Would you call this a broadstruck coin damage or altered coin 0

[Mike's Currency]

Would you call this a broadstruck coin? The edge has that pulley look. Just got it back as "not an error recognized by NGC for the following reason: Damage or Alteration.

[Greenstang]

It's not an error, it's damage.

Looks like it has been enclosed in a bezel or some other form of jewelry.

[Mike's Currency]

Thanks for the answer. Must have been some serious pressure to form a pulley edge. I found it and about ten similar coins in a collection that has not seen the light of day in 50 years. This is the only one with the raised spot at the top center. I will send it to ANACS next.

[Greenstang]

Quote

This is the only one with the raised spot at the top center.

That's probably where the bezel was joined leaving a slight open area that didn't affect the rim.

[Mike's Currency]

Thanks. Curiosity has this cat and money is no object. Wish I could find an image the the collar used by the mint somewhere on the internet.

[Greenstang]

I should have added this to my last reply to show what I mean.

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Greenstang
Correct typo

[Mike's Currency]

Very plausible. Just doesn't explain the pressure needed to force the edge into what is seen. An image of the collar used by the mint might answer this better.

[Just Bob]

7 hours ago, Mike's Currency said:

Thanks for the answer. Must have been some serious pressure to form a pulley edge. I found it and about ten similar coins in a collection that has not seen the light of day in 50 years. This is the only one with the raised spot at the top center. I will send it to ANACS next.

Welcome to the forum.

I have a feeling that the answer from ANACS will be similar to the one from NGC.

[Mike's Currency]

If this thread is open I will let you know.  If they do then off to PCGS it will go. Or maybe PCGS first. I am working on a huge order to them right now

[Conder101]

More likely removed from an encasement.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Conder101

[Mike's Currency]

Encasement of what? Please elaborate.

[Mike's Currency]

I will add images of the edge next. It Looks just like other broadstruck coins. This coin has all the telltale signs. The pressure required to do this is not used by jewelry makers. We really need more information on the collar used in minting process. That will prove or disprove a lot.

[Mike's Currency]

A great resource for errors is http://www.error-ref.com/broadstrikes/

[Mike's Currency]

NGC website (https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1655/Variety-versus-Mint-Error/) says " Broadstrike – A coin struck outside of the retaining collar as a result of the collar jamming or otherwise failing to enclose the planchet. "

This leads me to believe the collar can be a two piece which would explain the notch at the top center. I will keep looking for an image of the collar used on this type.

[Mike's Currency]

[Mike's Currency]

In taking this image I also noticed a depression of Abe on the reverse, similar to that seen in a struck thru capped die. Now I am even more intrigued. I need a guy like Mike Byers to look at it.

Another good definition: Broadstrike errors are produced when the collar die malfunctions. The collar is the circular die surrounding the anvil (lower) die. It applies the edge device (reeded edge, plain edge) and prevents the metal of the coin being struck from flowing outside of the confines of the die. When the collar is prevented from working properly during striking, it may rest below the surface of the anvil die.

[Mike's Currency]

BTW Thanks for the welcome "Just Bob"

In my opinion any encasement or bezel needed to stand up to the high pressure needed to move the thick copper like this would also have to be Heavy Duty and thick. Metals used in jewelry are usually soft and thin. Stainless steel might stand up but a Hydraulic press with Tons of pressure would likely be needed. After seeing the depression of Lincoln on the reverse, much like a graded Struck Thru Capped die I have, I am starting to think it was struck on a caped anvil die which was then ejected leaving this coin still in the chamber to be struck again. The retaining collar would have been all over the place and if any remnants of the caped die existed, could have played a role in the deformation. I see there are a lot of pulley edged coins out there being dismissed as damaged, not because people can explain them, but because they can't. Or don't want to bother due to the low value. What I do know for sure is that this coin was removed from circulation in the mid 1960s and in storage ever since. And the Finning seen mostly on the reverse top edge is a product of the minting process. And this would make a good "Mythbusters" episode.

[Mohawk]

Well.....I think that everyone else and NGC are correct here.  I just see a damaged coin.  If it truly was an example of the errors you're citing, NGC would have certified it as such.  They are the experts and you've received answers on here from people who have amazing amounts of numismatic experience.  We're all seeing damage.  I doubt that ANACS or PCGS will find anything different with the coin than what NGC found. 

[Just Bob]

I suspect that it was once in something like this:

Edited June 24, 2019 by Just Bob

[Mohawk]

18 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

I suspect that it was once in something like this:

Now there's a thought.......I think you're right on the money there, Bob.

