| Author |
 Replies: 19 / Views: 4,024 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2830 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
1119 Posts |
bit of time on the belt sander then onto the buffer? I dont have a belt sander to test this theory lol
|
|
Pillar of the Community
1119 Posts |
and the edge from 3 o'clock to 6 doesn't seem very round to my eyes
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
507 Posts |
The photos on the original listing are probably a bit clearer, and show that the coin appears to have an unusual coarse, speckly surface on both sides.
|
|
Formerly nancyc
Australia
5385 Posts |
Seems to me it might have had an acid bath. Pictures will help a lot.
life is a mystery to be lived not a problem to be solved
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
56 Posts |
Honey, I shrunk the coins.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
841 Posts |
 not trying to be smart nancyc but as it has both an obverse and reverse I don't think it's had a bath but more along the lines of a one cent planchet in with the two's or it was a 2 that should have been rejected due to size etc  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
definitely eaten away with either acid or alkaline
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
414 Posts |
Being dipped in acid etc I don't think explains the difference between the two. The thickness of the plancet is too thin. If the difference was caused by acid surely the whole of the detail would be removed yet both sides still have a large amount showing. The plancet is half the thickness of the normal 2c coin, there would be no detail left to see with acid treatment etc!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
4411 Posts |
 with bjw there is no way acid could thin it out so much and leave details. If it were that thick because of acid there wouldn't be any detail on it what so ever. Acid could not have been the culprit. |
|
Pillar of the Community
1119 Posts |
the 1cent is already a thinner coin than the 2c and about 4mm smaller diameter. if it was hit and spread to the same size as the normal 2c by the die, I tend to think it would be much thinner.
also if a planchett smaller than the die did go in somehow I also tend to think it would have an even thickness rather than wedge shape.
im still a newb so could be wrong, but I have huge doubts about it being a 1c planchett.
just noticed something strange looking above the lizards head as well, poor atempt at a forgery?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
acid will react over the entire surface of the coin and not just on the high points, thus it will eat away at it at the same rate. this will explain why there is some detail on it. If you look closely at the pic coin on top of coin you will notice that the detail is not a high profile like on a normal coin but relatively flat. the difference in thickness in the planchet can be explained by the way acid eats coins, they tend to bubble from one side and the other side stays thicker. Either way this is definatly not a mint error  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
841 Posts |
sel, sap bit of help please. Ok, the one planchet is out but I still feel acid would eat the face like a post note long ago about the faceless $1 on ebay if anyone else remembers and why couldn't it be a mint error as we know they make mistakes  |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote:
The thickness of the plancet is too thin. If the difference was caused by acid surely the whole of the detail would be removed yet both sides still have a large amount showing. Acid removes from all dimensions equally. If it takes 10mm off the diameter, it takes 10mm off the peaks of the designs and 10mm off the valleys, so the design is intact. Unlike wear, which takes 10mm off the high points and nothing off the diameter or the valleys. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote:
and why couldn't it be a mint error as we know they make mistakes If there's an explanation for how something could be done outside the mint, we must assume that's where it happened. |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 19 / Views: 4,024 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 02/27/2012 06:03 am
