| Article content |
- From jlorenzo@ob.ilww.com Fri Sep 20 11:06:53 2002
Return-Path: <jlorenzo@ob.ilww.com>
X-Sender: jlorenzo@ob.ilww.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 20 Sep 2002 18:06:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 28108 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 18:06:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2002 18:06:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.86)
by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2002 18:06:52 -0000
Received: from [66.218.67.148] by n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Sep 2002 18:06:52 -0000
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:06:51 -0000
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <amfo3s+4nj6@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <ame5gr+8p41@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 6109
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "njcopperjohn" <jlorenzo@ob.ilww.com>
X-Originating-IP: 63.97.126.34
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=74013914
X-Yahoo-Profile: njcopperjohn
That's it. Should have a new list of contemporaries in two weeks. The
double strucking farthing was returned and is again avaialble at $40.
Only a suggestion ....
--- In colonial-coins@y..., "mantoloking2002" <mantoloking2002@y...>
wrote:
> John,
>
> Like I said, it all depends on collector preferences.
>
> Roger
>
>
> --- In colonial-coins@y..., "njcopperjohn" <jlorenzo@o...> wrote:
> > I agree with chatter having 0% premium overall. Can not be
negative
> > all the time particularly to someone who has been treating me
real
> > good lately,anyway ----- A coin should be at least 5% off-center
> for
> > the word premium to enter into the final price equation for
> colonials
> > as the machinery makes chatter pretty common (IMO). I for one and
> > forgetting about Anton (NE collector) for a minute also love
> errors.
> > Only because these were "hand-fed" into the screwpress and this
> type
> > of error then adds something special to the colonial as it is
truly
> > an error or more specifically a human (worker) error and not so
> much
> > a machine-fed error as with modern coins. I was on a cloud for
> weeks
> > after that one C4 sale with all those errors that were sold. I
> > remember about 15 years ago there was information about machine
fed
> > type equipment used in this era in England or possibly before?
but
> > never seen a reference to our US colonials on this side of the
pond.
> >
> > JPL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In colonial-coins@y..., "mantoloking2002"
> <mantoloking2002@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > John,
> > >
> > > Again, I think a premium for a double struck coin is entirely
> based
> > > on the collector. I have not noticed chatter or modest double
> > > striking bringing a premium in any auction. I for one would
> rather
> > > avoid double struck coins. I find it detracts from the coin.
> Others
> > > love them. I also don't beleive the double struck New Jerseys
are
> > > that great a rarity having seen dozens and dozens of them (
> > including
> > > many in the Northeastern collection ). Off the top of my head,
I
> > > beleive both Spiro's front-line 59-o's were double struck. I
must
> > > have ten varieties that are double struck and I avoid them.
> > >
> > > A contrarian view.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Roger
> > > --- In colonial-coins@y..., "njcopperjohn" <jlorenzo@o...>
wrote:
> > > > This modern coin error answer below may answer this inquiry
> into
> > > this
> > > > M28-L discussion. Since for this M.28-L example this has
> nothing
> > to
> > > > do with the 1955 double die cent discussion and is added FYI,
> but
> > > see
> > > > the chatter explanation. Additionally since no collars were
> used
> > > this
> > > > M28-L as does numerous M43-d's do show "frequently" this type
> > > > of "slight doubling." Since chatter is the result of a loose
> > collar
> > > > and since we are in a time era of "no collars" then M28-L is
> the
> > > > result of a small degree of double striking. There are
various
> > > > degrees of double striking in colonial coins. Usually 5% or
> more
> > > > bring a premium even for the #1 double struck NJ the M 43-d.
It
> > > > stands alone as the #1 Maris variety with this form striking
> > error
> > > > and is very rarely seen off-center. All other Maris varieties
> are
> > > > v.rare with double striking. You would think other Maris
> > varieites
> > > at
> > > > the same mint as M43-d would share this quantitative
> phenomenon -
> > > but
> > > > is doesn't. This M.28-L really desrves a small premium to it
> > based
> > > on
> > > > even this degree of double striking.
> > > >
> > > > JPL.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Question: I have a 1999 Connecticut State quarter that is a
> > doubled
> > > > die coin. The doubling can clearly be seen on the tails side
of
> > the
> > > > coin. The letters that spell Connecticut and the 1788 are
> clearly
> > > > doubled died by looking at the coin with the naked eye.The
> > doubling
> > > > can be seen just about every where on this side of the coin
> with
> > a
> > > x5
> > > > magnifying glass. Could this really be worth up to $1000?
> > > > Answer:
> > > > A "doubled die" error is not an error of striking a coin but
> an
> > > > error in manufacturing a die. It is the die that would have
> the
> > > > doubling. All coins struck with that die would be identical
> and
> > > show
> > > > the same defect.
> > > >
> > > > The doubled die effect is caused by multiple hits by the
master
> > hub
> > > > to create a deep impression ( in a negative image) in the
> > potential
> > > > working die. The error comes when the hub rotates slightly
so
> > that
> > > > the subsequent hit to the working die is out of alignment
with
> > the
> > > > previous one. There are many instances of minor doubling on
> some
> > > > dies, only the spectacular ones become desirable.
> > > >
> > > > The latest techniques are suppose to eliminate the
possibility
> of
> > > > doubled dies but then again anything is possible. For your
coin
> > to
> > > be
> > > > a doubled die there would have to be many more coins exactly
> like
> > > > it. A more likely explanation is that the coin was struck in
a
> > > loose
> > > > collar. The collar is a device that holds the planchet
(blank)
> in
> > > > place while the dies strike the planchet. The collar also
> > contains
> > > > the reeding that is imparted when the coin is struck. Coins
> > struck
> > > > with loose collars show "shelf doubling" caused by "chatter"
> when
> > > the
> > > > coin is struck. A workman who discovers the loose collar,
> simply
> > > > stops the press and uses a screwdriver to tighten the collar.
> > > >
> > > > Since shelf doubled coins are unique they don't have the
> > attraction
> > > > that a doubled die coin would have. To check on this, I
suggest
> > > that
> > > > you send the coin to the American Numismatic Association for
> > > > authentication. See the CoinSite's Links page .
|
|---|
| Source URL |
|
|---|
| Date published |
|
|---|
| Volume |
|
|---|
