2011 Glacier Nat’l Park Quarter, Stuck thru cloth? More info 1 1

[JKN58]

Second try, since I didn’t provide enough info the first time I posted this! Looks to be struck thru cloth on both sides. Weight is 5.67 gms and diameter is 24.3mm. Edge is perfect. First time I posted this, everyone kind enough to respond said acid treated. Since size and weight are correct, Thoughts? Thank you for your time!

[Coinbuf]

Looks more like it was subjected to some low strength acid or pulled from the ground.

[Sandon]

    Re-posting the coin doesn't change the result. (You could have added the additional information as a post in your original topic.)  The coin doesn't resemble any professionally attributed mint error I've ever seen in over fifty years of collecting. A coin struck through cloth generally shows the weave pattern of the cloth, and the cloth would almost certainly have only been on one side, as others have stated.

    In some photos the coin appears to be gold colored, suggesting that it was plated or otherwise treated for use as jewelry or some sort of souvenir that one frequently sees hawked by mass marketers. It may have already been in a bezel or other holder when it was treated, leaving the edge unchanged.  The fact that the coin is the correct weight and diameter doesn't mean that it couldn't have been altered outside of the mint.

   You can't classify a coin as a mint error unless you can explain how it was created during the minting process.  You might check out a site such as error-ref.com and see if you can find any error classification that would identify this coin as such an error.

[Greenstang]

My answer is the same as your first post. There is no way for that to happen during the striking of the coin so by default it is damage, no matter how it happened.

[RWB]

On 1/5/2023 at 5:48 PM, Sandon said:

 You can't classify a coin as a mint error unless you can explain how it was created during the minting process. 

Yep.

[FlyingAl]

Looks like acid damage.

[JKN58]

First, let me say thanks to those of you who took the time to look at and respond to my post. To "Sandon", I did add the additional information in my first post, but no one responded to it, so I posted a new thread. Not because I'm convinced this is an error, but because I didn't think that answer applied and wanted additional info from the "experts". First post, everyone said acid damage and "EagleRJO" provided a link to error.com/acid-shrunk-coins, which I looked at. It says that evidence of acid damage results in smaller diameter, lighter weight and thin or absent design ring. None of those seemed to apply and the picture examples they showed didn't look anything like my coin. One of my original posts here was about 6 months ago showing an 1859 Indian head penny that I thought was struck on a dime planchet. That's when I was first told of acid treated coins. It was smaller and lighter weight and the responders were right on. So, I added some additional info to the first thread and no one replied. Decided to post a new thread showing additional pics of coin and edge with weight and diameter of the coin in question. To "Sandon", I'm familiar with error-ref.com, and in no way was saying that this is a mint error, that's why I posted to get more info from those more experienced. Also, he referenced the gold color in some photos which was due to them being taken under a halogen lamp. The coin is clearly silver colored. I wasn't reposting the coin "to change the result". The reason for this reply is to simply say, I posted to understand what I was looking at and to be sure that everyone here was informed with all of the information necessary to advise me. I don't care if what I posted is PMD or not, but I feel like some of the responses are a bit condescending and I'm made to feel stupid for asking. I sincerely appreciate the good feedback I have received from most of you the times I have posted other questions.

[Coinbuf]

While we will never know exactly what or how this coin became damaged, it does not look like any coin struck thru cloth or fabric that I have ever seen.   As the rims are intact my best guess that someone with lots of free time poured/placed a small amount of some type of corrosive liquid or substance that just filled the coin to the rim and did not spill over onto the rim.  Left that side for a period of time, removed the foreign substance, flipped it over and repeated the process on the opposite side.

If the time the coin was exposed to whatever was used was short enough and because the coin was likely lying flat not much material was removed from the coin thus explaining why the coin does not weigh light.   But that would explain why you see the wicking or as you call it the flame look too much of the surface, the acid was eating the surface and the metal was moved around but not lost completely.

The above is just a guess on my part, but it makes sense to me and could explain why the coin looks like this.   People do lots of weird things to coins for no reason that is apparent or makes sense to anyone but themselves.

