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

Re: V nickel gamble

Expand Messages
  • jylitalo
    (I ve uploaded 3 x photo s of this one in default folder). My largest question would be regarding counterfeit, or soft dies and if they were used to strike the
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      (I've uploaded 3 x photo's of this one in default folder).

      My largest question would be regarding counterfeit, or soft dies and
      if they were used to strike the stronger overlying or weaker
      underlying design. The underlying faint, first strike design seen via
      the neck line, stars, and date (most noticeable is the 1 and 9 of the
      date) on the obverse would be the original first strike? The
      counterfeit dies would have then struck the stronger overlying design
      over a coin which was extremely worn? (It would seem easy enough to
      assume, but right now that is not what I want to do).

      Given the worn, but strong design and the degree of rotation, both
      this weakness and rotation are consistent. (I have several authentic
      1912 V nickels and I cannot find any surface discrepancies when
      comparing them under 10x optical zoom, meaning pitted die surfaces,
      irregular pock marks). The third picture shows a close up of the head-
      band and letters L, RTY of LIBERTY. The headband while worn does
      overlie one of the underlying stars quite nicely.

      The reverse largely shows outer rim letter design elements present
      which are more difficult to make out, but are consistent with
      weakness and rotation as on the obverse.

      There is no partial collar step along the edge. ("a persuasive sign
      of authenticity").

      Thanks.

      --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
      <mdia1@...> wrote:
      >
      > One other thing to look for after you get it is a partial
      > collar "step" on the edge. A newly-struck coin sometimes has a
      hard
      > time fitting back in the collar for a second strike. Presence of a
      > step would be persuasive sign of authenticity. However, absence of
      a
      > step should not be construed as a black mark. Many modern in-
      collar
      > double-struck nickels lack a step.
      >
      > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, jeff ylitalo
      > <jylitalo@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I'll sure take a close look and post pic's when it arrives.
    • Mike Diamond
      Again, given the heavy state of wear, it s difficult to make a determination of authenticity or outright fakery. But I do see a disturbing aspect. The lack
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Again, given the heavy state of wear, it's difficult to make a
        determination of authenticity or outright fakery. But I do see a
        disturbing aspect. The lack of interruption of the ostensible 2nd
        strike design indicates a strong strike. This should have flattened
        the first strike design, especially in the field where effective
        striking pressure is highest. Remnants of the first strike design
        should be quite flat where they are not entirely effaced. But what I
        see are "swollen" first-strike design elements that stand above the
        field. That's typical of strikes by counterfeit soft dies. It just
        doesn't jibe. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that you
        bought a fake. I do wish it were otherwise.

        --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "jylitalo"
        <jylitalo@...> wrote:
        >
        > (I've uploaded 3 x photo's of this one in default folder).
        >
        > My largest question would be regarding counterfeit, or soft dies
        and
        > if they were used to strike the stronger overlying or weaker
        > underlying design. The underlying faint, first strike design seen
        via
        > the neck line, stars, and date (most noticeable is the 1 and 9 of
        the
        > date) on the obverse would be the original first strike? The
        > counterfeit dies would have then struck the stronger overlying
        design
        > over a coin which was extremely worn? (It would seem easy enough to
        > assume, but right now that is not what I want to do).
        >
        > Given the worn, but strong design and the degree of rotation, both
        > this weakness and rotation are consistent. (I have several
        authentic
        > 1912 V nickels and I cannot find any surface discrepancies when
        > comparing them under 10x optical zoom, meaning pitted die surfaces,
        > irregular pock marks). The third picture shows a close up of the
        head-
        > band and letters L, RTY of LIBERTY. The headband while worn does
        > overlie one of the underlying stars quite nicely.
        >
        > The reverse largely shows outer rim letter design elements present
        > which are more difficult to make out, but are consistent with
        > weakness and rotation as on the obverse.
        >
        > There is no partial collar step along the edge. ("a persuasive sign
        > of authenticity").
        >
        > Thanks.
        >
        > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
        > <mdia1@> wrote:
        > >
        > > One other thing to look for after you get it is a partial
        > > collar "step" on the edge. A newly-struck coin sometimes has a
        > hard
        > > time fitting back in the collar for a second strike. Presence of
        a
        > > step would be persuasive sign of authenticity. However, absence
        of
        > a
        > > step should not be construed as a black mark. Many modern in-
        > collar
        > > double-struck nickels lack a step.
        > >
        > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, jeff ylitalo
        > > <jylitalo@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > I'll sure take a close look and post pic's when it arrives.
        >
      • jeff ylitalo
        Thanks for the clarifying and timely comments, Mike.   Nothing ventured, nothing gained , as one idom goes. Another would be nothing to write home about .
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 3, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for the clarifying and timely comments, Mike.
           
