| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,649 |
|
|
New Member
Canada
25 Posts |
On the first nickel, the 3 and 6 are rounded at the base, and on nickel #2 the 3 and 6 are flat at the base. It is most definitely a mint error and/or mint damage.   Somebody told me that the nickel would be worth less because it wasn't listed, but in my eyes, it is priceless! Randy |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
693 Posts |
Unable to make any comment from here because the image is not very good. Looks interesting tho. Any chance of a close up of the flat bottomed 6?
|
|
New Member
 Canada
25 Posts |
Here is a slightly better close up. Sorry about quality... It seems that when I try and blow these pictures up to a larger size, the quality becomes a little bit worse. Hope this helps. Randy  |
|
Valued Member
Canada
426 Posts |
Yeah, you can't enlarge pictures by increasing the size. You need to take an entirely new picture that is larger.
When you simply blow up a picture, you aren't adding data, you're adding distortion. The pixels are being moved apart, and the computer must "guess" as to what to put between them. Taking large photos with a high resolution gives the maximum amount of pixels (data)
|
|
New Member
Canada
25 Posts |
Hmmm, is this one better? Teehee, I hope so.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
693 Posts |
If there is reminents of the 6 and the 3 like I think there is, this coin is home made imo.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
That's actually a better shot.
I'll wildly speculate on this. I think there was something present on the planchet when it was hit... see that divot below the three? Might have kept the die from making proper contact in that area.... which makes sense if you look at how the weakness starts thin at the nine and gets thicker by the six. This theory (and that's all it is) seems bolstered by that little raised area at the edge of the six's enclosed face (not enough pressure to flatten it out).
Thanks for posting, I spend a lot of time ruminating on metals and their behaviour.
Edit though: CRF;s explanation is more likely considering the scuff on the inside RIM there.
Edited by Ugly
05/06/2010 11:04 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
693 Posts |
the 3 and the 6 of the die would have had to have been filled/plugged with some thing to leave the bottom of both digits still visible on the plantchett. Filled but leaving a straight line on both digits. The mark on the fields I speculate is from the dremmel of other tool used to remove the metal. The straight line just does not work......IMO :-)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1248 Posts |
how about grease in the dies?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
No grease: the straight line that CRF pointed out is what doesn't work in my "wild speculation". If there had of been something there on the coin surface, the digits would be softly struck at the bottom with increasing clarity towards the center and the rim wouldn't be so deep.
I don't know if someone took the time with a dremel or just used it as a shim for something or whatever.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
I believe that this coin has taken a well-placed hit to the date, shifting the bottom portion of the numerals, similar to the coin in this thread. |
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,649 |
|
Posted 05/06/2010 10:08 am
