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

Re: Possible vertical misalignment

Expand Messages
  • Mike Diamond
    I now have the coin. The weight is normal, so we know it s not a tapered planchet error. On balance, it looks more likely to be a vertical misalignment than a
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I now have the coin. The weight is normal, so we know it's not a
      tapered planchet error.

      On balance, it looks more likely to be a vertical misalignment than a
      grease strike. In favor of the VMAD hypothesis, I note the absence of
      the design rim in the affected area and the fact that the unstruck area
      has what appear to be typical tumbling marks. Also, this area is not
      recessed relative to the nearby die-struck field.

      On the negative side, the reeding is equally strong all around the
      edge, and there is no finning of the rim at the pole opposite the
      unstruck area. Also, die fill with a coarse texture can leave a
      surface texture on the coin similar to tumbling marks.

      Still, most grease strikes leave a well-struck design rim, and the
      unstruck area is slightly recessed relative to the surrounding die
      struck field. So I'm fairly confident it's a VMAD.

      The clash marks are even more impressive up close.

      --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
      <mdia1@a...> wrote:
      >
      > Here's a dime with very strong clash marks and a possible vertical
      > misalignment (tilted die error):
      >
      > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3966366697
      >
      > Since the design rim appears to be absent on both faces in the
      unstruck
      > area, I figure it's more likely to be a VMAD than a grease strike.
      > Even if it's not a VMAD, the clash marks alone are worth more than
      what
      > I paid.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.