          'Nothing ventured, nothing gained', as one idom goes. Another would be 'nothing to write home about'.
           
          Oh well.
           
          --- On Wed, 9/3/08, Mike Diamond <mdia1@...> wrote:
          From: Mike Diamond <mdia1@...>
          Subject: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Re: V nickel gamble
          To: errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 8:34 PM

          Again, given the heavy state of wear, it's difficult to make a
          determination of authenticity or outright fakery. But I do see a
          disturbing aspect. The lack of interruption of the ostensible 2nd
          strike design indicates a strong strike. This should have flattened
          the first strike design, especially in the field where effective
          striking pressure is highest. Remnants of the first strike design
          should be quite flat where they are not entirely effaced. But what I
          see are "swollen" first-strike design elements that stand above the
          field. That's typical of strikes by counterfeit soft dies. It just
          doesn't jibe. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that you
          bought a fake. I do wish it were otherwise.

          --- In errorcoininformatio nexchange@ yahoogroups. com, "jylitalo"
          <jylitalo@.. .> wrote:
          >
          > (I've uploaded 3 x photo's of this one in default folder).
          >
          > My largest question would be regarding counterfeit, or soft dies
          and
          > if they were used to strike the stronger overlying or weaker
          > underlying design. The underlying faint, first strike design seen
          via
          > the neck line, stars, and date (most noticeable is the 1 and 9 of
          the
          > date) on the obverse would be the original first strike? The
          > counterfeit dies would have then struck the stronger overlying
          design
          > over a coin which was extremely worn? (It would seem easy enough to
          > assume, but right now that is not what I want to do).
          >
          > Given the worn, but strong design and the degree of rotation, both
          > this weakness and rotation are consistent. (I have several
          authentic
          > 1912 V nickels and I cannot find any surface discrepancies when
          > comparing them under 10x optical zoom, meaning pitted die surfaces,
          > irregular pock marks). The third picture shows a close up of the
          head-
          > band and letters L, RTY of LIBERTY. The headband while worn does
          > overlie one of the underlying stars quite nicely.
          >
          > The reverse largely shows outer rim letter design elements present
          > which are more difficult to make out, but are consistent with
          > weakness and rotation as on the obverse.
          >
          > There is no partial collar step along the edge. ("a persuasive sign
          > of authenticity" ).
          >
          > Thanks.
          >
          > --- In errorcoininformatio nexchange@ yahoogroups. com, "Mike Diamond"
          > <mdia1@> wrote:
          > >
          > > One other thing to look for after you get it is a partial
          > > collar "step" on the edge. A newly-struck coin sometimes has a
          > hard
          > > time fitting back in the collar for a second strike. Presence of
          a
          > > step would be persuasive sign of authenticity. However, absence
          of
          > a
          > > step should not be construed as a black mark. Many modern in-
          > collar
          > > double-struck nickels lack a step.
          > >
          > > --- In errorcoininformatio nexchange@ yahoogroups. com, jeff ylitalo
          > > <jylitalo@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > I'll sure take a close look and post pic's when it arrives.
          >


        • fred_weinberg
          Jeff, I agree with Mike 1,000 percent. That 1912 Nickel was struck again with false dies , or whatever you want to call them....but the D/S aspect of the coin
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 4, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Jeff, I agree with Mike 1,000 percent.

