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

Re: Strange looking "incomplete punch" error

Expand Messages
  • alscoins
    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
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • mrlindy2000
      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
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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.
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • Mike Diamond
        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
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          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.
          > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • Travis Bolton
          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
          Message 4 of 19 , 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.
            > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • alscoins
            Lindy, Same coin & same slab. See my posting #14297. (Authentification via pictures.) Allan http://www.alscoins.com ... Errors... ... or ... quite ... points
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Lindy,

              Same coin & same slab.

              See my posting #14297. (Authentification via pictures.)

              Allan
              http://www.alscoins.com

              --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "mrlindy2000"
              <adkinstone@...> wrote:
              >
              > 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.
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • alscoins
              Lindy, Same coin & same holder. See my posting #14297. (Authentification of coins using pictures.) Allan http://www.alscoins.com ... Errors... ... or ... quite
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Lindy,

                Same coin & same holder.

                See my posting #14297. (Authentification of coins using pictures.)

                Allan
                http://www.alscoins.com

                --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "mrlindy2000"
                <adkinstone@...> wrote:
                >
                > 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.
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • Mike Diamond
                I don t recall having seen any incomplete punch errors completely closed up by the strike along any part of their length. However, those punch marks I have
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I don't recall having seen any incomplete punch errors completely
                  closed up by the strike along any part of their length. However,
                  those punch marks I have seen tend to be widest and clearest at the
                  ends, exactly the opposite of what we see in the 1901 Morgan dollar.

                  Now, it's also theoretically possible for a punch to be slightly
                  tilted as it contacts the strip. In that case, one would expect the
                  middle to be strongest and the ends to be weak or absent. The
                  proposed combination of a tilted punch and a very weak impact may
                  amount to special pleading. And it still fails to explain the patchy
                  strength of the "punch mark" in its mid-section and its seemingly
                  irregular coutour.

                  --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Travis Bolton"
                  <travisbolton543@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > 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.
                • alscoins
                  Mike, Premature? My proposal was based on your written diagnotics inwhich you used a picture? (This sounds familiar...........) Does this mean the earth is
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mike,

                    Premature? My proposal was based on your written diagnotics inwhich
                    you used a picture? (This sounds familiar...........)

                    Does this mean the earth is still flat? And that this chatroom is
                    still stuck in "errors 101"?

                    Allan
                    http://www.alscoins.com

                    --- 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.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Mike Diamond
                    I said that a class action lawsuit was premature since you have not talked to PCGS about their guarantees or the basis for the diagnosis. You were given ample
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 1, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I said that a class action lawsuit was premature since you have not
                      talked to PCGS about their guarantees or the basis for the diagnosis.

                      You were given ample opportunity to correct any observations based on
                      the photos that you posted. You have not issued any corrections,
                      leaving me to assume that these observations are accurate.

                      The physical characteristics of incomplete punch errors are well-
                      known and have been enumerated in previous posts. This error seems
                      to share none of them.

                      I don't know how much clearer I can be.

                      --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, alscoins
                      <no_reply@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Mike,
                      >
                      > Premature? My proposal was based on your written diagnotics inwhich
                      > you used a picture? (This sounds familiar...........)
                      >
                      > Does this mean the earth is still flat? And that this chatroom is
                      > still stuck in "errors 101"?
                      >
                      > Allan
                      > http://www.alscoins.com
                      >
                      > --- 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.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • Mike Diamond
                      Since we re on the subject of questionable slab diagnoses, I draw your attention to Coin World s Collector s Clearinghouse of June 26 and July 24. NGC slabbed
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 1, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Since we're on the subject of questionable slab diagnoses, I draw
                        your attention to Coin World's Collector's Clearinghouse of June 26
                        and July 24. NGC slabbed an 1854 half dollar as having a "retained
                        cud". I wrote back to Eric Von Klinger saying that this diagnosis
                        was poorly supported by the physical evidence. The coin simply
                        showed a "pre-cud" or "rim-to-rim" die crack. There was no vertical
                        displacement or horizontal offset, only lateral spread. Therefore
                        there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the portion of the
                        die cordoned off by the crack was separated from the rest of the die
                        neck. Can I say 100% that this wasn't a retained cud? No. Absolute,
                        metaphysical certainty is impossible in cases like this. But you
                        figure that a piece of the die that has broken off will show
                        considerable mobility and will exhibit horizontal offset and/or
                        vertical displacement. And since other pre-cud die cracks show
                        lateral spread and nothing else, this would seem to be the
                        appropriate diagnosis.

                        Here's another questionable retained cud:

                        http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280013255315

                        Although cud mavens Thurman and Margolis classify this as a retained
                        cud, I offer a different opinion based on physical evidence that is
                        inconsistent with their diagnosis.
                      • Mike Diamond
                        YOu can t have it both ways, Allan. You (and others) were quite happy to raise questions about Al C. s double-struck 1952 nickel based on photos. And you were
                        Message 11 of 19 , Aug 1, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          YOu can't have it both ways, Allan. You (and others) were quite happy
                          to raise questions about Al C.'s double-struck 1952 nickel based on
                          photos. And you were entirely justified, in my opinion. While
                          photos have limitations, they are still extremely valuable for
                          checking on the accuracy of error diagnoses. Otherwise, why post
                          them at all? I know few dealers and collectors who would purchase
                          error coins sight unseen, based only on the slab label.