[Mike's Currency]

I don't believe anyone is an expert at anything. Nobody is perfect. And I have sold many mislabeled TPG items in the past. Good thing we are in America and entitled to speak our opinions. I am not saying you veterans are wrong, I am just looking for a more plausible theory. The pressure needed to cause this is HUGE and the Finning on the edge still not flattened. Other Finning can be seen here (http://www.error-ref.com/finning/) I have several major issues with other coins but since NGC is in the process of correcting them, I won't say anything. Maybe you guys can explain to me why the NGC website repeatedly says that Strike Doubling is a Mint error but I can't seem to find any labeled as such? I sent a very noticeable strike double date coin in but NGC just labeled it a Die Chip Error. Now it did have die chips but I asked for strike doubling as that is what stands out more. A thorough proper job would have been to mention both errors on the label. NGC even says "NGC does not recognize as mint errors those coins with minor die chips, breaks, rotations, etc., which fall within our interpretation of mint tolerance." So why they mentioned the minor die chips and not the strike doubling is confusing. It implies that Strike Doubling is not an error.

[Mohawk]

7 minutes ago, Mike's Currency said:

I don't believe anyone is an expert at anything. Nobody is perfect. And I have sold many mislabeled TPG items in the past. Good thing we are in America and entitled to speak our opinions. I am not saying you veterans are wrong, I am just looking for a more plausible theory. The pressure needed to cause this is HUGE and the Finning on the edge still not flattened. Other Finning can be seen here (http://www.error-ref.com/finning/) I have several major issues with other coins but since NGC is in the process of correcting them, I won't say anything. Maybe you guys can explain to me why the NGC website repeatedly says that Strike Doubling is a Mint error but I can't seem to find any labeled as such? I sent a very noticeable strike double date coin in but NGC just labeled it a Die Chip Error. Now it did have die chips but I asked for strike doubling as that is what stands out more. A thorough proper job would have been to mention both errors on the label. NGC even says "NGC does not recognize as mint errors those coins with minor die chips, breaks, rotations, etc., which fall within our interpretation of mint tolerance." So why they mentioned the minor die chips and not the strike doubling is confusing. It implies that Strike Doubling is not an error.

Well, it sounds like you have already made up your mind about your coin, sir.  I've said all I think I can here.  Good luck with your coin.

[Mike's Currency]

Proper evidence found! I do believe this is the kind of encasement it was made for or from. Now I have made up my mind. Thanks people. You did help, a little.

[Just Bob]

Well, I guess a little is better than none at all.

Would you mind providing a link to a page where NGC calls machine doubling an error? I can't seem to find it on my own.

[Mike's Currency]

A quick google search brings up this page that says "more of a striking error". https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/5688/Double-Dies-vs-Machine-Doubling/ 

I will need to search more for others I recall reading. I hope they don't change them cause if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be.... Some coins display nice "WOW" strike doubling that most anyone is happy to find but then shot down by experts telling them that "WOW" find is nothing. Appearance and Wow factor plays a big role in any collectible, some strike doubling more jaw dropping than some Double Dies. As long as it was created in the minting process common sense dictates it is a Mint Error. To say otherwise is just manipulating the truth.

[Mike's Currency]

Correction "Doubled Dies" A.K.A. "Variety" but can be seen as an error

[Mike's Currency]

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1655/Variety-versus-Mint-Error/

Strike Errors

• Multiple Strike – Coin has multiple images from being struck again off-center.

I do believe this can be viewed as strike doubling or machine doubling. Sometimes sliding of the die will cause machine or strike doubling or multiple images but it can also bounce to cause multiple images. Maybe there would be less confusion if there was full transparency and these were acknowledged for what they are. People would be less confused if they saw doubling as an Error and as a Variety instead of only as a Variety. They would quickly learn the difference when they compare them side by side. Suppressing one is obviously creating a lot of confusion. And some strike doubling or machine doubling is pretty strong and should most definitely be treated as an error.

[Conder101]

2 hours ago, Mike's Currency said:

Proper evidence found! I do believe this is the kind of encasement it was made for or from.

That's the type.  The dies used to strike the outer ring have a hole in them usually slightly smaller than the hole in the ring.  This causes the die to catch the edge of the rim of the coin causing it to flatten and often spread outward slightly.  This results in the cupped edge of the coin and the aluminum gets forced into that "cup" locking the two pieces together.  The OP coin shows both the flattened rims and the cupped edge, which is why I said it looks like it was removed from an encasement.

In some cases the die will have design elements that go completely to the edge of the hole and thes will often show on the flattened rim.  I have seen many coins removed from such encasements being sold as mint errors because of the "strange markings" on the rims.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Conder101