What happened to this coin? Take the poll #3 (advanced) 1 1

[Mike Meenderink]

Do you know how to recognize certain types of common damage done to coins? Can you determine what is or what is not damage? Some damage is obvious. Look at the coin below carefully. Determine the cause of the condition seen present on this coin. Then take the poll above. You can use the post below to explain your choice of answer. The coin is authentic. Stock photo. Goodluck! 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Mike Meenderink
spelling

[l.cutler]

Adjustment marks, done prior to striking to bring an overweight planchet down to correct weight.

[ldhair]

Done by a little lady sitting at a table with a scale and a file. 

[Sandon]

    Adjustment marks are, unfortunately, common on early U.S. silver and gold coins. The pressure of striking generated by a screw press was inadequate to smooth out these file marks on the planchets. Notice how the marks are lighter in the fields, which received more pressure, than on the devices, where they are quite pronounced. As these marks were already on the coins when they were struck, they are not regarded as damage, although I think most collectors prefer examples that don't have them.

   This coin may have a few post-mint scratches or other damage in addition to the heavy adjustment marks, but the photos are inadequate to tell for sure.

[Mike Meenderink]

LETS GO GUYS THIS IS A GOOD START!     7 More Votes to the answer!

Edited November 6, 2023 by Mike Meenderink

[Henri Charriere]

Editorial comment:  if a coin, such as is shown, requires adjustment to the point of utter defacement, it should be withdrawn, re-melted and re-minted, no iffs, ands or glutei maximi.

[Mike Meenderink]

On 11/6/2023 at 11:23 AM, Henri Charriere said:

Editorial comment:  if a coin, such as is shown, requires adjustment to the point of utter defacement, it should be withdrawn, re-melted and re-minted, no iffs, ands or glutei maximi.

You would think so...:)

[jtryka]

I think it's a combination of adjustment marks and scratches/damage.

[Henri Charriere]

I believe Answers 2 and 3 can be safely dispensed with. Fully automatic vending machines were not introduced until 1867 [and no one would dare insert a scrawny eagle into one decades later]. As for improper cleaning, etc., however well-intentioned, the general idea is to improve the appearance of a coin, not mutilate it.

What I probably should have done is wait to see what the early returns look like.  With @Sandon weighing in, and knowing no one in their right mind would attempt to contradict him -- indeed, other members appear to agree with him in a landslide, thats your answer. Now, if the damage were inflicted intentionally, no effort should be spared to bring the perpetrator to justice.

[robec1347]

My first thought were adjustment marks, though these are more than normally seen. 

[Moxie15]

@Mike Meenderink  This has been interesting except for one thing. I have not seen your answer to what you think number 2 is.

[Mike Meenderink]

We need a few more votes....

[JT2]

it was caught on the side of the press, by the toggle join when pressing another coin before ejecting

Edited November 23, 2023 by JT2
sp

[Mike Meenderink]

On 11/14/2023 at 3:16 AM, Moxie15 said:

@Mike Meenderink  This has been interesting except for one thing. I have not seen your answer to what you think number 2 is.

Answer posted. Thanks

[Mike Meenderink]

One more vote needed to reveal the answer. 

[dcarr]

File marks to adjust the planchet to the proper weight.

[Mike Meenderink]

 

On 11/23/2023 at 8:53 PM, dcarr said:

File marks to adjust the planchet to the proper weight.

dcarr please vote in the poll -none of the above

[Mike Meenderink]

I will now reveal the answer to the poll. If you answered: None of the above and stated planchet reduction / adjustment marks as your reasoning you are correct. This is not a damaged coin. This is an original mint state condition. Sandon has described this pre strike planchet reduction condition previously in the thread excellently so I will not dispense any further particulars on the matter. Thank you for participating. See you all next time. Cheers!   

Edited November 27, 2023 by Mike Meenderink

[Henri Charriere]

Blast from the Past!

A Brooklynite on Trial for his Life at London's Old Bailey...

Barringer representing his majesty, quoting Poe:  "....Have we not a perpetual inclination, to violate that which is Law, merely because we understand it to be such? Who has not --

Q.A. (representing himself):  --  "but-chaw Hon-nuz!  Moiduh, mos' fowl!  Maliss a-for'-taut?  Way-yuh?  WAY-YUHHH???"

[From coroner's inquest]:  "Contusions noted, subdural hematoma present, pronounced lacerations abrasions... conclusion: homicide."

Q.A.:  'twuz 'n ax-si-den'  What Abrazhuns?  Dem's jus uh-jus-mint mahks!  I-kin-splane-ev-ree-ting.

Barrister:  Everything?  The deceased was found minus a limb.

Q.A.: Mere plea-strike planchit a'justmint. Bloke tripp'd, hit duh why-yuh, loss hiz hedd. Axzi-den. Happinz awl duh time! 

Barrister: (aside)  I thought you said you spoke English?

Q.A.: Dialekk Numismystique... the King's English.      

MODERATORS:  FEEL FREE TO DELETE AFTER A DECENT INTERVAL.