> ...write a book on error coins and how to spot a fake. >I hope no one ever writes a book like that. It would make it easier for
scammers to make high quality fakes. They might do it without having to
go through the trouble of learning about legitimate error coins. Seeing
& learning what real errors look like is the best defence. -- JFK
- Just a compilation of the articles he has written would
make a best seller!
What you'd say, Mike?
--- Tom Bunch <goldpans@...> wrote:
> I still think Mike Diamond should write a book on error__________________________________
> coins and how
> to spot a fake.
> I'd be the first to buy one.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
- Right now, I'm too busy writing new articles to even consider
compiling my old ones. One of these days, when the pace of discovery
slows, I may collect my thoughts and write a magnum opus.
As to fakes, I'm still learning about them. I'm better at detecting
them now than I was two years ago. Two years from now I'm sure I'll
be better still. One thing I have learned, is that anybody can be
fooled, at least once in a while.
It also happens that one occasionally rejects an authentic error
because it sets off too many alarm bells at the time.
--- In email@example.com, Rafael Delgado
> Just a compilation of the articles he has written would
> make a best seller!
> What you'd say, Mike?
> --- Tom Bunch <goldpans@i...> wrote:
> > I still think Mike Diamond should write a book on error
> > coins and how
> > to spot a fake.
> > I'd be the first to buy one.
- Just wondering -
In my impossible attempt to create logical sets of error types, I have limited
wrong stock types to one off - e.g. dime on quarter stock - quarter on half
stock etc. and have ignored the possible obscure variations where stock
thickness of another composition is involved - e.g. dime on cent thickness
What I have left out and not considered are stock errors that are "2 off" -
e.g. half on dime thickness.
Is anyone aware of "2 off" errors like this? Personally, I can't ever recall
seeing this, but it may well be out there.
- I have a 1965 half dollar on a planchet that weighs 7.46 grams,
instead of the expected 11.5 grams. It was last slabbed by NGC
as "dime thickness stock". However, it is a few tenths of a gram too
heavy for that designation and has a peculiarly low density of 9.1.
It has other peculiarities besides this. So I doubt it's on
conventional silver clad stock rolled to dime thickness. It's
certainly not dime stock proper, as the copper core is not visible on
I have not heard of any bona fide "2-off" wrong stock errors. There
may be others, like mine, labeled and slabbed as such, but that
doesn't mean they're the real thing.
I find that, among underweight and overweight coins, there is a
tendency among some dealers and some grading services to identify
them as being struck on the nearest appropriate stock, whether or not
the weight matches up. You yourself have seen numerous underweight
silver quarters weighing between 4.9 and 5.4 grams slabbed as "dime
stock", when they're too heavy for that.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Steve Mills"
> Just wondering -have limited
> In my impossible attempt to create logical sets of error types, I
> wrong stock types to one off - e.g. dime on quarter stock - quarteron half
> stock etc. and have ignored the possible obscure variations wherestock
> thickness of another composition is involved - e.g. dime on centthickness
> stock.are "2 off" -
> What I have left out and not considered are stock errors that
> e.g. half on dime thickness.ever recall
> Is anyone aware of "2 off" errors like this? Personally, I can't
> seeing this, but it may well be out there.