Oldhoopster

Deleted

On 7/6/2022 at 7:20 AM, Harold Biswick said:

Maybe yea but I've never seen a dryer do this damage before 

 

I don't believe your coin was damaged in this way, But Dryer coins are a real thing. Read about them on the following link

www.error-ref.com/dryer-coins/

On 7/6/2022 at 11:54 AM, Errorists said:

I have bought old coinage from the 1800's with die cracks or cuds only to find out later they are varieties by accident..

There are reference books on most (all?) US series that Identify and categorize the various varieties, die pairings, etc.  I have many of these in my library and whenever I buy an early Large Cent, Bust Dime, Shield nickel for example, I always check and attribute the variety.  I've found some nice stuff that way.  

On 7/6/2022 at 7:26 AM, Harold Biswick said:

Yeah I thought it was so cool because his face wasn't stamped all the way 🤣

But his face was completely struck. Then somebody abraided the surfaces and removed the metal after it left the mint.  All of the fine  scratches tell you that this coin did not leave the mint in that condition

On 7/5/2022 at 7:19 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

[As the referee who made the controversial call during the RR2020 bout (which cost me my job) some words of kindly advice: Don't try to read between the lines. Just focus on the closing words.]

I shall file your kindly words of advice in an appropriate place

NGC has a list of all the varieties they attribute. You can find it on the home page menu.  I'm sure you could easily find similar info at the other TPG websites, with some minor effort.

We are stewards of our collections and need to protect the coins for future generations of collectors.  When things like cleaning, damage from improper storage, PVC damage, or sunlight fading a banknote, once they occur they CAN'T be undone. 

While it may look pretty to you now, you may be ruining coins for future collectors.  The coin forums are littered with threads discussing great coins that have been cleaned.  Beautiful and historically significant coins, that for whatever reason, somebody thought they would look better.  What a shame.

As said previously, your coin is very common and cleaning it isn't a problem, but you should think long and hard about harshly cleaning coins.  You may think they look pretty, but future generations of collectors will think otherwise.

Edit to add

If you owned a copy of the Declaration of independence, would you sign your name to it?  Or draw a moustache on the Mona Lisa if it was yours?  Yes, those examples are extreme, but you should get the idea.

Cleaning a coin will reduce it's value and desirability for collectors.  Anything you do to the coin will be noticeable for decades or even centuries (serious).  Collectors like originality and will see the evidence of cleaning and discount the value accordingly.

That being said, your coin is a very common date and is stained, so the value is only a few cents.  Cleaning it isn't going to matter.  However, you should think of cleaning a coin like washing your car with sandpaper.  It will get the dirt off, but it's probably not a good idea.

Hope this helps

On 6/27/2022 at 10:39 PM, VKurtB said:

Ebook or dead tree?

Dead tree all the way.  For both numismatic reference and pleasure reading

I've been known to buy $100 books to attribute a few $1-2 coins.

One thing I enjoy is when I want to ID something in Krause or a German Notgeld coin, I always get sidetracked when I open the book.  Maybe I see something that I was trying to find a few months ago. Maybe I'll read some historical info about the coin I'm looking up, or something else. It's always fun.

Go to Numista and type in Germany 1873D 5 pfenning and that's what to get.  Yes, it's quicker, but I think you miss out on other learning opportunities

Scrolling isn't the same as turning pages to me. 

On 6/27/2022 at 5:04 PM, VKurtB said:

Not assuming what tech you use to write, Roger, but don’t most better word processors offer automatic index creation?

Not meaning to speak out of turn, but it was my impression that creating a detailed index wasn't an issue, it was determining how to incorporate it into the book in a cost effective manner.

I have numerous reference volumes for my engineering specialty and detailed indices save an incredible amount of time when you know you've seen the info but can't quite remember the details you need (usually in a hurry).  So, I really hope there is a solution to this dilemma

The link has some good pics.  The keys are the shape of the 2, shape of the 8, and distance from the 2 to the rim

http://lincolncentresource.com/smalldates/1982.html

On 6/26/2022 at 7:01 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

.

[Aside: Psychoanalysis when performed professionally requires the presence of the patient. A notary public will not affix his seal in your absence. Likewise coins. We may all have our doubts, but the proof is in the pudding. We must see the coin--front, back and edge, before we can make an informed judgment. IMHO.]

So it sounds like you're saying we should never comment on a posted photo because we can't be certain.  Is that correct?

On 6/25/2022 at 9:29 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Speaking strictly for myself, for simply defending the OP's position, I was ostracized by many members, saddled with atrocious labels, marginalized and ultimately banned. There are members still alive today who have placed my [user] name at the top of their "to be ignored in perpetuity" lists. I do not believe you have anything to worry about.

I think the member to whom you responded, was asking about the coin, not you personally. 

Basically, zinc rot is similar to rust on a car.  The copper coated zinc cents that started in mid-1982 are primarily zinc, with a thin copper plating.  Once the copper is breached and the zinc is exposed to certain environments, it can start to corrode just like a scratch on the fender of a car.

More info on cuds if you're interested

http://cuds-on-coins.com/

It's called a cud, and a nice one.  It's caused when a piece of the die that includes part of the rim, breaks off.  Nice find

On 6/24/2022 at 12:13 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

No, it's just that it seems logical that as a coin shrinks, it is harder to see imperfections.  Especially when human judgement is involved.

Maybe not the best analogy, but assume a bond portfolio manager is looking for key information from a prospectus (or whatever you use).  Some may be long and full of fluff, others may be short and succinct.  Regardless, you know what info you need and how to find it.  Just because it may be harder to find in some doesn't mean you're not going to do your job and find it

I'll make a blanket statement and say that professional graders are trained to look for defects whether that's on a 3Cent silver or double eagle.  If they're there, they will see them regardless of the coin size.

Sounds like your damned any way you look at it.  A detailed index adds to the cost and/or too many pages to be practical.  Technology like CDs becomes antiquated quickly.  Web sites aren't cost effective for specialty publications.

Maybe you're stuck with adding an abbreviated index in the back of the book.  It won't be nearly as useful as you had envisioned, but something is better than nothing.  But those of us who are used to researching and looking up things in references can usually muscle through it and find the info.  Plus you get the added benefit of inadvertently finding something you weren't looking for, and learning something new.

On 6/23/2022 at 6:38 PM, Shawn11 said:

 

ps. i do believe the coin was improperly annealled prior to the welding rod

In case any of the members are interested, here is a brief explanation why there would be no possible way to determine if a coin was improperly annealed if it was subject to subsequent heating like a welding rod.

Improper annealing is due to the wrong atmosphere inside the furnace.  Too little or too much oxygen can alter the surface chemistry of the metal.  Under these reducing or oxidizing conditions, different oxides can form on the surface giving the darker or sometimes coppery color.  These effects are primarily confined to the surface and don't penetrate much below

Now when you reheat that coin, you're doing something similar to the annealing process, except in this case the atmosphere is what we breathe with standard oxygen levels.  IF the coin was improperly annealed to begin with, the heat and different atmosphere would change the surface chemistry once again, so there would be no way to visually determine the original surface chemistry. 

Coins and chemistry, gotta love it

You try to help someone learn and this is the type of response.  No sense in wasting my time trying help him.  Just somebody to add to my Do Not Respond list

Best of luck moving forward

On 6/23/2022 at 11:05 AM, RWB said:

Same question has appeared ATS....

I guess we all don't use the same username on the various forums.  No reason not to hedge your bets and go for the maximum coverage 

I would have thought a direct call or email to the TPG asking for the appropriate person who could answer the question would be simpler than going through all the "middlemen" on the forum, but I guess a forum post could give additional feedback

On 6/23/2022 at 4:17 AM, Shawn11 said:

man i totally agree...and heat is capable of many things with metals but also very reliable in such that it is contolled properly so my next question improperly annealled is not a possibility....sorry man before i say this i just wanna thank you for answering without a closed mind or rhe self centered attitude of im a vetertan coin collector...the how dare you disagree with me... it is what I/we say it is...type response bht any one with an understanding of metals and heat and/or with anealling(I beleive you do) would know the answer is %100 yes improperly annealled is a possibility (heat related) which in my oppion is more likely then it just being tossed into a fire and then back into circulation now into my pocket. the evedince doesnt support that theory! the damage and surface is consistant with improperly annealled coins what i cant seem to figure out is the 2 areas that are deformed, if bubbling did occur from heat being applied to a localized area wouldnt there be evedince of that directly beneath on the other side of the coin?

It couldn't be an annealing issue for the following reasons

* Annealing occurs after the blanks are punched, but BEFORE the coins are struck.

* Annealing is done at temps BELOW the melting point.  Once you hit the MP of the metal, you are going to have a puddle in your furnace, not a mushy planchet 

* Striking coins is done under tons of force.  This force causes metal to move and fill the recessed areas of the die.  The strike flattens everything on the planchet, so it could NOT leave a mushy, uneven surface.  Can't happen from an annealing issue.  BTW:  The strike is the last part of the minting process.

Many times, veteran collectors are telling you FACTS about coins and the minting process (and sometimes a little metallurgy). Nobody is guessing, and if they do give incorrect info, it's called out by others.  They don't always have time to write pages explaining the details, that's why they sometimes include links to help you learn on your own. 

When you ask a question on this forum, the consensus opinion is accurate and correct.  What you may think is "how dare they disagree with me", is only the frustration of watching a new collector continuing to ask the equivalent of "are you sure 2+2 really equals 4?". Sometimes it's easy to forget people are new.

Once again, taking the the time to learn and understand the minting process is time well spent.

On 6/22/2022 at 9:05 PM, Shawn11 said:

and thank you for the valuable time you gave me,,, guess im wrong thinking that the more i knew about damage would result in knowing more about errors

The best way to learn more about errors is learning the minting and die making processes.  The biggest waste of time is trying to understand the cause of PMD.  There are almost an infinite number of ways for a coin to become damaged.  However, the minting process is well defined and understood.  

The right approach is "I can't explain how this could occur at the mint.  It is likely to be damaged."

The wrong approach is "I can't explain how this damage can occur.  It must be an error."

Your successes on error identification is predicated on your knowledge of the minting process.  Searching for the causes of damage is a tremendous waste of time.  Who knows if your coin was damaged by heat or something else.  The bottom line is that it couldn't leave the mint like that so it can't be an error

Some are 2 on the process.  

https://www.usmint.gov/learn/production-process/die-making

Possibly a fire

Many times it's difficult to firmly establish the cause of PMD.  However, if you study and learn the minting process, you'll easily recognize that it would be impossible for a coin like this to leave the mint in that condition.

On 6/21/2022 at 7:19 PM, VKurtB said:

Whenever grades are the subject, @RWB nearly always is on the VERY low side. It’s a nearly exceptionless trend. Just stand by and watch. Of course in Roger’s very warped mind, the TPGS all over grade and only he is correct.

There are four criteria used to grade coins, and degree of preservation is just ONE of the four.  And lest you think that the ANA standards say otherwise, check again. 

Your post

"Your opinion, which virtually no one who counts agrees with"

So once again, who are all these people who disagree?  I would be very interested in forming my own opinion as to whether these people "count" or not.

Everybody knows you have a beef with the other member that goes back to the Langbord 1933 double eagle trial and that ended 11 years ago.   For Pete's sake, give it a rest.