| Author |
 Replies: 20 / Views: 2,708 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3185 Posts |
Very cool error coin!
1953 S, my best guess.
I would go with PCGS.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2775 Posts |
Very interesting! Would like to see a straight on obverse pic before or after authentication. Will respect your wishes and hold my observations for now. Thanks, Doug.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1696 Posts |
Do you have calipers to measure the thickness of the coin in comparison with another coin at the same spot? Since the last photo compares the edge of the fragment against the rolled edge of the coin, the comparison doesn't work. I would like an expert to weigh in here, as I am a novice. I also don't understand how a sharp break edge would be possible without a retainer. I would think a partial planchet would spread out upon being struck. But the coin maintains its thickness right until the break, which does not seem possible to me if it were a fragment of a planchet that was struck.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
461 Posts |
1st of all, the fragment only weighs .8 grams which is about 1/4 the weight of a normal copper cent but exhibits about 1/2 of of the design elements. This as well, as it's thin appearance, confirms that it's approx. 1/2 the thickness of a normal cent. Secondly, along the ragged edge area, you will notice evidence of planchet cracking entering into the field, which is evidence that it's struck on a fragment or scrap. Thirdly, the coin exhibits striking weakness noticed especially in 0 of One due to the thinness of the fragment. Aristarchus123, due to the thinness of the fragment and resulting weak strike, I would not expect the ragged edge to be thinned out from the strike. You are assuming that I don't know much about errors since you wanted an expert to weigh in.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4911 Posts |
EXTREMELY cool and unique piece! it looks right to me from what I can see. the interesting part to me is the thickness, you'd think if it was a split planchet that you would see some ruggedness on the side that would've split from the other half but it is quite smooth. I think it may not only be a planchet fragment but also thinly rolled stock. what an interesting coin! thanks for sharing.
Feel free to call me Will.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5964 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4911 Posts |
a little confused if that was directed at my comment(i have no idea why it would be?) or the OP  Feel free to call me Will.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1699 Posts |
No doubt it's a genuine piece. Cool pick-up, Zimmy. And thanks for sharing!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5964 Posts |
Nothing to do with you Thedollarman.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1696 Posts |
Hey, Zimmy, no insult intended. My reference to an expert was related to my self-description as a novice. Good luck, and I hope it comes back as authentic (and a valuable one!).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2740 Posts |
Specifically, this appears to be an off-center strike on a ragged clip planchet.
Error coin writer and researcher.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
461 Posts |
Mike, if so then why does it only weigh .8 grams and ver then. Based on the size and weight of the planchet, wouldn't it be consider on scrap or fragment? To weigh .8 grams, it would have had to start pretty small.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2740 Posts |
The grading services impose an arbitrary weight loss rubicon of 50%, below which they designate almost any undersized coin "scrap". In my opinion, this label should only be used for truly irregular pieces of struck metal. Otherwise, I see no reason why one shouldn't describe a coin with a label that reflects what it actually is.
Error coin writer and researcher.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
814 Posts |
Well that's a crazy coin, thanks for sharing!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
Blank failure prior to striking.
I would imagine that these types of failures are far more common with zinc cored coins.
Definitely not a post mint flan failure, because there is no rim. That makes it an error, not post mint damage.
Would need an extensive search of similar coins sold to have a feel for the market value of this example.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 20 / Views: 2,708 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 05/12/2016 10:04 pm