[Sandon]

   I never intend any offense to anyone but am simply trying to share my knowledge and experience with other collectors, for which I receive no compensation.  I don't pretend to know everything about coins. No one does or can.

   In each of your topics about this coin, you contend that the coin appears to have been struck thorough cloth on both sides. This contention having been rejected by everyone who replied to the first post over the course of about 4 hours, you posted the second topic without giving what I would regard as sufficient time for everyone to respond to your first topic or the information you had added to it.

   I've looked at your photos some more and thought about the coin's appearance. It is possible that the each of the dies that struck the coin had been contaminated with grease used to lubricate the press. Coins struck through grease are not a rare occurrence, although the grease is usually only on one side and doesn't cover the entire side. This would explain why the coin is the correct weight and diameter and why the edge--which is created by the collar--is unaffected. It would also explain the odd surface texture and weakness of detail.  Some would regard this as poor quality control rather than a mint error, but that would be a matter of opinion.

  What do the members think of this hypothesis?

[JKN58]

To Sandon and Coinbuf, thanks again for your time and expertise. Both answers seem to be viable explanations. 

[EagleRJO]

@SandonI don't think the op's coin was struck thru grease.  That would just wipe out or blur portions of the coin such as the attached examples, possibly with some discoloration, and would not likely create the granular or popcorn like surface appearance that the subject coin has in many areas.

https://www.error-ref.com/struck-through-smooth-viscous-material-grease-oil/

Simply since the coin does not have a diameter or weigh significantly less than the mint specs does not mean the coin was not exposed to a corrosive element, even though that is an indicator for that type of damage.  There are tolerances on the diameters and weights for coins, so there can be some loss of metal and still have a coin measure close to the mint specs, and there does not appear to be a substantial loss of metal with most of the coin's details still present.

Definitely looks like the end result of a home brewed science project, exposing the coin to some type of acid or corrosive element for a short period of time as I previously indicated in the original topic for this coin.

[Sandon]

@EagleRJO--I agree that the featured coin was most likely altered outside of the mint, but I think I have seen coins said to have been struck through blobs of grease that look somewhat like this.  The problem with some categories of mint errors is that it's sometimes difficult to distinguish them from altered or damaged pieces. That's why it's unfortunate that nowadays many new or ill-informed collectors believe the internet hype that one can often find valuable "errors" in circulation. Error collecting was once the domain of a relatively small number of specialists.

[JKN58]

Thank you all for your feedback! Even if it is PMD it’s still a neat find none the less. I can call it “Wildfires strike Glacier Nat’l Park”. Occasionally, you do find errors in circulation. Just got this back from NGC. 1988 Lincoln cent struck thru late stage die cap. Really do appreciate all the feedback!

[EagleRJO]

On 1/7/2023 at 1:07 PM, JKN58 said:

Just got this back from NGC. 1988 Lincoln cent struck thru late stage die cap. Really do appreciate all the feedback!

Nice find! Roll hunting?

[EagleRJO]

On 1/7/2023 at 11:59 AM, Sandon said:

That's why it's unfortunate that nowadays many new or ill-informed collectors believe the internet hype that one can often find valuable "errors" in circulation.

Add to that the advent of very inexpensive usb scopes, much to the chagrin of @VKurtB, and all of a sudden you have a plethora of "errors" being found. 

[RWB]

Used to hunt plethora when I was a kid. They were small plethora, and even a little 22-short didn't leave much. After cleaning, to took, maybe, a dozen to make a burger.

[EagleRJO]

I used to hunt plethora as a kid too ... go figure! 

[VKurtB]

On 1/7/2023 at 4:15 PM, RWB said:

Used to hunt plethora when I was a kid. They were small plethora, and even a little 22-short didn't leave much. After cleaning, to took, maybe, a dozen to make a burger.

Plethoras are no match for a .58 caliber flintlock slug, but the fur damage can be severe. 

[JKN58]

Appreciate all the feedback! The 1988 Lincoln cent that I posted graded Struck thru capped die by NGC MS65 RB I actually received in change at a 7-11.