| Author |
 Replies: 15 / Views: 1,845 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
129 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
97575 Posts |
Please only one coin per topic, it will save on confusion later on in the discussion.
Anyway,
coin 1 the 1966: Loss of partial cladding on reverse.
coin 2 the 1967: A very nice die clash, plus a MAD strike on obverse.
Edited by Dearborn
01/29/2023 6:31 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2376 Posts |
Two very nice errors. Congrats!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4135 Posts |
I like both of them, very nice.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1231 Posts |
On the 67 on the obverse it looks like a clash right behind the neck pitcher isn't great but that is what I see
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
129 Posts |
I believe you are correct, I see the die clash on the obverse also on the right side of the neck and some around the nose too!
Edited by RamairOlds
01/29/2023 9:10 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
One it is like Die clash the other it is far to strait to be a really missing clad. Probably is need more close pics to be able to come for a definitive conclusion. I see Die Clash but the missing clad no. Please show the borders of the missing clad.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
8787 Posts |
Very nice finds!
-makecents-
|
|
Moderator
United States
34428 Posts |
Your dad did pretty well with these. I might consider getting the missing clad slabbed, but would just save the die clash in a 2x2 for safekeeping.
"If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
Sorry to come back on this post. Question to all: Do it is Legitim or NOT. In my photo you can see. Also looking to the coin unclad we can see clear acid interferences. Your opinions please.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4135 Posts |
silviosi, I am going to say it is not legit because of the pushed metal down the center. I hope I am wrong.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
@ODD IMHO you are wright. the legitims must spread the clad not push back.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
The 1966 was a clash shell clad issue. What that? Part of the cladding was loose:  These are valuable if left in tact. But on your coin this was removed. So it is just a missing cladding that was removed. How can I tell that is what happened? Not the clad is rising upwards. Also the strike is weaker:  Note the top quarter, the strike on the missing cladding side? It is a ghost image. But note on the lower coin, the strike is still full because that area of the cladding was missing before the strike. When the cladding os removed post strike then the strength of the strike will be weaker. That is what I'm seeing on your coin. So someone thought it would be worth more without the cladding, but it was more valuable with the loose cladding. So that removes a lot of the value for this coin. (But now you know) |
|
Moderator
United States
34428 Posts |
Well for sure we can ask Mike Diamond to weigh in on this one, but I still think that the '66 is legit.
"If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6116 Posts |
It is certainly a missing clad issue. What I can't tell from the images is whether it was originally a clamshell that someone just bent back and forth until it snapped off (less valuable) or if it just separated naturally. Kinda leaning toward an altered clamshell.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7174 Posts |
Looks like a typical clam shell that someone has removed.
|
| |
Replies: 15 / Views: 1,845 |
|
Posted 01/29/2023 6:43 pm