                          Any limitations inherent in photographic evidence are greatly reduced
                          when the owner of the coin can be queried about features seen (or not
                          seen) in the photograph.

                          --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, alscoins
                          <no_reply@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Lindy,
                          >
                          > Same coin & same slab.
                          >
                          > See my posting #14297. (Authentification via pictures.)
                          >
                          > Allan
                          > http://www.alscoins.com
                        • alscoins
                          http://www.alscoins.com/graphics/067.jpg From the Scientific American newspaper dated January 29, 1876. I few woodcut pictures showing the minting process.
                          Message 12 of 19 , Aug 1, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            http://www.alscoins.com/graphics/067.jpg

                            From the "Scientific American" newspaper dated January 29, 1876. I
                            few woodcut pictures showing the minting process.

                            Allan
                            http://www.alscoins.com

                            --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                            <mdia1@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > YOu can't have it both ways, Allan. You (and others) were quite
                            happy
                            > to raise questions about Al C.'s double-struck 1952 nickel based on
                            > photos. And you were entirely justified, in my opinion. While
                            > photos have limitations, they are still extremely valuable for
                            > checking on the accuracy of error diagnoses. Otherwise, why post
                            > them at all? I know few dealers and collectors who would purchase
                            > error coins sight unseen, based only on the slab label.
                            >
                            > Any limitations inherent in photographic evidence are greatly
                            reduced
                            > when the owner of the coin can be queried about features seen (or
                            not
                            > seen) in the photograph.
                            >
                            > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, alscoins
                            > <no_reply@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Lindy,
                            > >
                            > > Same coin & same slab.
                            > >
                            > > See my posting #14297. (Authentification via pictures.)
                            > >
                            > > Allan
                            > > http://www.alscoins.com
                            >
                          • Mike Diamond
                            Useful. It seems to show a pair of blanking dies rather than a gang punch composed of 12 or 16 blanking dies.
                            Message 13 of 19 , Aug 1, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Useful. It seems to show a pair of blanking dies rather than a gang
                              punch composed of 12 or 16 blanking dies.

                              --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, alscoins
                              <no_reply@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > http://www.alscoins.com/graphics/067.jpg
                              >
                              > From the "Scientific American" newspaper dated January 29, 1876. I
                              > few woodcut pictures showing the minting process.
                              >
                              > Allan
                              > http://www.alscoins.com
                            • mrlindy2000
                              Nice woodcut Allan. It looks like the same process they mint uses today, just on a smaller scale and hand fed. You have a single or dual gangpunch that cuts
                              Message 14 of 19 , Aug 2, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Nice woodcut Allan. It looks like the same process they mint uses
                                today, just on a smaller scale and hand fed. You have a single or
                                dual gangpunch that cuts and then shears the blanks from the strip.
                                Look how nice and flat the webbing is. I'd say if punching out round
                                metal discs (blanks) were entirely a one sided process the strip
                                would be all curled up. Plus the hole you cannot see allows the
                                blank to leave the area where the punch(es) are.

                                Its that corresponding exit hole you cannot see on your woodcut that
                                forms the second incomplete line on all two sided incomplete clips.

                                Irregardless of what slab an incomplete clip is in, if it only has a
                                one sided shear line I would not buy it as an "incomplete clip" at
                                $10,000, $1,250 or $125.

                                Since you have the coin, do you actually see a shear line on the
                                obverse? Is the shear line on the reverse actually a cut mark into
                                the coin or is it like a stain on the surface? If it were not in the
                                slab I'd expect I could feel it with my fingernail. If it were not
                                in a slab I'd expect I'd see evidence of the precut in the reeding
                                too.

                                You appearently got a heck of a deal on it. Byers 2006 price at
                                $10,000 and your resale priced at just $1,250 only a few months
                                later. I'd guess wholesale was far less than $1,250, right? Why not
                                crack it out and authenticate it for yourself? Look for the clues on
                                the coin that will verify it.

                                Lindy







                                --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, alscoins
                                <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > http://www.alscoins.com/graphics/067.jpg
                                >
                                > From the "Scientific American" newspaper dated January 29, 1876. I
                                > few woodcut pictures showing the minting process.
                                >
                                > Allan
                                > http://www.alscoins.com
                                >
                                > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike
                                Diamond"
                                > <mdia1@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > YOu can't have it both ways, Allan. You (and others) were quite
                                > happy
                                > > to raise questions about Al C.'s double-struck 1952 nickel based
                                on
                                > > photos. And you were entirely justified, in my opinion. While
                                > > photos have limitations, they are still extremely valuable for
                                > > checking on the accuracy of error diagnoses. Otherwise, why
                                post
                                > > them at all? I know few dealers and collectors who would
                                purchase
                                > > error coins sight unseen, based only on the slab label.
                                > >
                                > > Any limitations inherent in photographic evidence are greatly
                                > reduced
                                > > when the owner of the coin can be queried about features seen
                                (or
                                > not
                                > > seen) in the photograph.
                                > >
                                > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, alscoins
                                > > <no_reply@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > Lindy,
                                > > >
                                > > > Same coin & same slab.
                                > > >
                                > > > See my posting #14297. (Authentification via pictures.)
                                > > >
                                > > > Allan
                                > > > http://www.alscoins.com
                                > >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.