2009 Silver Proof Quarter Die Error

I should point out that the scanner has one major limitation and that is the inability to modify the light source. I have had some limited success with adding outside light during scanning but it is not easy and the results are often not desirable. This is most problematic on modern proof coins with ultra flat mirror fields (like the quarter in this thread). The scanner light source is only slightly off axis to the image detector but is enough that the mirror field sends all of the light away from the detector and fields go completely black. I have had some success at getting better images of mirror fields by tilting the coin so that some light is reflected back into the detector but this is a real exercise in patience to get it right. This can also cause slight distortions in the resulting image (my scanner is normally ultra square for items placed flat on the glass, virtually no H/V distortion, round is round). I have also used a Canon PowerShot A1100 IS 12.1MP camera with some success. This camera has a decent macro ability that can produce about 1000 DPI images with good focus.

The quarter in this thread was actually discovered with the scanner. I had not noticed anything when I viewed the coin in the mint lens or even when I removed it for scanning. It was when I was cropping the scans that I saw the crescent line on the obverse and thought it to be a scanning anomaly (hair, reflection, etc.) so I rescanned the coin with similar results and then pulled out my loupe and realized that the coin itself was the source of the "imperfect" images. When viewed straight on as the scanner does, all that is seen is a very fine line at the edge of the raised portion of the field. In the right (or is it wrong) light the line disappears from view. I then examined the coin under higher magnifications and varied angles and lighting and saw all of the details like the incomplete reeding and the fact that the line (that I initially thought was a scratch) was in fact an edge. At first I thought that the coin was scratched, and then I realized that the "scratch" went right up to the edges of letters but not through them, so it did not happen after being minted. Then while trying to determine whether it was a planchet or die scratch I discovered that it wasn't a scratch at all but the entire field above the line was raised a fraction of a millimeter. I proposed and shot down many theories of what caused the coin to be as it is, first trying to play devil's advocate and find a way that it was PMD, then planchet flaw, then strike anomaly, etc. Only die anomaly remained as a viable cause, all other explanations had something that prevented them from explaining the coin. Then I tried to figure out how a die like this was ever used. I don't think there is any way that a proof die with a defect like this would have made it into the press without being noticed so that meant that the damage occurred either while being inserted or during use. My first thought was that the press had miss fired ant the die had struck a coin slightly off center and hit the some part of the reeding collar (a form of clash), and then correctly struck a series of coins like mine before being discovered as damaged. The problem with this idea is that there is no apparent damage to the reverse die and that the obverse damage seems far too light to have been caused by a proof force strike. The only thing that makes sense to me now is that the die was dropped (perhaps only a few inches) and it impacted some piece of flat hardened metal with a hole in it (again, perhaps part of the reeding collar) about the size of a golden dollar (~1.04 inches) and only the very edge of the field portion of the die impacted the other surface, with the majority of the die face landing over the hole. This is all educated guessing and I have spent the last 15 months both trying to find another coin like mine and inviting others to find viable explanations for the coin. This process has led me through many refinements and modifications to my theories and I am grateful to the many people that have expressed their opinions and offered their expertise. The exciting thing about this coin is that it made it out of the mint at all. This anomaly is so great (like a thousand die cracks) that it should have been caught at several points. Mint workers must have made an effort to expunge all of the coins produced as soon as the die damage was discovered. Perhaps only a few handfuls were minted and someone miss counted and they thought they had them all (did you count five or six shots, punk!). Well, I got lucky and this coin found its way to me, perhaps my reward for more than a decade of purchasing coins directly from the mint website.

