Jump to content
  • The above Banner is a Sponsored Banner.

    Upgrade to Premium Membership to remove this Banner & All Google Ads. For full list of Premium Member benefits Click HERE.

  • Join The Silver Forum

    The Silver Forum is one of the largest and best loved silver and gold precious metals forums in the world, established since 2014. Join today for FREE! Browse the sponsor's topics (hidden to guests) for special deals and offers, check out the bargains in the members trade section and join in with our community reacting and commenting on topic posts. If you have any questions whatsoever about precious metals collecting and investing please join and start a topic and we will be here to help with our knowledge :) happy stacking/collecting. 21,000+ forum members and 1 million+ forum posts. For the latest up to date stats please see the stats in the right sidebar when browsing from desktop. Sign up for FREE to view the forum with reduced ads. 

How would you classify these feature on a coin?


Gav

Recommended Posts

Posted

Can anyone comment about identifying errors on coins and share your thoughts about a physical feature if the coin has a lip on one side (as if the reverse die was smaller than the collar), also if the coin has an uneven rim as if the reverse die was tilted slightly?f2576baf6e15a4d23561cd4f820d5f44.jpg

Posted
Being honest, everyone tries to class anything other than a coin without a blemish as an error, Americans love that sort of thing, list it on eBay as a unique error (w@@w one of a kind) rare as hell and you might get a bite, for me its just and poor bit of quality standard by whichever mint produced it

I suspect that it was intentionally produced like this as the whole run seams to have these features. I could be wrong, just hoping to get a better idea why this occurred?
Posted
No mint intentionally produces poorly struck coinage, its the poor quality control that hasn't picked up on it

Now that could be very well be the case but how many people would have measured the dies before they load them into the press? Would everyone involved with producing the dies not have noticed such a difference?

If the difference was swapped and the obverse was smaller the die would have probably shattered on the first strike.

I wouldn't say it is poor quality control yet but it could be, but then it is really bad workmanship and a quality control manager called Creed.

The mint makes stackable rounds which need very precise dies that have the same size measured in microns.
Posted
A few microns difference isn't visible unless measured at various intervals

The lip is about 0.5mm, would that have been noticed?
Posted

I presume this is a planchet error - the planchet is not of even thickness.

This might be helpful - http://numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=27114

Call a general election and then don't vote - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143

Disclaimer: Everything I post is for entertainment purposes only - it is not to be taken seriously. There is no intent to incite violence or hate of any kind, nor do I have any intent to incite any other crime or non-crime in any country in the world. It is not my intent to slander, harass or defame anyone dead or alive. 

Posted

Is this a Government Mint coin, legal tender coin or a round / medallion from a lesser known Mint ?
Post pictures of the obverse and reverse.
Is it fine silver or plated base metal ?

Posted

Gav ive seen a couple of your posts and I just assume your trying hard to "make it rich quick" by claiming every coin an error or somewhat! I doubt this coin will make you a lot because it has made it through quality control but if thats what you like to do fair enough!

Posted

After 20ish years in numismatics I only can say that this is example of poor quality control and value is lower than average struck coin. But now and then you can find people who will pay more for this kind of sloppiness :-)

Posted
On 8/3/2017 at 15:57, augur said:

Any thoughts if this accounts to a mint error? I opposed the highest point and the lowest point of two coins. 

 

IMG_5899.JPG

@Pete, the coin in question wasn't produced by a government mint.  It's the Scottsdale Mint's 100 Cedis Ghana Leopard, is it not?  Another Forum member posted late last week in another thread inquiring about the uneven blanks and potential mint error.  I'm all for Forum members doing well and prospering in whatever PM investment they choose to make but this is a tempest in a teacup.  Every time I see a new post about this coin I hear zombies moaning as it's been brought back to life once again.

Also...why was this thread started in the "Welcome New Members" section and not the "Silver"?  Come to think of it, the other post was made in the General Precious Metals - "NGC Grading Submissions Open" thread.  Isn't there already a thread in "Silver" for this coin (Scottsdales 1oz Bu Ghana leopard mix up)?  Methinks somethings rotten in Denmark.

Posted

Since you dragged me in @Jester, I don't believe there is censorship on this forum of any kind and valid questions should be allowed to ask, especially by newbies. No one mentioned the coin in order not to upset anyone as it does not matter for the question (or the development of the coin). If Gav posted this in the wrong section, then I'm sure @morezone or any other moderator will be kind enough to move it to a suitable area.

My post you refer to was whether varying rim height of 15% would be considered by NGC as an error and Numistacker clearly stated that even worse coins were not, which closed that matter. 

 

Gav was asking what causes this inaccuracy on a 1oz silver coin from the Scottsdale Mint who is famous for its stackable bars and rounds but cannot produce a single flat coin in this entire batch of 5.000, which is rather strange. 

What seems to be the case for these coins is that the obverse is flat but the reverse is at an angle and slightly curved. Could it be that the die was made at an angle and is the reeled edge added after or during the minting? I have stacked a few coins together to demonstrate the cant and realised that even the capsules don't close properly and create a similar tilted stack. All this from a Mint who knows how to perfectly orientate five capsules on a sheet with four showing the reverse and one the obverse. (Anything else relating this coin is obviously discussed in its dedicated thread.)

 

IMG_5924.JPG

IMG_5923.JPG

Posted

I didn't drag you into anything friend.  I purposefully left your name out of it and simply referred to "another Forum member".  If I had noticed that it said "augur said.." at the top I would have attempted to remove that as well.  Where in my post did I mention anything about censorship (and with that thought in mind am I not allowed to express my opinion)?  Why would mentioning the coin, when other members asked to know what coin it was, upset someone (unless people are tired of hearing about it)?  I'm sure it was an honest mistake posting it in the "Welcome New Members" section.  My apologies if you were offended by my post.

Posted

Understood, auto reminder from the silver forum. No offence taken @Jester so no apologies required but the gesture is highly appreciated. I would equally like to extend my apologies to you for misreading your post.

That aside, one thing is if people are tired to talk about this coin - they simply don't join the discussion. Another thing is if some members seem to want to suppress any open factual discussion about this coin: I actually had a member reply in secret via PM to the NGC grading post.

 

Again: something went wrong during production of this coin. @shortstack68, @Pete and @sixgun were pointing towards a planchet error, I believe it was a dye manufatured at an angle I'm no expert.  Is there a way to find out if it was the planchet or the dye causing the distorted and wedge shaped coin?

Posted
4 minutes ago, augur said:

I believe it was a dye manufatured at an angle

or simply the two dies not positioned exactly square to each other in the press?

Profile picture with thanks to Carl Vernon

Posted
2 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

or simply the two dies not positioned exactly square to each other in the press?

Is that likely to happen or go unnoticed? I think the key to this is the reeled edge which seems only parallel to the obverse; is it added pre or post minting?

This is a different coin but sometimes there can be even overhanging metal on rims, which seems to be very common for this coin.

IMG_5668.thumb.JPG.e5124a7b6173f603106df3e2a1c5332f.JPG

Posted

Is the thicker part of the coin in the same place on every coin ? If so as steve suggest this is probably the dies not being aligned square and parallel to each other imo

 

Posted

The high point is always in the same area as is the low point. Just left of this point there are distinctive marks on the reverse (inner border of the frosting of the rim). 

Measurements were taken from a sample size of 7 (originally 8 but 1 excluded): high point 3.60-3.70 mm with individual extreme values of 3.34-3.80 mm; low point consistently 3.10-3.11mm. 

One sample was excluded as it had a uniform height of 3.24 mm which is in line with the manufacturer spec (3.2 mm but I believe the thin protruding protective edge is never accounted for)

Posted

Watching the video, it seems that the reeled edge is caused by the ring dye when the planchet expands laterally during the minting process. 

Can we exclude planchet error as the manufacturing process makes it unlikely in such numbers? (and would be spotted during the feeding if hand fed)

The fact that I found a flat coin makes me doubt my idea that the dye was manufactured at an angle (unless various dies were used) and a dye mounting error more likely. Is that generally agreeable?

Posted

Interesting discussion, and thanks morezone for moving the discussion to the right section.

I am very interested in knowing what caused this feature(s) and I tried to keep the coin name out of the discussion as it would direct the conversation away from the production of the coin.

The only think that I am certain about is that the dies were different in sizes.

I don't think that the difference would have caused an uneven tilt to the coin and hoping that someone with experience in minting coins can clear up what caused this.

Maybe it was poor QA, but I don't think that fits very well with all the other pieces of the puzzle.

I think Augur has the best explanation so far but there are still gaps that need explaining.

Posted
Extremely doubtful as these would be Quality tested, where as the coin isn't

Which makes me think that this was intentionally made like this.

Why I'm certain that the dies were different sizes is because of the lip. I could be wrong, I am no expert.
Posted
Sorry but i feel like you're clutching at straws, NO mint would make an intentional error

Really, pobjoy seem to keep making them and it seems to be really paying off for them.

The mint stated that they had two programs for this series, and the other version doesn't have the same lip or uneven tilt as a feature.

So I'm curious to know how this feature/error came about, would it be intentional or unintentional? Would it have been noticed before minting or not?

I am sure that the mint didn't intentionally choose a denomination that was illegal in Ghana, but there isn't a clear picture why they said that they had two programs for this series and why the 100 Cedis has these features when the 5 Cedi doesn't?
Posted
43 minutes ago, shortstack68 said:

still guessing as we're not getting any images on the OBV on a flat plain to see the front on the coin

For a high quality (undistorted and parallel) photograph I will need time to setup until tonight.

What type of photograph would be helpful? Parallel to the obverse, parallel to the tilted reverse or both?

I will also take images of the flat coin to see what the difference is. 

 

Posted

Thought I'd add an observation I made a while back.  If anyone has some ASE handy, spin the coin round and look at the edge.  I'm pretty certain that the rim changes thickness.  Might be deliberate in the design.  Might just be how it's manufactured due to an image/pattern being pressed onto what used to be a flat surface.  You can see this effect more clearly on the proof than the bullion.  Here some pics and you can see the height difference between the highest and lowest parts.

 

2017-08-07 10.19.01.jpg

2017-08-07 10.19.25.jpg

2017-08-07 10.19.32.jpg

2017-08-07 10.19.48.jpg

Posted

The ASE also has a slight lip too. So maybe the lip and uneven edge is related?

This might be the puzzle piece that shows that it wasn't intentionally produced to have this feature but rather just poor quality control?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Cookies & terms of service

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies and to our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use