One of these days they will show up and hopefully I can show them to you. I call them the fireworks coins. they are struck thru coins and looks like the grand finale at a fireworks display with tiny and a few larger sunken in round areas going from the center of the coins and spreading out at the top.. I hunted for these for you a while back and still haven't run across them. the unusal thing about them is this stuff was stuck on the die long enough to create two identical coins. they came from the same box of new state quarters , this was the only two in the box. Troy

 

Sorry...you're right...I didn't have a coin in front of me and I got turned around (no pun intended). The 1995 Lincoln Cent posted by 19Lyds is exactly what I would expect to see on a cent produced from clashed dies. I didn't even think it was possible to produce a "clashed die" coin with modern coin presses...but I stand corrected on that point as well!

Still, I doubt your coin is the result of clashed dies (jmho). Do you still think it is?

 

I was just funnin' a bit with ya! What makes this KS SQ so interesting is that the gouge occurred before the frosted surface was applied, and then it graded 70UCAM. It's the only "perfect error" that I have.

Chris

 

Wait, the frosted surface is "applied"? Now I'm confused.

 

Thanks for the clarification, I think we are all now in total agreement.

 

It has to be. Otherwise, the gouge would show through to the shiny silver below. It would be my guess that that they bombard the die with very fine sand (or something to that effect) and then repolish the fields.

Chris

 

Thanks for that insight. =)

 

The elevation on the bison appears to be a die dent, not a die gouge. Small difference, I know.

 

Now-a-days the frosted appearance is applied to the die with a "Laser".

 

I'm not sure exactly how it is applied. It would be nice to have the Mint explain the process.

Chris

 

You're probably right. When these were discovered in '05, there was an article on them in CW and there didn't seem to be a consensus of opinion then.

Chris

 

Wonder how Mike feels about the OP's coin...........