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

Re: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Re: V nickel gamble

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Sep 3, 2008
      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 2 of 10 , Sep 4, 2008
        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 3 of 10 , Sep 4, 2008
          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.