| Author |
 Replies: 18 / Views: 2,433 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16810 Posts |
There's an awful lot of "impossible mint errors" there - like that one struck over a 1976 aluminium Vietnamese coin.
I'd strongly suspect outright counterfeits, rather than "mint sports". And now I'm wondering if "Vietnam" is a clue as to their origin.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
New Member
 Australia
49 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16810 Posts |
You mean number 11213 on your previous link? Well, it's like what I would expect a brockage to look like. The only query would be, for me, it's association with all those other "iimpossible errors", all from the mid-1990s, all in the exact same state of preservation.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
3831 Posts |
I'd argue that RAM was perhaps more laid back in 1990s. This also coincides when the Australian economy was not doing very well. It would not be strange for some rouge employees to strike some fancy mint sports to make a few extra bucks. A lot of these unusual errors that I have seen are from early 1990s. There was a pretty interesting error coin sold by IAG https://www.independentcoinnews.com/April_2025.pdfAustralia 1992 2 dollars overstruck over Philippines 10 sentimo. That went for 4,500! https://www.pcgs.com/cert/49635133My partial coin collection http://www.omnicoin.com/collection/gxseriesMy numismatics articles and collection: http://www.gxseries.com/numis/numis_index.htmRegularly updated at least once a month. |
|
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
I strongly lean towards the assessment made in the previous post by "gxseries". I suspect that somebody with sufficient authority, security clearances and sufficient technical & engineering know how at RAM took some liberties during their lunch break, if I can put it that way. I also noticed that many of these "impossible mint errors" are from the 1990's, but they definitely don't appear to be counterfeits or magician coins. While picking up my two winnings earlier in the week at the auction house that sold these error coins I had a chance to physically inspect one of two passed 1994/1998 double headed coins and the coin appeared bona fide at least to me. I bought a couple of 1990's error coins from this auction house last year and PCGS had no problem in positively assessing them see https://www.pcgs.com/cert/54887300 and https://www.pcgs.com/cert/54887301Lastly, I very much look forward to what the contributor of an article in https://www.independentcoinnews.com/April_2025.pdf has to say about these very coins (see page 47) that are being sold through this auction house. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
1040 Posts |
Quote:Lastly, I very much look forward to what the contributor of an article in https://www.independentcoinnews.com/April_2025.pdf has to say about these very coins (see page 47) that are being sold through this auction house. Thanks for link,interesting article. |
|
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
3831 Posts |
That battery coin went way more than what I expected!!! I am more surprised that the inner core or anode didn't leak out!
My partial coin collection http://www.omnicoin.com/collection/gxseriesMy numismatics articles and collection: http://www.gxseries.com/numis/numis_index.htmRegularly updated at least once a month. |
|
Moderator
United States
187862 Posts |
I fixed a few broken links in this topic. Do not put parentheses around links because the forum software likes to append the closing parenthesis to the link.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
3831 Posts |
I had a think of this double Obverse error coin. The combination of 1998 / 1994 is pretty odd at best. How this occurred is more strange than striking over any coin or foreign object.
1998 would have been a much better economy. To find coin die that's 4 years old from storage is pretty odd. Why not 1997? Why 1994? Why strike in coin alignment?
More questions arise...
My partial coin collection http://www.omnicoin.com/collection/gxseriesMy numismatics articles and collection: http://www.gxseries.com/numis/numis_index.htmRegularly updated at least once a month. |
|
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
I think as John Belcher remarked, and as I suspect, these mint sports were most likely produced in the RAM workshop where they make and test dies. Obviously some parties had sufficient authority, back in the day, to lay their hands on select (5 cent and perhaps other unrevealed) dies and had the technical know how to produce these fantasies. I also feel the 1993/1998 & 1994/1998 pairings were probably just convenient random selections with regards to dates. You may also notice in these (sold and unsold) lots https://www.statusint.com/result_coins.php?id=34 that the 1993, 1994 and the 1998 QEII 5 cent obverse appears several times on other coins such as the Cook Island error, the Vietnam error, the interrupted milling error, the one cent planchet error.... These I know all came from one vendor. Edited by frank wasson
06/18/2025 5:41 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
3831 Posts |
One vendor... makes you wonder the connection. I smell a rat. It's quite abnormal to see a huge batch appearing out of the blue.
My partial coin collection http://www.omnicoin.com/collection/gxseriesMy numismatics articles and collection: http://www.gxseries.com/numis/numis_index.htmRegularly updated at least once a month. |
|
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
3831 Posts |
I stand by 'out of blue' comment. For argument's sake, let's assume that these were struck around the 1990s as it's impossible to prove when. These are not heard of or mentioned in any catalog as far as I am aware. For these to appear about 30 years later - makes me wonder if someone is selling for their retirement funds. Timeline matches for someone that worked during that era and just retired. A single source makes it even more strange - did the person know someone in the mint? Or the person worked in the mint... Someone knows.
Common error coins would be off center, broadstrike, brockage, double strike etc. What I am more interested are error coins that are more likely to be intentional such as wrong planchets, mules, overstrikes. Typical examples would be 2000 10 cents / dollar mule, 5 cents struck on 1 cent planchet or the more famous 1981 20 cents struck on Hong Kong $2 planchet.
Wrong planchets and mules are 'doable' using available tools in the mint. Overstrikes on foreign coins (or objects like button battery!) on the other hand is clearly intentional (if genuine). This requires a mint staff to walk in with random (or selected?) foreign objects, manually place them to be overstruck AND walk away with them. There is no valid reason for trial strikes as these are not first year type. How many more strange overstrike examples are out there? The mystery continues...
My partial coin collection http://www.omnicoin.com/collection/gxseriesMy numismatics articles and collection: http://www.gxseries.com/numis/numis_index.htmRegularly updated at least once a month. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2180 Posts |
Some of these do appear to be first time on the market. https://www.coincuriosity.com/view/...nt-mule.html has definitely appeared a few times over the last maybe 20 years but some similar ones (swap of obverse and reverse) only seem to have come onto the market in the last year. Edited by Mr T
09/10/2025 12:26 am
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 18 / Views: 2,433 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 06/11/2025 04:45 am
