| Author |
 Replies: 197 / Views: 19,690 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4692 Posts |
Too bad we don't have a mint employee from 1904 to chime in.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
613 Posts |
Maybe it was the die itself, if I was a gambling man I would say it was a legit error.
|
|
Moderator
  United States
16680 Posts |
One way or another, I'm going to get to the bottom of it.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
I wonder if it would be possible to have an off-center squeeze during the hubbing process, when the die was made. Before the single-squeeze press, it would take several squeezes. To me, the most plausible explanation would be that the die was damaged, if this is not PMD. Just a refresher from Wexler... Because of the hardness of the die steel and the amount of pressure that needed to be applied for the image transfer, it took more than one squeeze (hubbing) of the master die into the face of the working hub to leave a satisfactory impression of the design on the working hub. After it received the first impression, the working hub was removed from the hubbing press and treated with heat (annealed) to relax the molecular structure of the alloy and allow another impression to be made by again squeezing the master die into the working hub. This process of making an impression (hubbing) and heat treating (annealing) was repeated until it was deemed that the image on the working hub was satisfactory. Working hubs produced from the master die were then in turn used in the hubbing press to make the Working Dies. It is the working dies that are then used to strike the coins. Like the working hub, it took more than one squeeze of the working hub into the working die to leave a satisfactory impression of the design on the working die. This meant that the working die had to be removed from the hubbing press after each hubbing and heat treated before receiving the next impression. Edited by Drsandman2
09/27/2014 7:38 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3546 Posts |
Drsandman2,
Interesting interpretation, however, I am personally a visual type of guy.
I do not know my request would even be possible but would you be able to direct us to a web site that might have some related close-up photos to help clarify your explanation in the order as it was explained?
mdpmedia
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5854 Posts |
As much as I would like to take credit, it was westcoin who sort of implied it and biokemist6 who actually mentioned soft dies. Before saying anything further, I just want to make sure everyone is clear to what is meant by soft dies. Basically an individual impresses a genuine coin into a softened piece of metal leaving a reverse image of the coin used. Once that piece of metal cools, it is then used to strike other coins. Here is a link to an article explaining soft dies a little more. http://numismaster.com/ta/numis/Art...ticleId=4938As much as I would like it to be a genuine mint error, impressions by soft dies are nothing more than PMD. Quote:
Also, the extra metal would initially make the coin higher in that area, but it would also wear faster. So I don't think dimensional and weight check can either verify or rule out the theory of a planchet fragment being struck into the coin. While I agree that it would wear faster, it doesn't make sense that it would wear to the point that it becomes thinner than the rest of the coin. Given that vermontensium has mentioned that it is slightly thinner, I think it is highly unlikely a fragment got stuck to the coin. I had initially mention that a double strike was possible but further thought make that hypothesis problematic. Two dies are needed to strike a coin. So why would extra design elements show up so clearly on one side and not on the other with no signs of something getting in the way like a planchet or coin? So far as I see it, multiple strikes in a coining press just doesn't seem to fit what we know about the coin and how coins are made. The idea of a damaged die is interesting. I have to wonder if there are multiple examples around. I am also not sure how it would explain the slightly thinner edge. Personally, I think soft dies makes the most sense given what we know. Still, I am eager to hear what the experts have to say. Edited by D0ubl3Eagle
09/28/2014 02:10 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9796 Posts |
Mike Ellis got back to me last night, after reviewing this coin in question with the following response: Quote:
Sorry to take so long to respond to this photo. It is clearly post mint damage. The reverse does not show many signs of it as it was clearly lying on something much softer when the obverse got whacked or squeezed by something. Sure wish I had something other to say! Thanks Mike! Wish it was better News Vermontensium, but it's what I think most of us have thought too. I was thinking the coin was on a piece of leather when whacked with whatever caused the added stars, making the reverse hold up the design mostly without flattening out. "Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440 |
|
Moderator
United States
16680 Posts |
Returning  swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
New Member
United States
10 Posts |
I think it's a legit error too.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4692 Posts |
I'm not convinced it is PMD. Seems someone would have to have an incuse punch that matches the style and size of the stars in order to create this. |
|
Moderator
United States
16680 Posts |
Yeah, I'm not going to be so fast to return it. I appreciate westcoins friends response and opinion but I'm not convinced this could be done with a hammer whack and leather...not this.
I'm going to get a couple more opinions.
I'm not much into this coin money wise.
How are ANACS error guys? I have a reholder I'm sending in anyway.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
I would kill to have that thing under my lenses. Just not comfortable enough with the mail situation to risk it.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9796 Posts |
Vermontensium, I think it's PMD, though it's really interesting and I have no idea how it was made. If it was cheap enough it's probably worth hanging on to. You never know, if it's a real error of some sort, or even if not, not a huge loss then. I would say, if it didn't cost more than $20.00 it's at the least, a nice discussion piece for sure. "Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440 |
|
Valued Member
United States
324 Posts |
None of you are sure, but I'm sure it is Not eligible for a green bean with that environmental damage.
|
|
Moderator
United States
16680 Posts |
That's ok, I ain't into green beans anyway  And yes, no one knows what it is...all opinions. I need a real error expert to look at it and there hasn't been one yet with as much experience as Fred Weinberg. swcoin.ecrater.com
|
| |
Replies: 197 / Views: 19,690 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 09/27/2014 7:08 pm
