"How much is this error coin worth?"

[robbiegal]

good luck with the reeding settings as an indicator
my understanding is that isn't reliable

[markn]

good luck with the reeding settings as an indicator
my understanding is that isn't reliable

Why's that Robbie?

[robbiegal]

The edge reeding moves. It doesn't stay fixed. The position is not reliable.

[markn]

The edge reeding moves. It doesn't stay fixed. The position is not reliable.

I realise it can move when the dies are changed but was of the belief that while the dies were in the machine it didn't move.  So, if you assume that all the upsets come from the same die pair then it's reasonable to assume that the collar die is fixed in place.

A similar deduction was made to work out that the obverse die on the 2001 COF upsets was moving. The reeding on all those coins is fixed with respect to the reverse of the coin.  A similar observation can be made with the upset 1966 10c coins.

Of course I know you have someone you can ask to confirm the validity (or stupidity) of my theory  Perhaps you could ask him and let us know?

[robbiegal]

Cheers mark just quick replies on my smoko break at work. I can ask but I do remember a conversation about the gallery presses and the reply was that the rim edging was not reliably in the one place and can or does move

[purplepennyhunter]

Cheers mark just quick replies on my smoko break at work. I can ask but I do remember a conversation about the gallery presses and the reply was that the rim edging was not reliably in the one place and can or does move

Yes exactly that's because when they change a die in the gallery presses they more likely move the collar die as well.

One would imagine one die run which likely causes the same rotation problem (2001 COF, 1966 10c) would not have had the dies changed or adjusted. When you are talking another press or another time/date run of coins then the collar will likely be installed in the press differently

[runway]

Despite claims the early $1 RAM Visitor Gallery coins could be distinguished by reeding v's mobile press $1 at ANDA shows etc I still find this a fascinating challenge to get genuine proof

[autocoupler]

I was always a believer in the edge reeding position as being a possible means of identifying a coin from the visitors gallery, it's just a pity the RAM doesn't record and publish when press and die maintenance is carried out on the gallery presses, but maybe they do :idea: The industry where I worked in mechanical maintenance was obsessive when it came to record keeping, and I bet many others are as well, so why not the RAM?

This issue need not even be a point of discussion if the RAM would limit their C mint mark solely to coins off the gallery press or as they have been doing in recent years and allocate a particular theme, they just need to remain consistent. :dash1:

[Nevol]

I can (sort of) understand how reeding might play a part on $1 & $2 coins, but how the dickens could it do so with 20C? Isn't the reeding the same all the way around?

[ausjack]

so how muchie for this one

[Fulvio]

One would imagine one die run which likely causes the same rotation problem (2001 COF, 1966 10c) would not have had the dies changed or adjusted. When you are talking another press or another time/date run of coins then the collar will likely be installed in the press differently

Here's a pretty good summary:



"The collar is a circular piece of hardened steel which acts as the wall of the coining chamber, which provides the impression for the uniform circular outline around the coin. As its name implies, the collar prevents the striking pressure from spreading onto the flange. Apart from preventing imperfect strikes, the impression on the coin's edge (either as a recess or raised inscription) deters forgery or clipping (an illegal paring of metal from the circumference of the coin). The dies impress the various designs and devices on the obverse and reverse for the coin while the collar forms the edge of the coin. The collar, which is five-thousandths of an inch larger in diameter than the dies, is mounted on springs which allow slight vertical movement."

Since the anvil die is always the reverse, and it is part of the assembly with the collar, it is not the one which rotates. Upsets occur when the locking pin on the hammer die breaks, causing the obverse to rotate freely.

Note that this is not the same as the minor rotations of a few degrees we see in many coins. They're just poor alignment during setup, and would be the same for all coins from that run.

Now, presumably, with a freely rotating die the laws of physics mean that each strike will cause it to move slightly in the same direction. I'm not going to try and hazard a guess as to which way, since that would depend on unknown forces at play. But two coins rotated say 30° each way would in fact be 30° and 330° respectively.

When Goldy gets back, we can ask for his stats on the 2001 CoF upsets, since we know the die did at least one full rotation. The rarer angles would be at the end of the run, when the error was detected and fixed. For other years when the error was picked up quickly, all the rotations will be in the same direction, and this might tell us which way they spin.

[Nevol]

so how muchie for this one

Gosh, I dunno, $20 and upwards I reckon.  Never seen anything like it before to compare it with.

[ausjack]

Thanks Nancy, I got a bargain. Shame it's a bit grotty but still very happy

[Fulvio]

Thanks Nancy, I got a bargain. Shame it's a bit grotty but still very happy

What did you pay for it?

Flaws like this are really, really rare, since they run through the sheet, not along it. Does the hole go all the way through?

[markn]

so how muchie for this one

We have two pennies with holes through them like that on our site right now.  I think we're asking $50'ish for them, which is the prices we'd be happy to pay for them.  Yours is in the same ball park.  Very nice error.