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

[Error Coin Information Exchange] Re: V nickel gamble

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Sep 4 7:20 AM
    • 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 2 of 10 , Sep 4 8:03 AM
      • 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.