A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Coins
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Error Coin Experts - Question About Error Coin



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 20th 05, 03:20 AM
dmzcompute
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Error Coin Experts - Question About Error Coin

Just a quick question. I bought a 2000 reverse die cap cent raw and
sent it off to PCGS as one of my free gradings. The coin just came
back and instead of calling it a reverse die cap it is labeled
Multi-Stk w/Obv Stk-Thru. Is this the same thing or different and what
effect will this have as to the value of the coin?

David

Ads
  #2  
Old August 20th 05, 03:28 PM
dmzcompute
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bump

  #3  
Old August 20th 05, 04:47 PM
Bill Krummel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"dmzcompute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bump



How do things go in the night?

Alex, coins for $500.


  #4  
Old August 24th 05, 01:46 AM
Ed. Stoebenau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 19 Aug 2005 19:20:37 -0700, "dmzcompute"
wrote:

Just a quick question. I bought a 2000 reverse die cap cent raw and
sent it off to PCGS as one of my free gradings. The coin just came
back and instead of calling it a reverse die cap it is labeled
Multi-Stk w/Obv Stk-Thru. Is this the same thing or different and what
effect will this have as to the value of the coin?


I've never particularly liked the "reverse die cap" idea and
apparently (since I've not seen the coin) the PCGS description is
accurate and what I would probably call the coin. I assume it is
basically severely broadstruck, a "normal" reverse design, and on
the obverse there's a distorted strike from having a normal
strike, and then a second (and perhaps more) strikes through
intervening blanks? As for value, obviously given my thoughts on
the descriptions I don't think it should have an effect. (I do
think this type of error is overpriced, but a whole lot of people
disagree with me.)


--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143
  #5  
Old August 24th 05, 03:11 AM
dmzcompute
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed. Stoebenau wrote:
On 19 Aug 2005 19:20:37 -0700, "dmzcompute"
wrote:

Just a quick question. I bought a 2000 reverse die cap cent raw and
sent it off to PCGS as one of my free gradings. The coin just came
back and instead of calling it a reverse die cap it is labeled
Multi-Stk w/Obv Stk-Thru. Is this the same thing or different and what
effect will this have as to the value of the coin?


I've never particularly liked the "reverse die cap" idea and
apparently (since I've not seen the coin) the PCGS description is
accurate and what I would probably call the coin. I assume it is
basically severely broadstruck, a "normal" reverse design, and on
the obverse there's a distorted strike from having a normal
strike, and then a second (and perhaps more) strikes through
intervening blanks? As for value, obviously given my thoughts on
the descriptions I don't think it should have an effect. (I do
think this type of error is overpriced, but a whole lot of people
disagree with me.)


--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143



Here I hope are links to images of the coin. Looking for opinions.

David

http://imageshack.us][/url]

http://imageshack.us][/url]

http://imageshack.us][/url]

  #6  
Old August 24th 05, 04:17 AM
Phil DeMayo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Aug 2005 19:11:46 -0700, "dmzcompute"
wrote:

Ed. Stoebenau wrote:
On 19 Aug 2005 19:20:37 -0700, "dmzcompute"
wrote:

Just a quick question. I bought a 2000 reverse die cap cent raw and
sent it off to PCGS as one of my free gradings. The coin just came
back and instead of calling it a reverse die cap it is labeled
Multi-Stk w/Obv Stk-Thru. Is this the same thing or different and what
effect will this have as to the value of the coin?


I've never particularly liked the "reverse die cap" idea and
apparently (since I've not seen the coin) the PCGS description is
accurate and what I would probably call the coin. I assume it is
basically severely broadstruck, a "normal" reverse design, and on
the obverse there's a distorted strike from having a normal
strike, and then a second (and perhaps more) strikes through
intervening blanks? As for value, obviously given my thoughts on
the descriptions I don't think it should have an effect. (I do
think this type of error is overpriced, but a whole lot of people
disagree with me.)


--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143



Here I hope are links to images of the coin. Looking for opinions.

David

http://imageshack.us][/url]

http://imageshack.us][/url]

http://imageshack.us][/url]


Or try these:

http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/4818/2000o4dw.jpg

http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/474/2000r1gt.jpg

http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/9985/2000s3cj.jpg

  #7  
Old August 24th 05, 04:37 AM
dmzcompute
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks Phil. I forgot to mention the coin is about the size of a
quarter.

Looking from any opinions as to the classification of the error and
value of this coin.

David

  #8  
Old September 3rd 05, 01:24 AM
Ed. Stoebenau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Aug 2005 19:11:46 -0700, "dmzcompute"
wrote:


Here I hope are links to images of the coin. Looking for opinions.

David

http://imageshack.us][/url]

http://imageshack.us][/url]

http://imageshack.us][/url]


I think they got it right.


--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143
  #9  
Old September 3rd 05, 08:33 PM
mikediamond
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

PCGS screwed up. The coin is a reverse die cap. The first strike was
normal. The second was out-of-collar beneath a blank planchet. That's
the essence of a reverse die cap. The fact that the obverse design is
spread out, distorted, and reaches the perimeter of the coin is proof
positive that this sequence of events occurred.

  #10  
Old September 10th 05, 01:20 AM
Ed. Stoebenau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Sep 2005 12:33:51 -0700, "mikediamond"
wrote:

PCGS screwed up. The coin is a reverse die cap. The first strike was
normal. The second was out-of-collar beneath a blank planchet. That's
the essence of a reverse die cap. The fact that the obverse design is
spread out, distorted, and reaches the perimeter of the coin is proof
positive that this sequence of events occurred.


Well yes, that is what occurred, but why is it called a reverse
die cap? If both obverse (hammer) die caps and reverse (anvil)
die caps are die caps, there should be some criterion, either by
similar appearance or similar cause, which both adhere to. The
appearances of "reverse die caps" are not like obverse die
caps, where I think the major diagnostic is the thimble shape, so
"reverse die caps" can't be called die caps due to that.

So perhaps a similar cause then. Reverse die caps certainly do
not get wrapped around the reverse/anvil die, so that can't be
used as a defining criterion. It also doesn't seem to be the
case that reverse die caps are due to some sort of the coin
adhering to the anvil die or the collar, which would be similar
to obverse die caps. Rather it would appear to me that it is
likely a feeding finger or collar retraction mishap, such that
the struck coin does not get ejected from the coining chamber but
that a new blank does enter. As such reverse die caps would then
be similar to on-center (non-rotated, non-flipover)
double/multiple strikes, rather than obverse die caps. The fact
that reverse die caps are effective dies for a second coin
perhaps gets closer, as obverse die caps also are, but doesn't
really seem to be the case. First, reverse die caps do not seem
to really be a progressive type of error, but rather always seem
to end as double strikes, and thus were just used as an effective
die for a single strike, whereas obverse die caps are usually
used for multiple strikes. Second, reverse die caps seem to be
that they would always yield brockages for the coin they strike.
Obverse die caps (depending on how they were formed) can give
brockages, counterbrockages, or uniface strikes (and probably
more). Third, "effective" dies do not need to be die caps at
all.

So I'm not sure why "reverse die caps" get called such and the
term to me seems to make as much sense as "die trial" (with
regards to errors or "adjustment strike", but I might as well
probe your mind as you _do_ know more about errors than I do
(there is no sarcasm there, and I saw your talk at the Baltimore
ANA). I suspect there may be some relation to the old "cup and
saucer" designation but that's been a while for me, though it
seems like the "saucer" may be the reverse die cap but I never
recall them being themselves described as die caps, that was the
"cup." The cynic in me also suspects that reverse die cap may be
a term invented because of Breen's five-finger word, especially
since die caps are worth more and generally desired more than
double strikes or uniface strikes.


--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
question for token experts joe Coins 3 January 3rd 05 10:38 PM
Antarctica Note Question (Currency Board Newbie) Shystev99 Paper Money 5 December 1st 04 07:50 PM
Question for experts TIA Luis Pens & Pencils 20 September 1st 04 02:26 AM
Question on Stamp Collecting Procedure Luther Bell General Discussion 3 May 19th 04 12:21 PM
Spam Question: Or A Former (one-time only) Spammer Explains Himself Mark Books 1 July 17th 03 08:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.