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

Re: Updated glossary of mint error descriptions and photos

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.