Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: 1889 P Vam-52 Morgan $ w/ obvs dime planchet sized & shaped marks

  1. Default

    here are some recent pics of my 1839 O/O F-104 liberty seated dime (with what i call re-rolled incomplete punch marks) that are not at this link:

    hopefully these 4 pics will post here. hmm, seems like i can take the images directly from my computer. that's good to know. should help with the pics of my 1845 O dime i want to post later. i think this coin is in the VF range without problems or issues and with nice toning. my pics are just okay. here goes:


  2. #12


    I have no desire to revisit posts that are 5 years old. As for your dime, your photos are too small, and the resolution too poor, to determine if the curved imperfection is a scratch, a die crack, or a lamination crack. It's definitely not an incomplete punch.
    Mike Diamond. Error coin writer and researcher.

  3. Default

    okay. maybe someday the knowledge base will catch-up to where i am now, regarding this specific new type of error coin.

    maybe these 2 pics of the '39 o/o may help. the obvs. probalbly.

    1839 o-o dime pis jan 2018 002a.jpg1839 o-o dime pis jan 2018 005a.jpg
    Last edited by Ken-Pollock; 01-14-2018 at 04:29 PM. Reason: spelling

  4. Default

    and now: a few lower quality pics of the low-end 1845 O dime i mentioned earlier. the re-rolled cut/punch mark on the reverse is U.S. quarter $ sized. while taking these low quality pics, i did notice a mark on the obvs that would also correspond to a "re-rolled" incomplete punch to the left of the rock & base Liberty sits on. my equipment is certainly not the best...but my "eye" for finding and identifying interesting and tough coins is quite good (liberty seated dimes has been my focus most recently). anyway....


  5. #15


    Your 1984-0 dime is too heavily worn to make any determination. Your explanation for a "re-rolled" incomplete punch mark is quite farfetched. There is no reason why dollar-thick stock should be punched with dime-sized punch marks, which should, at any rate, appear on both sides of the coin.
    Last edited by diamond; 01-14-2018 at 05:18 PM.
    Mike Diamond. Error coin writer and researcher.

  6. Default

    the 1845-O is well hand with good equipment, what i claim can be seen. in post #10, my first post today i explained how i "coined"/came-up with this new error coin term. thanks for taking a look at this thread again Mike, and for the replies.

  7. Default

    it seem apparent/obvious to me, that someone at the Philadelphia mint did place Morgan $ planchet stock into the dime punch and it failed to make a complete punch. the error/mistake was noticed, and this marked stock was put through the bar stock rolling presses again. it did not completely remove the mark/ smoothed them/smoothed the cuts over in the same direction as presses rolled it. it seems a similar mistake occurred at the New Orleans mint in 1845, when someone placed 25 cent/quarter $ planchet stock in their dime planchet punch machine. the same process occurred/was use here to touch-up the error/marks on the dime stock. the process smooths the marks/the punch cuts toward the plachet's surface. it does not really remove them. at best, it perhaps closes the gap in spots/sections and perhaps hides some of the cuts. with the 1839 O/O F-104 dime, the re-rolled punch marks were also dime size.

    i see 2 types of incomplete punch coins: the re-rolled and non-re-rolled/"the modern type"/an unnoticed or not cared enough about error that did not have it's cut edges smoothed over. the modern type has been accepted by the coin collecting community as the only type/kind of incomplete punch error coin that there is. this is not true.

    Google image search for: incomplete punch coin:

    nearly all of the incomplete punch coins i see in a Google search for these items are the non-re-rolled type. the modern coining/minting process seems designed to only produce this type. from perhaps around 1910 on back through to the 1830's anyway, when the US mints were complete shop operations (foundry thru to minting), they were able to touch-up or fix their mistakes if they found them. both types existed prior to about 1910 (i think the mints started moving away from being foundries around this time). the re-rolled incomplete punch type may be non-existent in the modern coin making/minting age.

    [distinguishing characteristics of each type]

    re-rolled: smoothed-over cut/punch marks. the cuts are smoothed over in the same direction on both sides of the coin (if the secondary/the weaker side cut marks are still apparent and can be compared). it may be hard to find cut marks on the rim of the coin. smoothed over cut marks may only be easily seen on one side of the coin. the width of the cut gap varies noticeably as it moves across different relief heights on the surface of the coin. the remaining cuts on the coin may be so subtle that they are hard to see or notice without magnification. the cuts go into the coin at an angle now, after having been re-rolled. cuts are no longer mostly vertical/perpendicular to the coin's surface.

    non-re-rolled: easy to see without magnification. cuts easily seen on both sides and cuts go to and through the rim. the cuts tend to be clean, deep and vertical/perpendicular to the coin. the cuts are not rolled/folded over. the cuts don't vary much in appearance as they move across relief patterns of either coin side. these incomplete punch marks occur mostly on modern coins and sometimes on coins more than 100 yrs old.

    there may be more differences between the two types, but i think this is sufficient for identification purposes at this point.
    Last edited by Ken-Pollock; 01-17-2018 at 07:03 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts