Mike Meenderink

The short answer is yes. That is evidence of a stressed cracked die that struck the coin. BUT.... If you look at the overall appearance of the coin itself you will notice the overall poor details and strike to and otherwise lightly circulated coin. This is an example of a coin struck from a late stage deteriorated die set. The dies are very worn and in the final stages of usefulness. They have also developed small cracks which you see on your coin. They are common. It is interesting but most coins of all types have these types of minor errors in some fashion. The more bodacious or obvious an error is the more they are worth. Minor die chips, strike throughs or die cracks are not extremely valuable.

They have to come from somewhere. If this is indeed a proof it would make sense it would look like this if it was improperly stored or improperly handled. If this coin has looked this way for long time I doubt anyone would truly look closely at it enough to see that it is very much prooflike.

It should be weighed, circumference and thickness measured, placed on an XFRF coin tester such as a Sigma Metalytics Analyzer and examined in person by a coin expert that is familiar with that type. Even if a magnet does not stick that does not always mean its an authentic coin. If the coin turns out to be silver that still doesn't even prove its real. All of the coins attributes must match known catalogued specimens within accepted tolerance in every way. These attributes include all of the above stated attribute and includes the device art, motto and general strike characteristics of the coin.

IMO this is an impaired proof coin. It is exceptionally well struck. It is not harshly cleaned. It may have been cleaned however that can not be determined from pictures. It has been roughly handled and possibly circulated. The video shows reflectivity (reasonably clear thumb reflections) under the white hazing which is under the dark sulfur crust spots. It looks like a proof that went off the reservation.

Someone used silver household tarnish remover like Tarn X and/or another abrasive silver polish on this coin. It does as others said appear as if its been glass bead/ sand blasted or something from the weird pocky surface. It's a shame it was a nice coin until someone messed with it.

IMO This coin exhibits improper details on the obverse and reverse rim edges. The small reed lines should extend from the obverse and reverse rim edges onto the field of the coin. The stars are also suspect as several are sharp tips which are not apparent on a known sample coin of the same year. The reverse rim was apparently non reeded or weakly reeded. It just does not look right to me. The toning or coloring with the strange wear on the high points makes this coin suspect. May be a counterfeit. You should do all appropriate tests and research to determine authenticity prior to evaluating for grading.

A Dryer coin is a coin as they have explained to you that has been spun by centrifugal force( in an inner dryer drum or equivalent) on its edge over and over and over. This causes the reeding to wear away and as the coin heats up each time its spun the centrifugal force slowly squashes the planchet to that thickness. OK? Not magic. Not an error.

Photo viewed grade MS62. Firm. Both coins show weak strike. Wear is not apparent. Original surfaces. Marks. Luster breaks and impaired overall luster. Coin 2 might just get MS62 FSB it's very close. IMO

1770 Great Britain Non Regal George III Halfpenny. Colonial late period coinage. Pre American Independence. Contemporary counterfeit. I am compiling a set that encompasses coins that were used or present in the colonies from any county prior to the American Revolutionary War of 1776. This includes coins from France, G. Britain, Germany, Spain as well as many others.

This is what my first inclination was but everyone jumped on me because they THINK I have no skills. I said all this at the first comment on this post. Some talked smack (coinbuf,idhair,goldfinger) thinking they know everything..well it looks like they were wrong again. hmmmm

You don't give opinions you just talk smack about most people's posts, split hairs, insult people's posts as mundane and not worth your time but you still troll everything just like here. Sometimes you try to answer questions but mostly you just blabber. You are the definition of a troll as we see here. No one asked you to comment on my post this is the OPs post not yours to talk smack on. Nothing you say will ever convince me you have any coin skills beyond what you collect ( Chucky Cheese Pizza Tokens) so please just stop.

Notice how these guys didn't even see the post where I said I was wrong. They just want to keep pushing. Jesus this is going to be fun.

