| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 922 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
237 Posts |
I picked this up at a pawn shop for pretty cheap, and I noticed what I hope to be 3 errors on it.  1. Lamination error next to the "Y" 2. Small Cud above Liberty's head. 3. Small planchet clip above the Cud. (I had a coin expert look at this because I thought it was hit by a hammer, but he said it was actually a very small strait clip) Opinions? Objections? |
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
6563 Posts |
I agree with the lamniation
however the rest of it looks like damage in my opinion
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
237 Posts |
Well I'll try to get a shot of the rim some time soon.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
237 Posts |
 In the top image, the top coin is a similar silver half dollar hit with a hammer. The coin under it is the 1939. The bottom pic is the coin hit with a hammer's face, to show how the design bends. Now contrast the two coins. Edited by SecretGlitch
02/07/2008 6:03 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
Interesting...to my eyes, I see the difference between a hammered coin and yours. On your coin, the inner rim seems to continue in its arc, but there's less metal on the outside edge. I can't say whether that's due to a slightly clipped planchet, or wear directed at that spot--I can't spot the Blakesly effect on the opposing edge. However, perhaps there's some evidence on the reverse? Regarding that thickened " Cud" area--I do see a small ding adjacent to that area but I don't know whether they're related. Edited by KurtS
02/09/2008 11:51 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
237 Posts |
The ding is a stupid lighting effect caused by my scanner and the program I used to downsize the picture (look closely at the pic and you can see everything is sort of boxy). It isn't actually on the coin. Also, to what I've seen, the Blakesly effect only occurs when the clip is past the rim of the coin, but I may be wrong. On very thin clips like this, someone stated on an old topic that the Blakesley effect can be non-apparent. And because of the minute angle of the clip, you can only barely see the clip on the reverse.
Edited by SecretGlitch
02/10/2008 12:13 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
Sorry, your Cud with clip is nothing more than a rim hit with wear. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
Sorry, your Cud with clip is nothing more than a rim hit with wear. |
|
Valued Member
United States
237 Posts |
Bah, well it's the weirdest wear I've seen. At least there's a lamination error on it, not common for these coins I beleive.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
I have no clue how that hiccup happened - evidently it double posted for me. The hit on the edge was by a rather small object, and the hit was a hard one. It pushed the metal outward from inside the hit. This created a "bubble" along the rim on the obverse, which was subsequently worn down to a flat top, which is why it confused you as a Cud. The chance that a clip could conveniently place itself in the same spot and at the same size as a coincidental Cud on the die is actually astronomically small. Common sense and a little deduction calls for the two to logically be related. The only relation would be inward damage on the edge that was worn down after it happened. |
|
Valued Member
United States
237 Posts |
It's just that it's such a large missing section of the coin and there's no evidence of any pushing in anywhere else on the coin, and also the face of the die is completely unphased... As if someone just melted it off or something.
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 922 |
|
Posted 02/06/2008 10:54 pm
