Would NGC/PCGS Certify this Error?

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

From Fred Weinberg's eBay store: http://www.ebay.com/itm/390915367237?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1426.l2648

 

I'm guessing if so, it would need a special holder and label. It looks pretty delicate. I'm not sure how they'd get it into a holder without bending it.

[Raisethis2]

Looks more like a rubber band.

 

 

Seems silly to me that something unrecognizable would be certified. Why would NGC/PCGS go through the trouble?

[BillJones]

That thing is so fragile I won't even consider buying it, even if it is genuine.

[messydesk]

Neither grading service will encapsulate a coin with an unstable planchet defect or lamination that could be compromised by being handled during the certification process, which tells me there are some coins too fragile for them to deal with. I imagine this piece would also be considered too fragile to encapsulate safely, and that both services would decline to do so.

 

[cpm9ball]

Neither grading service will encapsulate a coin with an unstable planchet defect or lamination that could be compromised by being handled during the certification process, which tells me there are some coins too fragile for them to deal with. I imagine this piece would also be considered too fragile to encapsulate safely, and that both services would decline to do so.

 

(thumbs u

 

Chris

[coinman_23885]

I'm going to take a guess and say yes.

 

I'm not sure how you would grade something like that though.

 

Edited: PCGS has special holders for certain error coins. Charmy had a really neat error in one of them. I believe it was a cuboidal holder, but hopefully she will chime in.

[TheMightyDuke]

Considering the discussions in the 'Sandpaper Thread', wouldn't it be premature to say 'no, they wouldn't', and it would be dependent upon WHO sent it in to have it graded (at least in the case of having it graded ATS)

[RWB]

It is not a "finned rim" as described in the listing title, rather, as described later, it purports to be a complete detached edge.

 

The inner surface is not shown and that is the key to it being a legitimate error or a manufactured bit of junk.

 

Before considering that this is real, one must identify a plausible means of production. At the mint in the 1950s there was only one device that could inadvertently sheer the edge from a dime - that was the old style strip blanking press. Blanks were made at different diameters depending on the needs of the upsetting mill and production presses. Usually, blanks were cut slightly larger than the finished coin, so that the rim could be raised and the plank made circular. Thus, under normal operating conditions, a blanking press would cut larger than a production dime, not smaller. An "arc" of edge was possible but not a complete annulus. If the blanking press were set to cut certain foreign coin blanks, then the possibility of producing this piece exists….but is more remote.

 

If the blanking press cut this coin using a die for a foreign coin blank, then how did the US dime get into the blanking press? Blanking was physically separated from coining and in a different room. The operators were different also.

 

If the above were true, then how would a dime get in exactly the right position to be cut in the manner shown in the photos? It must have become attached to a silver strip and specifically to the upper surface, since the lower surface rubbed against a flat steel plate. This irregularity should have been detected by the operator.

 

Every error has a cause or causes – usually they are mechanical; sometimes they have human assistance.

 

No conclusions, but it is a very long way from what is presently known and calling this a legitimate mint error.

 

 

 

 

[Conder101]

Before considering that this is real, one must identify a plausible means of production.

Coin sticks inside of collar and is struck multiple times without other planchets being fed in. A major finned rim forms that extends above the collar. Then the feed fingers shear it off. In doing so it surely deformed it quite a bit but in this case didn't break it open. Most likely it was later gently opened back up to its current near circular shape.

 

It is also possible that a second fin would form around the neck of the anvil die. Then when the coin is eventually forced out of the collar the feed fingers would push the coin out shearing the fin off leaving it around the neck of the anvil die. The problem then would be how to get that one out of the press.

 

Possible when the anvil die retracted it would leave the fin behind in the coining chamber. If no planchet was fed in, on the next cycling of the press it could be pushed out and brushed away by the feed fingers.

 

We know sheared fins like this do occur because there are coins that are struck through these sheared off fins.