            That 1912 Nickel was struck again with
            'false dies', or whatever you want to call
            them....but the D/S aspect of the coin is
            fake.









            --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, jeff ylitalo
            <jylitalo@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thanks for the clarifying and timely comments, Mike.
            >  
            > 'Nothing ventured, nothing gained', as one idom goes. Another would
            be 'nothing to write home about'.
            >  
            > Oh well.
            >  
            > --- On Wed, 9/3/08, Mike Diamond <mdia1@...> wrote:
            >
            > From: Mike Diamond <mdia1@...>
            > Subject: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Re: V nickel gamble
            > To: errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 8:34 PM
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Again, given the heavy state of wear, it's difficult to make a
            > determination of authenticity or outright fakery. But I do see a
            > disturbing aspect. The lack of interruption of the ostensible 2nd
            > strike design indicates a strong strike. This should have flattened
            > the first strike design, especially in the field where effective
            > striking pressure is highest. Remnants of the first strike design
            > should be quite flat where they are not entirely effaced. But what
            I
            > see are "swollen" first-strike design elements that stand above the
            > field. That's typical of strikes by counterfeit soft dies. It just
            > doesn't jibe. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that you
            > bought a fake. I do wish it were otherwise.
            >
            > --- In errorcoininformatio nexchange@ yahoogroups. com, "jylitalo"
            > <jylitalo@ .> wrote:
            > >
            > > (I've uploaded 3 x photo's of this one in default folder).
            > >
            > > My largest question would be regarding counterfeit, or soft dies
            > and
            > > if they were used to strike the stronger overlying or weaker
            > > underlying design. The underlying faint, first strike design seen
            > via
            > > the neck line, stars, and date (most noticeable is the 1 and 9 of
            > the
            > > date) on the obverse would be the original first strike? The
            > > counterfeit dies would have then struck the stronger overlying
            > design
            > > over a coin which was extremely worn? (It would seem easy enough
            to
            > > assume, but right now that is not what I want to do).
            > >
            > > Given the worn, but strong design and the degree of rotation,
            both
            > > this weakness and rotation are consistent. (I have several
            > authentic
            > > 1912 V nickels and I cannot find any surface discrepancies when
            > > comparing them under 10x optical zoom, meaning pitted die
            surfaces,
            > > irregular pock marks). The third picture shows a close up of the
            > head-
            > > band and letters L, RTY of LIBERTY. The headband while worn does
            > > overlie one of the underlying stars quite nicely.
            > >
            > > The reverse largely shows outer rim letter design elements
            present
            > > which are more difficult to make out, but are consistent with
            > > weakness and rotation as on the obverse.
            > >
            > > There is no partial collar step along the edge. ("a persuasive
            sign
            > > of authenticity" ).
            > >
            > > Thanks.
            > >
            > > --- In errorcoininformatio nexchange@ yahoogroups. com, "Mike
            Diamond"
            > > <mdia1@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > One other thing to look for after you get it is a partial
            > > > collar "step" on the edge. A newly-struck coin sometimes has a
            > > hard
            > > > time fitting back in the collar for a second strike. Presence
            of
            > a
            > > > step would be persuasive sign of authenticity. However, absence
            > of
            > > a
            > > > step should not be construed as a black mark. Many modern in-
            > > collar
            > > > double-struck nickels lack a step.
            > > >
            > > > --- In errorcoininformatio nexchange@ yahoogroups. com, jeff
            ylitalo
            > > > <jylitalo@> wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > I'll sure take a close look and post pic's when it arrives.
            > >
            >
          • jeff ylitalo
            Thanks Fred.   ... From: fred_weinberg Subject: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Re: V nickel gamble To:
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 4, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks Fred.
               
              --- On Thu, 9/4/08, fred_weinberg <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
              From: fred_weinberg <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Re: V nickel gamble
              To: errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 9:20 AM

              Jeff, I agree with Mike 1,000 percent.

              That 1912 Nickel was struck again with
              'false dies', or whatever you want to call
              them....but the D/S aspect of the coin is
              fake.

              --- In errorcoininformatio nexchange@ yahoogroups. com, jeff ylitalo
              <jylitalo@.. .> wrote:
              >
              > Thanks for the clarifying and timely comments, Mike.
              >  
              > 'Nothing ventured, nothing gained', as one idom goes. Another would
              be 'nothing to write home about'.
              >  
              > Oh well.
              >  
              > --- On Wed, 9/3/08, Mike Diamond <mdia1@...> wrote:
              >
              > From: Mike Diamond <mdia1@...>
              > Subject: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Re: V nickel gamble
              > To: errorcoininformatio nexchange@ yahoogroups. com
              > Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 8:34 PM

              > Again, given the heavy state of wear, it's difficult to make a
              > determination of authenticity or outright fakery. But I do see a
              > disturbing aspect. The lack of interruption of the ostensible 2nd
              > strike design indicates a strong strike. This should have flattened
              > the first strike design, especially in the field where effective
              > striking pressure is highest. Remnants of the first strike design
              > should be quite flat where they are not entirely effaced. But what
              I
              > see are "swollen" first-strike design elements that stand above the
              > field. That's typical of strikes by counterfeit soft dies. It just
              > doesn't jibe. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that you
              > bought a fake. I do wish it were otherwise.
              >
              > --- In errorcoininformatio nexchange@ yahoogroups. com, "jylitalo"
              > <jylitalo@ .> wrote:
              > >
              > > (I've uploaded 3 x photo's of this one in default folder).
              > >
              > > My largest question would be regarding counterfeit, or soft dies
              > and
              > > if they were used to strike the stronger overlying or weaker
              > > underlying design. The underlying faint, first strike design seen
              > via
              > > the neck line, stars, and date (most noticeable is the 1 and 9 of
              > the
              > > date) on the obverse would be the original first strike? The
              > > counterfeit dies would have then struck the stronger overlying
              > design
              > > over a coin which was extremely worn? (It would seem easy enough
              to
              > > assume, but right now that is not what I want to do).
              > >
              > > Given the worn, but strong design and the degree of rotation,
              both
              > > this weakness and rotation are consistent. (I have several
              > authentic
              > > 1912 V nickels and I cannot find any surface discrepancies when
              > > comparing them under 10x optical zoom, meaning pitted die
              surfaces,
              > > irregular pock marks). The third picture shows a close up of the
              > head-
              > > band and letters L, RTY of LIBERTY. The headband while worn does
              > > overlie one of the underlying stars quite nicely.
              > >
              > > The reverse largely shows outer rim letter design elements
              present
              > > which are more difficult to make out, but are consistent with
              > > weakness and rotation as on the obverse.
              > >
              > > There is no partial collar step along the edge. ("a persuasive
              sign
              > > of authenticity" ).
              > >
              > > Thanks.
              > >
              > > --- In errorcoininformatio nexchange@ yahoogroups. com, "Mike
              Diamond"
              > > <mdia1@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > One other thing to look for after you get it is a partial
              > > > collar "step" on the edge. A newly-struck coin sometimes has a
              > > hard
              > > > time fitting back in the collar for a second strike. Presence
              of
              > a
              > > > step would be persuasive sign of authenticity. However, absence
              > of
              > > a
              > > > step should not be construed as a black mark. Many modern in-
              > > collar
              > > > double-struck nickels lack a step.
              > > >
              > > > --- In errorcoininformatio nexchange@ yahoogroups. com, jeff
              ylitalo
              > > > <jylitalo@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > I'll sure take a close look and post pic's when it arrives.
              > >
              >


            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.