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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Bump
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"dmzcompute" wrote in message oups.com... Bump How do things go in the night? Alex, coins for $500. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |