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

Updated glossary of mint error descriptions and photos

Expand Messages
  • byersnc
    http://mikebyers.com/glossary.html I just updated the glossary. The descriptions are not too complicated or technical, but easy to understand for the beginner
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      http://mikebyers.com/glossary.html

      I just updated the glossary. The descriptions are not too complicated
      or technical, but easy to understand for the beginner error collector
      with visual photos of dramatic errors.

      Mike Byers
      http://mikebyers.com
    • Mike Diamond
      Thanks for alerting us. I ve got a few questions and comments. 1. Your representative foldover strike seems instead to be a triple- strike with each strike
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for alerting us. I've got a few questions and comments.

        1. Your representative "foldover strike" seems instead to be a triple-
        strike with each strike being uniface. I see no evidence of a foldover
        strike. There's some curling at the periphery, but that's entirely
        different.

        2. Your representative "struck fragment" may be just as you describe.
        Or it might be a coin that broke after the strike. Or it might be a
        huge ragged clip. It's impossible to tell from here.

        3. The term "die adjustment strike" is, naturally, entirely speculative
        as it applies to any individual specimen. There is no way to assign
        cause for such weakness. There are two possible proximate causes and
        numerous ultimate causes for a simple, centered, weak strike.

        4. Your "off-metal / wrong planchet" exemplar seems misidentified. If
        the Ike dollar is struck on a brass planchet, it it unlikely to be a 1
        piso planchet. The latter coin is copper-nickel. Could it be a
        discolored Cu-Ni planchet?

        5. Your SBA struck on a proof planchet may be as you say. But it is
        counterintuitive to think that a proof planchet would be rougher than a
        business strike planchet. Rough, pitted, pebbly surface textures are
        fairly common on off-center and broadstruck nickels, and no one
        suggests these are proof planchets. The issue deserves more scrutiny.

        6. As far as I know, the composition of the "aluminum" feeder fingers
        has never been verfied AS aluminum. Fred Weinberg indicated it was a
        different composition, but never got back to us on that.


        --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, byersnc
        <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        >
        > http://mikebyers.com/glossary.html
        >
        > I just updated the glossary. The descriptions are not too complicated
        > or technical, but easy to understand for the beginner error collector
        > with visual photos of dramatic errors.
        >
        > Mike Byers
        > http://mikebyers.com
        >
      • byersnc
        Thanks, Mike D. for your comments and suggestions. Here s my thoughts on your post: Your #1. Here s the new fold-over CT ST. Q. 25c that will replace the
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks, Mike D. for your comments and suggestions. Here's my
          thoughts on your post:

          Your #1. Here's the new fold-over CT ST. Q. 25c that will replace
          the Lincoln Cent today:
          http://www.byersnc.com/inventory/ctfoldoverm.jpg

          Your #2. Here's the 1875 3c Nickel struck fragment that will replace
          the other one today:

          http://www.byersnc.com/inventory/3018710e.jpg

          Your #4. That Ike sure looks brass!!

          Your #5. Here's the SBA O/C on a proof blank NGC that will replace
          the other one today:

          http://www.byersnc.com/inventory/1278684-002e.jpg


          ==============================================================


          --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
          <mdia1@a...> wrote:
          >
          > Thanks for alerting us. I've got a few questions and comments.
          >
          > 1. Your representative "foldover strike" seems instead to be a
          triple-
          > strike with each strike being uniface. I see no evidence of a
          foldover
          > strike. There's some curling at the periphery, but that's
          entirely
          > different.
          >
          > 2. Your representative "struck fragment" may be just as you
          describe.
          > Or it might be a coin that broke after the strike. Or it might be
          a
          > huge ragged clip. It's impossible to tell from here.
          >
          > 3. The term "die adjustment strike" is, naturally, entirely
          speculative
          > as it applies to any individual specimen. There is no way to
          assign
          > cause for such weakness. There are two possible proximate causes
          and
          > numerous ultimate causes for a simple, centered, weak strike.
          >
          > 4. Your "off-metal / wrong planchet" exemplar seems
          misidentified. If
          > the Ike dollar is struck on a brass planchet, it it unlikely to be
          a 1
          > piso planchet. The latter coin is copper-nickel. Could it be a
          > discolored Cu-Ni planchet?
          >
          > 5. Your SBA struck on a proof planchet may be as you say. But it
          is
          > counterintuitive to think that a proof planchet would be rougher
          than a
          > business strike planchet. Rough, pitted, pebbly surface textures
          are
          > fairly common on off-center and broadstruck nickels, and no one
          > suggests these are proof planchets. The issue deserves more
          scrutiny.
          >
          > 6. As far as I know, the composition of the "aluminum" feeder
          fingers
          > has never been verfied AS aluminum. Fred Weinberg indicated it
          was a
          > different composition, but never got back to us on that.
          >
          >
          > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, byersnc
          > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > >
          > > http://mikebyers.com/glossary.html
          > >
          > > I just updated the glossary. The descriptions are not too
          complicated
          > > or technical, but easy to understand for the beginner error
          collector
          > > with visual photos of dramatic errors.
          > >
          > > Mike Byers
          > > http://mikebyers.com
          > >
          >
        • Mike Diamond
          That was fast! The foldover substitute is a perfect replacement. The 3c nickel substitute seems to be a good replacement. A uniface strike is okay, but
          Message 4 of 5 , Nov 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            That was fast!

