Latest 2012 Reverse Proof - New Pics - Bonus Silver!

[mikew148]

My second order of 2012 Reverse Proof coins.

 

How did this happen?

 

[Crohnos01]

Yikes...that's a bad flaw for sure.... It looks like something (metal) was forced into the coin after the striking process and the literally ripped out metal as it was removed. I have no idea how that could happen in the minting process... Maybe someone else does. I would send it back.

[delta]

I returned a reverse proof similar to that, for replacement, with what was possibly just an extra small piece of loose scrap silver, either lying on the surface of the coin or attached to it. But why take a chance opening the capsule to see if that piece will fall off and leave an unblemished surface beneath? No, it must be returned.

[mkman123]

Is that considered an error?

[mikew148]

Again, I find it interesting that a coin like this can make it out of the mint. The mint makes it sound like these special edition coins are babied from the time they are planchets until the time they are shipped. I bought 5 sets and 2 of the Reverse Proof coins had major damage.

 

If this exact type of damage were to be on a older popular series of coinage, say a Morgan Silver Dollar, would it still be just "poor quality control"?

 

I think I'm going to stay away from error/variety collecting. It seems very subjective.

 

Take a Clashed E Morgan Dollar for example. Isn't this just another case of poor quality control? I mean, a couple of dies slam together because the coin that was supposed to be there wasn't for whatever reason, design elements get transferred to the opposite die and the next coins that came through get the much desired E. It's a result of a malfunction in the process and nobody catching it before it was released to the public.

 

Or even die breaks, double dies, double strikes, broad strikes, etc... aren't they all just coins that were struck in a way that they weren't supposed to be struck and then released to the public instead of being removed from the process and thrown back into the melting pot? A result of "Poor Quality Control"

[coinman1794]

My second order of 2012 Reverse Proof coins.

 

How did this happen?

 

 

This is a textbook strike-through mint error, and for special collector issue like this, it has just big enough that it might qualify for a Mint Error designation.

 

 

[bartlesvilleok]

Don't be in such a hurry to ship it back. Find a error expert first and see if this could be a mint error. If so could be big money with the limited supply.

 

[nk1nk]

I like it. Don't send it back, sell it to me.

 

Nick

[L1ncolnF4n]

It certainly appears to be a mint error. Even though the series is rather limited in availability, I question if it's enough of an error for collectors to pay a premium for it. Personally, I like it, but even being an error collector myself, I wouldn't pay a premium for that since the premium on the RP's is already high.

[coinman1794]

Don't be in such a hurry to ship it back. Find a error expert first and see if this could be a mint error. If so could be big money with the limited supply.

 

This is a Mint Error, Obverse Strike-Thru. The size is borderline for it to be nice enough to be labeled. It will only bring a premium if it is labeled on the slab, and the premium will be very, very small.

[19Lyds]

Is that considered an error?

Thats simply damage in its purest form and not considered an error.

 

The error would be in keeping the coin and not returning it.

[mikew148]

I also sent a message to ask NGC. Max said it's hard to tell from the picture, because it's hard to get a sense of the scale. He was uncertain if it was a strike through or post mintage damage.

He said if it's Struck Through they would probably designate it as such. If it's post mintage damage then not.

 

With all of the metal folded back and left on the surface wouldn't this have happened during the striking process?

 

If not, what would cause this type of a gash post mintage?

[Crohnos01]

I am far from an expert on such things, but my understanding is that unless a coin had a documented and acknowledged error by NGC, the coin would not receive a grade or special recognition. I base this conclusion on the earlier "doubled tail feather" issue that occurred on the ASE 25th anniversary sets. NGC did not acknowledge that as a variety and it had a lot more documented occurrences than this coin "mishap". Just my opinion and worth what you just paid for it.

 

 

[mikew148]

Delta....You're exactly right. This is a piece of the reeding that remained attached.

Must have been ejected out of the collar funny....look at the reeding next to it...above the Y in Liberty.

 

 

 

It's amazing how much it looked like a gouge both with a microscope and a lens. Obviously I decided to open the capsule for a closer look. I was looking at the reeding when my cotton glove snagged the extra piece of metal and stood it up.

[delta]

Delta....You're exactly right. This is a piece of the reeding that remained attached. Must have been ejected out of the collar funny....look at the reeding next to it...above the Y in Liberty.

 

 

 

It's amazing how much it look like a gouge both with a microscope and a lens. Obviously I decided to open the capsule for a closer look. I was looking at the reeding when my cotton glove snagged the extra piece of metal and stood it up.

 

Thanks mikew148 for letting us know, after bravely risking opening the capsule. I was worried about possible ramifications, and sent my similar-looking 2012 reverse proof back for replacement unopened.

[19Lyds]

Is that considered an error?

Thats simply damage in its purest form and not considered an error.

 

The error would be in keeping the coin and not returning it.

I stand corrected but it sure looked like a gouge on the coin!

[mikew148]

Is that considered an error?

Thats simply damage in its purest form and not considered an error.

 

The error would be in keeping the coin and not returning it.

I stand corrected but it sure looked like a gouge on the coin!

 

I was a amazed, to be quite honest, when the gouge was suddenly standing!

 

Even in hand, with a microscope, it looked like a gouge.

 

Is this coin an error - Improper collar ejection?

 

Look how the reeding is torn from the left edge of the coin.

 

[coinman1794]

Is that considered an error?

Thats simply damage in its purest form and not considered an error.

 

The error would be in keeping the coin and not returning it.

I stand corrected but it sure looked like a gouge on the coin!

 

I was a amazed, to be quite honest, when the gouge was suddenly standing!

 

Even in hand, with a microscope, it looked like a gouge.

 

Is this coin an error - Improper collar ejection?

 

Look how the reeding is torn from the left edge of the coin.

 

 

The stamped, shiny appearance of the metal made it look exactly like a strike-thru! As a piece of shredded metal, it is not rare, or worth any premium, unfortunately.