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

14325Re: Strange looking "incomplete punch" error

Expand Messages
  • Travis Bolton
    Aug 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Is it possible that the punch marks were initially very weak and then
      were "healed up" by the strike? Just a thought, I don't own any
      examples of the error but was following along and figured I would
      throw that out.


      --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
      <mdia1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Allan, your proposal seems to be premature. Why don't you ask Fred
      > what criteria he used to diagnose this as an incomplete punch?
      > Perhaps he has information you or I are not privy to.
      >
      > I also don't believe that any grading service provides a written
      > guarantee as to the accuracy of their error diagnoses. At least
      I've
      > never seen one. Since there are sometimes honest differences of
      > opinion as to the nature and origin of a particular error, such a
      > guarantee could open up a company to a flood of contested
      diagnoses.
      > Still, I think such a guarantee is an excellent idea.
      >
      > I never said categorically that this WASN'T an incomplete punch. I
      > simply indicated that it shares none of the features that more
      recent
      > incomplete punch errors all have in common. It's also possible
      that
      > it's a very light impression from the blanking die or the hole in
      the
      > base plate. Of course, this still doesn't explain why it fades out
      > at the ends, is patchy in its midsection, and seems to follow a
      > somewhat irregular course.
      >
      > In the absence of information indicating a radically different
      > blanking process used in the production of Morgan dollars, I think
      > caution is the appropriate response to this PCGS diagnosis. If it
      > doesn't look like a duck, doesn't walk like a duck, and doesn't
      quack
      > like a duck, one may reasonably suspect that it's another species
      of
      > bird.
      >
      > Since you've heard of other Morgan dollars with a similar planchet
      > defect classified as an incomplete punch, it may be a case
      > of "propagation of misinformation". Once a label has been applied
      to
      > a phenomenon (with or without justification), that label has a life
      > of its own. The initial diagnosis tends to be reinforced and
      reified
      > by folks who come across similar errors and see the original slab
      as
      > the "type". Propagation of misinformation exists in all spheres of
      > activity. For example, there's the notion that "we use only 10% of
      > our brains". There is absolutely no scientific basis for this
      > statement, yet many folks believe it because they've heard it from
      so
      > many different sources.
      >
      > Recently folks on this message board discussed alleged "Rockwell
      test
      > marks" on Morgan dollar dies and I came up with a long list of
      > objections to this diagnosis. Just because someone claims that a
      > certain error has a certain cause, that doesn't make it true. The
      > diagnosis must always be consistent with what we know about the
      > minting process and the available physical evidence (and any other
      > lines of evidence that may be available).
      >
      > --- 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 should 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