Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14321Re: Strange looking "incomplete punch" error

Expand Messages
  • mrlindy2000
    Aug 1, 2006
      Error coins tend to be unique.

      I thought I recognized this 1901O $ from just a few months ago:

      Mike Byers had it for sale in his printed 2006 Catalogue of Errors...

      Page 73 top right, priced at just "$10,000"

      Please look at struck thru area above E in United for comparision,
      if you have Byers 2006 catalogue.

      Looks identical to me, but I could be wrong? Neither the obverse or
      reverse in the $10,000 pix illustrate the punch marks. But in your
      $1,250 auction pics I do see something on the reverse, nothing on
      the obverse.

      Is this Byers looking 1901O Dollar you just had at $1,250 for sale
      and ByItNow for $1,750 the very same $10,000 Byers coin?

      With slabs I always wonder who sent it in for slab services, you
      know for confirmation of that one submitter's claim that it was
      an "Incomplete Punched Planchet" in the first place?

      I've only been collecting errors since 1979 so not forever. I've
      never read that an incomplete punch is a one sided error. It's quite
      possible there is a punch mark on the obverse. We've all discussed
      that scans alone should not be used as proof.

      My incomplete clip error coins (3) all have punch marks on both
      sides ,as they should. They are from 1964, 1966 and one is a 1c
      planchet.

      Maybe the dealer or collector you recently bought it from can make
      things right for you Al? If it's a consignment error coin then I'd
      just return it to its owner.

      Lindy







      --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, alscoins
      <no_reply@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mike,
      >
      > I asked for your experience in order to use you as an expert
      witness
      > if PCGS doesnot honor their buy back guarantee. Since your points
      > listed are well accepted by the collector community (as verified
      by
      > others comments in this chatroom), I think your usefullness as an
      > expert witness will come in handy to start a class action suit.
      >
      > I have contacted a few others that I know have examples of this
      same
      > error type which show these characteristics as my coin. They are
      of
      > the same era and of different denominations. Therefore, you can
      help
      > prove your points stated in your initial posting (see below).
      >
      > Other grading services that authenticated this error type can also
      > be brought into the class action. There are known examples
      available
      > that meet this criteria.
      >
      > What do you think?
      >
      > Allan
      > http://www.alscoins.com
      >
      > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike
      Diamond"
      > <mdia1@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Since all the mid- to late 19th century curved clips I've seen
      > have
      > > the same basic characteristics as recent clips, it stands to
      > reason
      > > that the blanking procedure was essentially the same as today.
      > >
      > > While I have no personal experience with late 19th century
      > incomplete
      > > punch errors, I might ask the same question of you. How
      extensive
      > is
      > > your experience? Do you know for a fact that the blanking
      process
      > > was radically different from recent decades? Does your
      knowledge
      > of
      > > 19th century blanking processes account for an incomplete punch
      > mark
      > > that is widely at variance with recent punch marks?
      > >
      > > If the answer to all these questions is no, then you've backed
      > > yourself into a logical trap. Basically you're saying that:
      > >
      > > 1. This incomplete punch is quite different from incomplete
      > punches
      > > that we're familiar is.
      > >
      > > 2. Our knowledge of incomplete punches in the late 19th century
      is
      > > poor.
      > >
      > > 3. Therefore, this silver dollar must have an incomplete punch.
      > >
      > > Such a conclusion is nonsensical, of course.
      > >
      > > Since you have not refuted any of the observations I made based
      on
      > > your photos, I can only conclude that these observations are
      > accurate.
      > >
      > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, alscoins
      > > <no_reply@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Can you please describe in detail how planchets were punched
      > during
      > > > the 19th century? How many incomplete punches have you
      > > > handled/authenticated?
      > > >
      > > > YES! The pictures are not the best!
      > > >
      > > > Allan
      > > > http://www.alscoins.com
      > > >
      > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike
      > Diamond"
      > > > <mdia1@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > While this has been slabbed by PCGS as an incomplete punch
      > error,
      > > > > there are a number of unexpected aspects that require closer
      > > > scrutiny.
      > > > >
      > > > > http://tiny.bz/0lm/
      > > > >
      > > > > 1. An incomplete punch should be present on both faces.
      This
      > is
      > > > only
      > > > > seen on the reverse.
      > > > >
      > > > > 2. The alleged punch mark seems to fade in and out as it
      > crosses
      > > > the
      > > > > coin. I've never seen this on any other incomplete punch
      > error.
      > > > > There should be no reason for this to occur.
      > > > >
      > > > > 3. The alleged punch mark seems to follow a slightly
      irregular
      > > > path.
      > > > > A genuine punch mark show follow a smooth curve.
      > > > >
      > > > > 4. The punch mark appears to be absent on the design rim at
      > both
      > > > > ends. A punch mark should appear clearest in this area
      since
      > the
      > > > > effective striking pressure is relatively low here and would
      > have
      > > > > less of a tendency to "close up" any incision in the coin's
      > > > surface.
      > > > >
      > > > > 5. The absence of the punch mark on the design rim implies
      > that
      > > it
      > > > is
      > > > > also absent on the edge. A genuine incomplete punch should
      be
      > > > > visible on the edge.
      > > > >
      > > > > Perhaps this is, instead, some form of pre-strike damage.
      > > > >
      > > > > Comments are welcome.
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic