bhx7 Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 A couple of better close up pictures of my 2 x 1858 with 8 over 6 and 8 over what we think could be another 8.Playing with my new toy USB Microscope Unfortunately the drivers dont work properly on my 64 bit PC so am having to do Screen Shots! 1 Quote
Mal Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 This is a 1673 V.QVINTO Charles II halfcrown, FR over M. Note that most of the back of Charles' head has not been struck up. 1 Quote
Rob Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) This is a 1673 V.QVINTO Charles II halfcrown, FR over M. Note that most of the back of Charles' head has not been struck up.1673FRoverM.jpgHas the reverse die initially been inserted into the press 90 degrees out and then repositioned? i.e. is there any other legend that is displaced by the same angle or is it just this letter and therefore likely to be an engraving error? Edited December 19, 2015 by Rob Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 An error I picked up the other day, but not a run of mill error. This one I don't know what happened, it looks like regular damage but there's a serif on the bottom of the N still, even though it's higher up. I think the metal has just been pushed up which has caused it, but it's different from the normal lamination flaw or clip I pick up. Quote
Bronze & Copper Collector Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 IMHO, PMD the I is equally damaged to the same level..... Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 22 minutes ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said: IMHO, PMD the I is equally damaged to the same level..... Thanks for the reply BCC, what say you about the 'serif' on the bottom of the N? I can't see how it could have been done post strike, I'd understand if the bottom part of both was completely missing but there is metal where the shouldn't be? Quote
Bronze & Copper Collector Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Nordle11 said: Thanks for the reply BCC, what say you about the 'serif' on the bottom of the N? I can't see how it could have been done post strike, I'd understand if the bottom part of both was completely missing but there is metal where the shouldn't be? IMHO, Not a mint produced serif... Just metal pushed upward thar happens to resemble a serif, albeit not resembling the other serifs... Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 7 hours ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said: IMHO, Not a mint produced serif... Just metal pushed upward thar happens to resemble a serif, albeit not resembling the other serifs... I'm confusing things here by calling it a serif, I'm just saying that so you know which part I'm on about but I don't think it's a standard mint produced one, I just can't see how that extra bit (that resembles a serif) has come about from PMD. I have another coin with damage in the date, it's got a similar problem where the metal has been jumbled up during the strike although I don't know how these things happen. Quote
Gary1000 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 4 hours ago, Nordle11 said: I'm confusing things here by calling it a serif, I'm just saying that so you know which part I'm on about but I don't think it's a standard mint produced one, I just can't see how that extra bit (that resembles a serif) has come about from PMD. I have another coin with damage in the date, it's got a similar problem where the metal has been jumbled up during the strike although I don't know how these things happen. Just think of bronze as being a very hard plastic, it will move if pushed. That's how the coin if formed in the first place. Plastic flow into the mould/die. Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 I understand that the alloy is malleable but with quite a large amount of force though right? If you were to do something like the last 2 errors I posted it wouldn't be possible after it's been struck, unless you had something to keep it still without affecting the coin itself. For instance, on the damaged numerals, could you whack it with, say, a chisel and move the number around on the face of the coin? What I'm getting at is that I think they are both mint errors, but I'm not sure how they ended up how they did because the metal has moved around into different places. If the die was damaged and the metal was flowing into the broken parts, that makes sense to me. Quote
Gary1000 Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 On 14/01/2016 at 0:16 PM, Nordle11 said: I understand that the alloy is malleable but with quite a large amount of force though right? If you were to do something like the last 2 errors I posted it wouldn't be possible after it's been struck, unless you had something to keep it still without affecting the coin itself. For instance, on the damaged numerals, could you whack it with, say, a chisel and move the number around on the face of the coin? What I'm getting at is that I think they are both mint errors, but I'm not sure how they ended up how they did because the metal has moved around into different places. If the die was damaged and the metal was flowing into the broken parts, that makes sense to me. Its been hit with a sharp edge, you can see the straight line where the edge stopped. Quote
Gary1000 Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 18 hours ago, Nordle11 said: The 1921 is more interesting because the flaws go under the lettering. Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 On 21/1/2016 at 3:19 PM, Gary1000 said: The 1921 is more interesting because the flaws go under the lettering. It also shows up through the E and N quite a bit as well. Here's some closer shots.. 1 Quote
Rob Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 So nothing abnormal. The flaw just tracks across the surface, just that in this instance it crosses a feature. Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 Nope nothing out of the ordinary. It's nice to have a big die crack on one side and a lamination error on the other, both quite substantial too. Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 An 'upgrade', if you can call it that, of something that I find quite interesting, I like the theory behind expending the brass shells into the alloy mix after the war. One of the most affected ones I've seen. 2 Quote
PWA 1967 Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Never heard of that Matt , looks weird. If its part of the mix why has it not affected the obverse ?. Might be a daft question but never seen one before. Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Not sure, it's quite a common problem on the coins around these years, when they still have lustre they tend to be a little 'streaky' (the affected ones) but once it's dulled and has a bit of wear, some of them come out like this. The one I've had for a while is the same, but only on the obverse! I think that's what interests me more, is that one can only guess as to what happened, there's no definitive answer AFAIK. Quote
bhx7 Posted January 25, 2016 Author Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Well I also have a 1920 like Matts, not quite as well defined, but also on the reverse. I also have this 1921 with it on the Obverse only. Every time I have seen it It only seems to affect one side. maybe different weights of metal sinking to the bottom of the mix!!! Anyway here is mine. Just took it very quickly in a dull room and camera phone so sorry for quality! The effect always reminds me of Tortoise Shell. Edited January 25, 2016 by bhx7 1 Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 That's also an interesting theory, perhaps when the sheets are rolled out the copper/tin is being pushed down more so than the zinc? Still quite a bit of detail on that reverse too Quote
bhx7 Posted January 25, 2016 Author Posted January 25, 2016 Here are a few more examples from 1919 and 1921. One of the 1919 seem to have some of both sides. I originally thought someone had tried to colour these but sure they are part of the same defect. Not quite as bitty more streaking! Quote
Nutsaboutcoins Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Looks uni-directional which to me would suggest it is part of the rolling process of the blanks or possibly some post strike treatment, but strange that it appears to be predominantly on one face only. Ian.. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.