Shawn11

On 6/23/2022 at 7:24 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

Maybe just maybe he is just getting off on the wrong foot?

No further questions, your Honor.

you do realize people will have all ready read my entire post by the time they get to yours qouting pieces of mine that you feel you can use to accomplish..... (NO CLUE as to what you would even call that???)

On 6/23/2022 at 11:41 AM, Oldhoopster said:

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.

 

man this is just just crazy that all this coukd come from me disagreeing with  only the fire portion your heat/fire response which must have been correct since fire was only mentioned once after that (in that manner) and heat is now the group consensus other than me saying i saw characteristic's of strike through(not strike through) you guys went here saying this other that had nothing to do with my question, not me! but in the end a couple of gentkeman offered an actual informative response to my questions rather than its heat damaghe thats all you need to know well im not happy with just knowing what i can see my good freind so my apologies for asking for more information

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

On 6/23/2022 at 3:32 AM, l.cutler said:

Clad coins are made of three layers, when heated there can be separating and bubbling of the layers but not necessarily opposite each other. The first time I saw damage like this I tried to recreate it by heating, sometimes the coin has no bulging at all, other times it is on one side and sometimes both.  Whether it is gas trapped between the layers, areas in the cladding that are not bonded as well or what I don't know.  When the whole coin is heated the damage on each side is seldom directly opposite, it is just wherever these "weakened" areas are. Your coin looks like it has seen a lot of wear after the heat damage, the bubbles have mostly been flattened back out.

On 6/23/2022 at 1:53 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

Sum up the thread:

Shawn: What happed?

Group: Heat Damage

Shawn: I disagree

Group: Heat Damage

Shawn: Strike Through?

Group: Heat Damage

Shawn: If heat damage, why no discoloration?

Group: Heat Damage doesn't have to discolor

Shawn:  What about the divot on both sides?  Explain that!

Group: Heat Damage

Shawn: Improperly Annealed?

Group: Heat Damage

Shawn: How do you know?  Someone tell me what happened.

Group: Heat Damage.  We know because it looks like heat damage.

Shawn:  I am a welder... I know heat damage.

Group:  This is heat damage.

Can you see how this is frustrating?  I am questioning if you are legit, or just trolling the forum.

wow man, im speechless had no idea you spent your whole day on me and my newbie post now thats devotion unfortunately your recaps accuracy was graded at vg

On 6/23/2022 at 3:32 AM, l.cutler said:

Clad coins are made of three layers, when heated there can be separating and bubbling of the layers but not necessarily opposite each other. The first time I saw damage like this I tried to recreate it by heating, sometimes the coin has no bulging at all, other times it is on one side and sometimes both.  Whether it is gas trapped between the layers, areas in the cladding that are not bonded as well or what I don't know.  When the whole coin is heated the damage on each side is seldom directly opposite, it is just wherever these "weakened" areas are. Your coin looks like it has seen a lot of wear after the heat damage, the bubbles have mostly been flattened back out.

thank you sir,thats the type of response you would expect from a seasoned collector

On 6/22/2022 at 9:57 PM, Lem E said:

I think it would depend on how the heat was applied and any surface discoloration that may have happened could have been worn off if/when the coin was put back in circulation. There are so many variables that it would be nearly impossible to say exactly what happened to this coin. My first instinct is some type of heat damage. How it happened, I can’t say for sure. 

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?

On 6/22/2022 at 8:52 PM, Lem E said:

The bubbling and separation of the clad layers leads me to believe heat damage as well. 

thank you... that much heat with out discoloration is possible on coins? honest question not trying to dispute or argue

the 2 areas in question do not match up from front to back they are both in seperate areas on the coin from front to back

On 6/22/2022 at 8:31 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

You have three votes for heat damage so far - how many do you need?

Please understand that everything you need is contained in the posts above.

ok ill ask it like this

why do you think this is heat damagewhat signs do you see that brought you to this determination

ok can someone pls explain to me how the areas (1 on obverse and 1 on reverse) that are not of original design happened

On 6/22/2022 at 7:49 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

As a numismatist... it does not matter.  I do not pick coins up on the street and wonder what happened to them.  Frankly, my time is too valuable for such pursuits.  They are damaged, not collectible and worth face and I spend them.  I wish you luck in finding-out exactly what happened to this coin.

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 i will try to limit my questions to ones of more interesting subject matter but should i fail then just simply dont respond

On 6/22/2022 at 7:18 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

In this case - note true.  I am a newbie, and I advocate for new collectors all the time (read my posts).  I really try to be nice.  When I ask a question, and I get an answer I accept it.  I have asked about a DDO coin that was MD, they explained it... I looked it up.  They were right, and I actually learned from that encounter.  

Your coin is damaged, and the collectors here have told you such.  You wanted to argue, and more seasoned collectors piled on to drive home the point that you have a quarter that is damaged.  You immediately disagreed with OldHoopster, and I think he was spot-on.  However, in the end... it doesn't matter what happened.  It's damage, not a strikethrough - its damage.

You showing-up and arguing without a modicum of knowledge is a poor reflection on newbies.  So, either submit it, or quit it.

oh good lord i never said anyone was wrong yes i did disagree with old hoopster never denied it was damaged nor did i claim it had came from the mint in this conditioni did ask what happened to it and got responses and thats great i appreciate that! as a welder im very familiar with what heat does to metal and disagreed was hoping for other possibilities as to what happened to it but of course your right amd there are no other possibilities heat/fire it is and im just arguing on here

On 6/20/2022 at 6:51 AM, Greenstang said:

That is a 1982 Small Date copper but that is not a mm which means it was struck in Philadelphia, not Denver.

so its only 82-d small date that is rare?

On 6/22/2022 at 6:30 PM, RWB said:

You're "fishing" for something that is not present. It's junk. Too much damage to make any decisions about anything so spend it for a gum ball (if the machine will accept it) and move on to something numismaticly interesting.

no im not fishing  im learning ive yet to claim that it was anything  was meerly to trying figure out what happened to it? my original question! seems like everyone one here has tunnel vision when it comes to newbies eager to shut someone down but no help beyond that

whats that supposed to mean

On 6/22/2022 at 5:18 PM, zadok said:

...distressed comes to mind...

would extreme heat cause more discoloration? like a faked black beauty disstress maybe but how is some of the original image still there

i see some chararistic's of strike through on the reverse and alot of details not imprinted such as date and tree top

disagree on the fire scenario

thickness 0.0575 inches,1.45 mm.

width 0.0920 inches, 23.93 mm.

5.6 bout to put calibers on it in a few

you know get it graded and preserve it as is decline the conservation and have incapsulated that way itllalways  be the same as when you got it im sure your aunt could appreciate that.... its a really beautiful coin if you ask me

it is zinc and not copper but is that the small date 2

best i can get of it

On 5/5/2022 at 5:25 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Let NGC tell you if it's worth conserving, as long as you don't check "Decline Conservation" on the submission form they will typically recommend conservation if they feel the coin would benefit from it. That's been my experience at any rate. 

I don't think the coin will grade high enough to sniff 65 but it's hard to give an accurate evaluation of where it may fall on the grading scale based on those pictures.

so they will contact you and ask