When people insult me and talk smack for no reason I don't play dead. I did make a mistake and I was discussing it with the OP when Coinbutt decides to talk smack about my coins accuse me of being a troll etc..hes just a mess disturbing azzhole. As for you yours were limited from birth.

Agreed.. upon further inspection ( photo enlarged) the small mark which I saw as the bottom of the 7 below the 8 is not an overdate. It's just a tarnish spot. Apologies. My eyes are bad in the AM. IMO the coin is perfect for a type set collector that wants a CC to fill a spot for reasonable a price. If it's priced reasonably Id consider purchasing it. Even details coins have a value. Usually a key or scarce decent condition coins value is diminished but not completely devastated by a details grade. If this came back Details Cleaned it would still be market acceptable.

Improperly cleaned yes. Over dipped or another process which dulled coins surfaces. I see some tiny hairlines on both sides. Possibly scrubbed in some way. It's still a nice coin worth keeping here's why. First it's a Carson City coin with low mintage. The coin is around VF condition which makes it desirable to type set collectors. Also this coin is an 1880 CC rev of 1878 (The eagles breast is flat and the top arrows feathers are flat) which makes this 1880 CC a bit more rare than the regular strike 1880 CC rev of 1879. This is a VAM-7 Hit list 40 coin. Its valued around $175.00 as is graded VF Details Cleaned. Nice coin!

Thanks for your assessment.. I will wait until a few more people attempt this quiz before I reveal the answer. This coin is graded and encapsulated by ANACS.

Hello I was looking at your neat large die cud Lincoln cent when I noticed something. I believe this is also a clashed die strike. This coin was probably struck soon after a die clashing event that caused the die to crack. The broken die also had this clash on it prior to the mint replacing it with a fresh one. See photo.

IMO grading a coin focuses on luster, number of marks and surface characteristics only when qualifying beyond MS 66. A coin must be free from circulation wear to be even considered above AU 58. A coin that is free from circulation wear with heavy luster breaks, weak strike, heavily marked or impaired luster can grade anywhere between MS60 -MS65 (unless cleaned or altered). Any MS 66 and above grades are given out due to the exceptional condition of surfaces, uninterrupted luster and actual counting of individual marks. An MS 63 grade is appropriate for this coin considering the luster breaks, weak strike and several field contact marks. Nice coin though!

Here it is...

Nah I'll just let them read the thread. They will moderate as they have before in the opposite direction away from me. I am the OP and these guys that troll my posts with derogatory personal attacks get it right back x10.

This has already been done at PCGS. Its problematic. The systems get it right 85% of the time on type and details but can't recognize exceptional luster from just luster. Human graders jobs are safe for a while longer. IMO (and many, many others) trying to teach a machine how to recognize beauty (eye appeal) and perfection (strike details/spotless) in a coin is near impossible. The data set required for all die pairs, die states, mints, luster, surface variations, types...etc..etc would be VERY large and time consuming to build. Would you want AI judging fine art? Would you want AI judging the next Miss Universe? Why would we want AI judging coins?

None of those guys know about coins. They may know about their coins and been in this chat for years .. but they have no overall knowledge of coins in any deep realistic fashion. VKurtB is a complete self important blustering idiotic person, Coinbuf is a smart mouth brain impaired parrot, RWB thinks he's God and Frentucky Mike is dumber than a brick. If you guys read anything about coins except your own babbling comments to each other you would know these are all exactly what I said they are. They are mint errors with circulation wear and corrosion post minting.

I never said it was caused by it I said thats the process by which the coin deteriorates its caused by an improper annealment. Bahaha

You obviously know Jack about metallurgy. Bahahahaa

You have a worn out previously plated counterfeit coin that is a particularly bad one as well. If you could please destroy that coin or stamp it COPY. IMO that kind of stuff deteriorates faith in our community. It may end up fooling an uneducated new collector if it was out in the wild. Thank you for your time.