News:

Sign up for the monthly zoom events by sending a PM with your email address to Hitesh

Main Menu

Misc: Fake: 1994 5rs top proof error

Started by ashishparui03, March 17, 2011, 07:29:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Oracle

Quote from: Figleaf on March 18, 2011, 03:04:16 PM
The stroll would be a great idea, TO, but I don't care about or collect errors. People who collect porcelain do everything to avoid errors and try to find perfect pieces. I am in the same position. ;)

Peter

dear Peter,

we will get along just fine  ;D

Coinsforever

Quote from: Figleaf on March 18, 2011, 03:04:16 PM
The stroll would be a great idea, TO, but I don't care about or collect errors. People who collect porcelain do everything to avoid errors and try to find perfect pieces. I am in the same position. ;)

Peter

I'm interested only  to collect error coins of British India , modern coins of Republic India are sort of Mint's & Dealers gimmicks.


Cheers ;D
Every experience, good or bad, is a priceless collector's item.



http://knowledge-numismatics.blogspot.in/

kansal888

Dear Friends

In brockage, we get the mirror (negative) image of one side on another side. This is caused if one side is striked by preceeding coin instead of die. In brockage, one side has positive image and second side has same image in negative.

ILO coin is different from brockage. This is the first time, I am seeing such a coin. In this coin, the positive observe has negative reverse..and positive reverse has negative observe. This means that both sides have been striked twice.

However a die has negative image on itself. So if a coin is striked multiple times by a die, it will create multiple positive images on coin.

A negative image can be created ONLY by a coin itself. This means this coin was once striked by dies and second times by other coins.

Therefore the logical conclusion is that three normal coins were taken and somehow pressed. Therefore the middle coin has negative as well as positive impressions.Since this is not possible in normal course, I strongly suspect it to be forgery.

I request Peter to shed some light. Please inform me if there is fault in my logic.  ???  ???  ???

Regards
Sanjay Kansal




Coinsforever

Quote from: kansal888 on March 18, 2011, 04:19:32 PM
This means this coin was once striked by dies and second times by other coins.

Therefore the logical conclusion is that three normal coins were taken and somehow pressed.



This coin must be result of trial operations & later  was discarded to scrap bin for melting as said by Peter.

Cheers  ;D

Quote from: Figleaf on March 18, 2011, 02:09:47 PM

This piece was apparently fed into the press twice. That can happen. However, I find it impossible to believe that it wasn't noticed immediately. Therefore, I think the piece was put aside for re-melting and someone picked it up and smuggled it out. The error, would be in the security of the mint, not in the coin.



Every experience, good or bad, is a priceless collector's item.



http://knowledge-numismatics.blogspot.in/

Figleaf

The trouble with pictures on the net is that incuse and relief look the same. It sometimes happens that I see a Mughal coin normally, while seconds later I see it inverted. This also happens looking at this picture. Sanjayji sees incuse. I just don't know any more.

If there is an incuse impression on both sides, it can be explained by double brockage. This is so unlikely, that the conclusion must be that someone at the mint had too much free time and no supervision: slow presses, double striking and immediate checking make even single brockage highly unlikely.

The only other explanation of incuse impression on both sides I can think of would be that someone mounted a pair of intermediate dies, rather than the final dies in the press. The process of making a die requires a number of steps, in which intermediate products alternate between incuse and relief. Normally, only the final dies will get the trappings to fit into a coin press, but anything can happen with lax supervision.

If the coin has no incuse parts, the explanation would be that it was struck normally and fed back into the press "upside down".

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

The Oracle

Quote from: Figleaf on March 18, 2011, 05:34:45 PM
The trouble with pictures on the net is that incuse and relief look the same. It sometimes happens that I see a Mughal coin normally, while seconds later I see it inverted. This also happens looking at this picture. Sanjayji sees incuse. I just don't know any more.

If there is an incuse impression on both sides, it can be explained by double brockage. This is so unlikely, that the conclusion must be that someone at the mint had too much free time and no supervision: slow presses, double striking and immediate checking make even single brockage highly unlikely.

The only other explanation of incuse impression on both sides I can think of would be that someone mounted a pair of intermediate dies, rather than the final dies in the press. The process of making a die requires a number of steps, in which intermediate products alternate between incuse and relief. Normally, only the final dies will get the trappings to fit into a coin press, but anything can happen with lax supervision.

If the coin has no incuse parts, the explanation would be that it was struck normally and fed back into the press "upside down".

Peter

what pictures Peter?  surely you arent calling bad scans as pictures  :D

if i collected error coins my world would be upside down  ;D

kansal888

Dear Peter

I do agree that incuse and relief appear confusing in scans.but one thing is certain, both sides have inverted (mirror image) of other sides. It can be confirmed by reading the text in hindi and english

kansal888

If a coin is accidently or intentionally fed two times in a press, it will have two positive impressions.

So my conclusion is that it ws fed into press two times- one with regular die and second time with intermediate die.

As you correctly said, intermediate die should not normally fit in the coin press. It fits into its own press. Therefore the act was delibrate

Figleaf

I am glad your eyes are better than mine. I agree that this was made on purpose, not an error. It is still an interesting piece, though.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

kansal888

#24
My conclusions:

(a) Peter is gracious.

(b) Intermediate die cant be mounted on regular press. Its diameter is different from regular dies.

(c) So the blank was once fed into a normal press to make a normal coin. It was then delibrately fed into a press with intermediate die. Thus its a piece of mischief.

Coinsforever

Every experience, good or bad, is a priceless collector's item.



http://knowledge-numismatics.blogspot.in/

repindia

This is definitely made outside the mint. It is not possible for two coins to be stuck while striking and the same time a coin to be first stuck regularly and then by these stuck ones!

repindia

I see a couple of members alreay have expressed the same views. Also in one previous post someone mentioned this comes from a reputed seller. This is just a reminder that even the so called reputed sellers can't be relied upon to provide genuine coins. I am not saying anything about their integrity, but no one has enough expertise in all areas!

repindia

Quote from: The Oracle on March 18, 2011, 02:54:01 PM
dear figleaf,

if you ever come here ill take for a little stroll.  i am sure you will quit coin collecting after that.  zillions of errors of all shapes and sizes.  you only need to think of the error and you will find it.  the only saving grace is that most of these errors are real and not custom made.  long live the indian mints or not depending on how you feel about it. 

What Oracle said is so very true! Add to the fact that the mint employees themselves concoct all sorts of errors which defy logic.  :)

The Oracle

Quote from: repindia on March 19, 2011, 08:17:37 PM
This is definitely made outside the mint. It is not possible for two coins to be stuck while striking and the same time a coin to be first stuck regularly and then by these stuck ones!

unless we get our own version of million dollar nickels.  the more i read your post the more it bothers me because of the scenario it presents.  we all know the khadi m mintmark story.  others have posted similar posts and the conclusion is grim.  the coin being sold here is a rarity as are some others.  either the market will absorb them in the distant future with a high price rise or they will get rejected and dumped causing genuine errors to also fall on the wayside.  

we are at crossroads  :)