[RWB]

From the photos, it looks far too thick to be some sort of extruded fin.

 

But all here is speculation - PCGS or NGC will have to authenticate it in addition to Fred's professional opinion.

[TonerGuy]

If Fred got sandpaper authenticated AND graded by PCGS I have a hard time imagining that something metallic and reeded is outside his capabilities.

[19Lyds]

Considering the discussions in the 'Sandpaper Thread', wouldn't it be premature to say 'no, they wouldn't', and it would be dependent upon WHO sent it in to have it graded (at least in the case of having it graded ATS)

Huh?

 

Based on the sandpaper thread I was gonna say they'd grade it MS64!!

[messydesk]

Based on the sandpaper thread I was gonna say they'd grade it MS64!!

Can't tell fro the pictures if there's rub on the rims. That's one of the first places it shows up. No major hits, though. Also, if it was carefully made round again, as suggested, it should no-grade as bent (or unbent).

[CaptHenway]

Before considering that this is real, one must identify a plausible means of production.

Coin sticks inside of collar and is struck multiple times without other planchets being fed in. A major finned rim forms that extends above the collar. Then the feed fingers shear it off. In doing so it surely deformed it quite a bit but in this case didn't break it open. Most likely it was later gently opened back up to its current near circular shape.

 

It is also possible that a second fin would form around the neck of the anvil die. Then when the coin is eventually forced out of the collar the feed fingers would push the coin out shearing the fin off leaving it around the neck of the anvil die. The problem then would be how to get that one out of the press.

 

Possible when the anvil die retracted it would leave the fin behind in the coining chamber. If no planchet was fed in, on the next cycling of the press it could be pushed out and brushed away by the feed fingers.

 

We know sheared fins like this do occur because there are coins that are struck through these sheared off fins.

 

Quite plausible.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

No conclusions, but it is a very long way from what is presently known and calling this a legitimate mint error.

 

...I was actually thinking my title shoulda been "Would NGC/PCGS Certify this THING?" after I posted it.

[physics-fan3.14]

I have a hair scrunchie that a mint worker wore while intentionally creating and smuggling these errors out of the mint. Do you think PCGS would certify it?

[RWB]

Does not seem reasonable to me at all:

 

1950s era toggle presses’ feed fingers used very little force - little was needed to move a planchet or coin. An arc-shaped fin would have been very thin, but stronger than expected due to the shape. Feed fingers sheering off a complete annulus is simply not mechanically plausible. Neither is it reasonable that significant crushing of the fin would not have occurred.

 

Dimensions of a real fin on a coin argue strongly against the "sticky coin" hypothesis. Further, the fin on a real coin is almost never complete around the entire circumference.

 

Getting this into a roll of dimes is also questionable. This kind of scrap would have been caught in a mechanical rolling machine, unless firmly attached to a coin, or it was put in manually.

 

As before, direct examination is required to authenticate this item. We can only speculate from the photos.

 

[EXOJUNKIE]

PCGS or NGC will have to authenticate it in addition to Fred's professional opinion.

 

No doubt it is authentic, but it won't slab IMO ... too fragile to encapsulate. If so Fred would have probably already done it anyway.

[BROADSTRUCK]

I doubt any third party grading service would... Still it would be neat to see it in a PCGS holder only because they like to assign a numerical grade to mint errors that shouldn't be graded. I could so see this in a PCGS MS62 holder and would make for a fun thread on how it was graded?

[Coindude]

Knowing that Mr Weinberg has an affiliation with PCGS and that he was able to get sandpaper graded by them, if this was gradable it would be in plastic already.

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

I was thinking that too. If it could be encapsulated, Weinberg would have already done it.

[WoodenJefferson]

Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?

[Coindude]

WJ talk like that will get you banned ATS!

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

nah, i'm saying that weinberg may have already contacted the TGPs about certification. and they won't do it. which is why the piece is currently not certified.