            The foldover substitute is a perfect replacement.

            The 3c nickel substitute seems to be a good replacement. A uniface
            strike is okay, but die-struck on both faces is usually a better
            choice for illustration purposes, in my opinion.

            The Ike looks like brass to me as well, which begs the question of
            which country the planchet was intended for.

            If you have any off-center proof coins, this will provide us with a
            baseline for judging what is, and isn't, a proof planchet. I haven't
            seen any proofs that are off-center enough to expose a good, unstruck
            swath of original surface.

            --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, byersnc
            <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            >
            > Thanks, Mike D. for your comments and suggestions. Here's my
            > thoughts on your post:
            >
            > Your #1. Here's the new fold-over CT ST. Q. 25c that will replace
            > the Lincoln Cent today:
            > http://www.byersnc.com/inventory/ctfoldoverm.jpg
            >
            > Your #2. Here's the 1875 3c Nickel struck fragment that will
            replace
            > the other one today:
            >
            > http://www.byersnc.com/inventory/3018710e.jpg
            >
            > Your #4. That Ike sure looks brass!!
            >
            > Your #5. Here's the SBA O/C on a proof blank NGC that will replace
            > the other one today:
            >
            > http://www.byersnc.com/inventory/1278684-002e.jpg
          • byersnc
            Mike D. I knew you d like the CT 25c fold-over, only 1 of 2 known for the entire state quarter series. Even though the 3c nickel 1875 is a one sided fragment
            Message 5 of 5 , Nov 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Mike D. I knew you'd like the CT 25c fold-over, only 1 of 2 known
              for the entire state quarter series.

              Even though the 3c nickel 1875 is a one sided fragment since it was
              resting on top of a blank when it was struck......it is so rare and
              unique since it's a 3c error- not a Lincoln cent error- that I
              decided to use it!!

              Here are 2 off center proof errors that I own (also double
              struck). Only a small part of the blank area shows:


              http://www.byersnc.com/inventory/2520277m.jpg
              http://www.byersnc.com/inventory/454576m.jpg


              Mike Byers
              http://mikebyers.com









              --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
              <mdia1@a...> wrote:
              >
              > That was fast!
              >
              > The foldover substitute is a perfect replacement.
              >
              > The 3c nickel substitute seems to be a good replacement. A
              uniface
              > strike is okay, but die-struck on both faces is usually a better
              > choice for illustration purposes, in my opinion.
              >
              > The Ike looks like brass to me as well, which begs the question of
              > which country the planchet was intended for.
              >
              > If you have any off-center proof coins, this will provide us with
              a
              > baseline for judging what is, and isn't, a proof planchet. I
              haven't
              > seen any proofs that are off-center enough to expose a good,
              unstruck
              > swath of original surface.
              >
              > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, byersnc
              > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Thanks, Mike D. for your comments and suggestions. Here's my
              > > thoughts on your post:
              > >
              > > Your #1. Here's the new fold-over CT ST. Q. 25c that will
              replace
              > > the Lincoln Cent today:
              > > http://www.byersnc.com/inventory/ctfoldoverm.jpg
              > >
              > > Your #2. Here's the 1875 3c Nickel struck fragment that will
              > replace
              > > the other one today:
              > >
              > > http://www.byersnc.com/inventory/3018710e.jpg
              > >
              > > Your #4. That Ike sure looks brass!!
              > >
              > > Your #5. Here's the SBA O/C on a proof blank NGC that will
              replace
              > > the other one today:
              > >
              > > http://www.byersnc.com/inventory/1278684-002e.jpg
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.