Re: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Re: V nickel gamble
- Thanks Fred.--- On Thu, 9/4/08, fred_weinberg <email@example.com> wrote:
From: fred_weinberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Re: V nickel gamble
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 9:20 AMJeff, 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
--- 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
> 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
> > if they were used to strike the stronger overlying or weaker
> > underlying design. The underlying faint, first strike design seen
> > the neck line, stars, and date (most noticeable is the 1 and 9 of
> > date) on the obverse would be the original first strike? The
> > counterfeit dies would have then struck the stronger overlying
> > over a coin which was extremely worn? (It would seem easy enough
> > assume, but right now that is not what I want to do).
> > Given the worn, but strong design and the degree of rotation,
> > this weakness and rotation are consistent. (I have several
> > 1912 V nickels and I cannot find any surface discrepancies when
> > comparing them under 10x optical zoom, meaning pitted die
> > irregular pock marks). The third picture shows a close up of the
> > 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
> > 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
> > of authenticity" ).
> > Thanks.
> > --- In errorcoininformatio nexchange@ yahoogroups. com, "Mike
> > <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
> > > step would be persuasive sign of authenticity. However, absence
> > 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
> > > <jylitalo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'll sure take a close look and post pic's when it arrives.