PCGS has finally started processing my coin. They have had it in their system for 3 full weeks without any action and today the coin finally has a grade and they are certainly harsh. It has been given a grade of PR67DC which is at the bottom end of what I was expecting, I was pretty sure it would not get a 69 because of a fairly good nick above the S in TRUST but I didn't think that alone would push it past a 68. I suppose if it wasn't an error coin it would get a PR61 because of the damage caused by the die so maybe 67 isn't so bad. They don't have any details about the certification up yet so I don't know what they called the error.

http://www.pcgs.com/MEMBERSHIP/Shar...010&Month=12
and
http://www.pcgs.com/MEMBERSHIP/shar...rNo=20451906

It looks like I am the first order to be certified in December (last month they had over 680 orders with many times that many coins).

http://www.pcgs.com/Cert/18538106.html

This is the certification lookup page. It does not have any information yet but this is the normal link for looking up any PCGS coin. As soon as I know more about how they are classifying the error I will post again. I mailed the coin on October 30 via priority registered mail and it took until November 5 to get to PCGS which is 4 days longer than USPS estimated, then it took until November 9 for PCGS to enter the coin into their system. I hope it doesn't take quite as long to find its way home.

IMO, you would have been much better off if you had accepted Mike Diamond's offer or even sent it to Ken Potter for examination. PCGS has a very good reputation for grading but the weakest links for most TPGs are error/variety attribution and foreign coins. Sure, PCGS has Fred Weinberg as an error consultant but he does not attribute all of the error coins(he is also not a grader for them). Supporting research on your coin from CONECA would have "greased the skids" for proper TPG attribution.

And herein lies the problem- it is kind of hard to do a thorough analysis of a coin if it is entombed in plastic, especially if the error involves the reeding. If the documentation you sent to PCGS was the same info and drawings from your first post then I am not surprised that they ignored it and in fact, the graders probably never even saw it.

I just received the coin back from PCGS and I am happy to report that it is the same coin I sent out and it still has the massive die error showing on the obverse (which PCGS mounted backwards because it is a U.S. Territory quarter). After two times through the error graders at PCGS (the second time at my insistence) they contend that the coin is struck as the mint intended, that there is no error. I provided documentation with the coin and emailed additional images for the second review to no avail. I literally pleaded with them to have more people look at the coin but they insisted that the coin is as the mint meant it to be. "PCGS fails to spot major silver proof die error, TWICE!"

There is no way that the raised area on the field could have come from the planchet. It could not have survived two strikes at proof force. A damaged die is the only viable explanation for the coin. The arc is not just a line, the entire crescent of the field above the visible line is elevated above the rest of the field. Look where the line meets the rim on the right side and you will see that it looks like the rim narrows all the way round until the line joins the rim on the left. this is because the bottom of the rim is higher all the way around the crescent portion of the field. There is no way that a normal die striking a defective planchet twice could have produced this result. I believe that the die struck a plate with a hole in it that is slightly larger than a quarter, like a feeder plate with many holes that feeds planchets into the press.

Actually, what PCGS did may have been a very good thing for me and my coin. It should help the coin get publicity, and it may well help another TPG by allowing them to grade a coin that a competitor messed up on. I have emails from PCGS customer service stating that their graders say this is not an error coin and I think that this can only help me at this point. The coin is still perfectly viewable in the slab and now it is protected and traceable to me.

No, they are not acknowledging the line at all, let alone the fact that it is not a line but an edge. The radius of the arc (the line) is greater than that of a finished quarter, perhaps even larger that a quarter blank (before going through the upsetting mill), I estimate the arc radius at about 13.5mm, a finished quarter radius is 12.15mm. If there was extra metal on the blank, the coin should be overweight, which it is not. After going through the upsetting mill, the extra metal would have built up along the entire length of the arc. On striking, with that much extra metal, there is no way the coin could come out so clean across the arc boundary. The lettering would have been messed up and so would the rim. There would have been an air gap between the die and the field below the arc and there would have been evidence of the point where the die once again made contact with the planchet below the arc. At the arc itself (the line) there is a slight raised lip, indicating that the die hit whatever damaged it at a very slight angle. If the coin had been struck with a normal die, this lip could not have survived, it would have received excess pressure that would have flattened it out and left a less than clean edge. I am including a more accurate drawing, showing what I mean about the "lip". The drawing is my representation of the die, just mirror it to get the coin.