1925 standing liberty quarter - potential mirror brockage 1 1

[RWB]

On 7/8/2023 at 11:52 PM, Just Bob said:

I don't want to create false hope, but is there any chance that this could be a uniface hub trial?

Not a chance. Far, far too crude.

Work-in-progress checks on master dies, master hubs, etc. were made in fusible alloy (often called "lead splashers") for, sharp accurate impressions without damaging the original.

Edited July 9, 2023 by RWB

[RWB]

On 7/9/2023 at 9:36 AM, Just Bob said:

Stacks-Bowers auction archive

Heritage auction archive

The item shown is a product of Barclay's experiments. See the book Fads Fakes and Foibles [by the present writer] for details. The old auction descriptions and Judd guesses are entirely wrong as proven by new research data.

Edited July 9, 2023 by RWB

[Arrowhm]

On 7/9/2023 at 11:33 AM, RWB said:

Not a chance. Far, far too crude.

Work-in-progress checks on master dies, master hubs, etc. were made in fusible alloy (often called "lead splashers") for, sharp accurate impressions without damaging the original.

Not to mention my density measurements suggest pretty strongly that the material in this coin is not a lead alloy. 

I'm left with two potential options I think: 

One is that this is a decently well done counterfeit done by taking a flat filed quarter or sheet of silver alloy and pressing another SLQ into it. The edges are cleaned up to match the diameter of an SLQ, but lack the reeding.

Wouldn't this expand/squash both the "master" SLQ and the impression?  My experience with rolling mills or hydraulic presses in jewelry making is that soft designs (like a silver quarter) pressed onto metal of the same hardness leaves both pieces stretched and expanded. That's why the mint uses steel dies and a collar for the strike.....if someone mocked this up in a vice or press they're going to need a way to contain the fake struck planchet.

The second is the unlikely possibility that this is a defaced SLQ Mirror brockage, with the positive impression from the die filed away to leave only the mirror impression. There are parallel scratches on the blank face that might support this but it seems like it would be hard to verify. Anything else I might add to the list of possibilities here?

 

 

 

[Just Bob]

On 7/9/2023 at 10:33 AM, RWB said:

Not a chance. Far, far too crude.

Work-in-progress checks on master dies, master hubs, etc. were made in fusible alloy (often called "lead splashers") for, sharp accurate impressions without damaging the original.

Thanks. I didn't think it was, but the slight design change that year made me wonder. I probably should have just kept that idea to myself, and not opened that can of worms.

[Arrowhm]

On 7/9/2023 at 1:31 PM, Just Bob said:

Thanks. I didn't think it was, but the slight design change that year made me wonder. I probably should have just kept that idea to myself, and not opened that can of worms.

In fairness I did ask for any and all ideas. Thanks for contributing 🙂

[RWB]

On 7/9/2023 at 1:31 PM, Just Bob said:

Thanks. I didn't think it was, but the slight design change that year made me wonder. I probably should have just kept that idea to myself, and not opened that can of worms.

Worms are OK. The one's we don't set free, we can take fishin'.

[RWB]

On 7/9/2023 at 12:18 PM, Arrowhm said:

my density measurements suggest pretty strongly that the material in this coin is not a lead alloy. 

Please do not depend on density alone for the composition. Good XRF measurements of both sides and edge are necessary. Density would then be used to confirm the alloy.

(Use XRF data to calculate density based on proportion of elements and individual standard values, Then make separate displacement technique to confirm result. Scale accuracy of 0.1g is insufficient for usable results; 0.01g and 10 measurements might be OK if technique is reliable.)

[powermad5000]

I will raise this question : IF the Mint were to be making a test strike of anything, would the planchet not be checked before the test strike to eliminate as many variables as possible?

I'm no scientist, but if I were to do a test of anything, I would be checking every detail to make sure that any variables were eliminated. The weight of the planchet. The thickness of the planchet. The material of the planchet. Was the planchet made using the normal methods of creating it. The hubs or dies I am using being absolutely correct for the trial. Hell, the temperature and humidity of the room I am doing the test in. The only way to do a successful test of anything is to make things as close as possible to achieving the desired end result, unless you are only changing one variable at a time to record the results of each successive test which would be testing for a different type of purpose then.

Why would the Mint do a test on a questionable planchet???? Once again I am not buying it.

Being the "popularity" of counterfeiting, and of people who attempt to defraud, if this were a test strike of anything, to me this would be a test of a counterfeiting operation and nothing more. Listen to the incredibly impossible scenarios coming up in just this thread.........

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by powermad5000

[RWB]

The item is not a US Mint test piece.

When the engraver wanted to test a hub or die for design progress, he make a splasher in fusible alloy. (This will be described in detail in the forthcoming book Mine to Mint 2. A shorter description is in Journal of Numismatic Research (JNR) issue for Spring 2013.)

The purpose was to check accuracy of manual engraving on the reduction, or a change, but without causing damage to the steel piece. The OP's item is in much too inferior quality to do this, and is most likely a workshop curiosity made in someone's basement.

[EagleRJO]

On 7/9/2023 at 1:31 PM, Just Bob said:

I probably should have just kept that idea to myself, and not opened that can of worms.

I'm glad you opened that can of worms as I wasn't aware that one sided trial strikes or splashers were done using hubs.  I thought trial strikes were only done with the master and working dies with positive struck images, which I remembered reading about on a mint webpage a while ago.  I doubled checked and the mint webpage still talks only about master and working die trial strikes, so that's good additional information to fill in some gaps.

[powermad5000]

I did note but for whatever reason did not call attention to in the opening pics of this thread that the "coin" itself does seem out of round. Bringing me back to the original planchet not being from the Mint.

[Arrowhm]

On 7/9/2023 at 5:04 PM, RWB said:

Please do not depend on density alone for the composition. Good XRF measurements of both sides and edge are necessary. Density would then be used to confirm the alloy.

(Use XRF data to calculate density based on proportion of elements and individual standard values, Then make separate displacement technique to confirm result. Scale accuracy of 0.1g is insufficient for usable results; 0.01g and 10 measurements might be OK if technique is reliable.)

Good advice here. Density is not enough. Just tested the thing in the lab, definitely not silver. Mystery resolved. Probably a curiosity, definitely not a mirror brockage. 

 

Thanks to all who shared their thoughts. 🙂

[RWB]

Good to hear they you got reliable answers !

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/9/2023 at 4:52 PM, RWB said:

Worms are OK. The one's we don't set free, we can take fishin'.

Not according to Ralph Kramden......