Problem Coins

Well, I just spent two hours writing a ten page guide on Problem Coins, hit a button on my computer and lost it to the Universe. Anyone who has worked with computers more than five minutes in ten years knows that experience, but after some reflection I decided that perhaps it was God's way of telling me I was taking the wrong approach. All of us, myself included, suffer occasionally from the "there are no ugly babies" syndrome wherein what is ours is always good and pure and right, no matter its actual imperfections. That was pretty much how I had approched this subject and when it got lost, I decided to take another approach.

What I realized was that there really are no Problem Coins as such, but rather, ambiguities in the terms with which we approach coins that create ambiguities in our minds about certain coins that might, or might not reflect those ambiguous terms. So, my approach here will not be to condemn, or even to advance any given coin, but simply to take on some of the ambiguous definitions that bedevil the collector and the investor, not the least of which is the definition of a "Problem Coin".

So that is where we will start. What is a "Problem Coin". The definition is simple; any coin which contains a surface characteristic that presents the collector, investor or dealer with a "problem" with grading, appreciating or marketing a coin. The definition may be simple, the "problem" itself is broad, as it covers the full range of circulated, uncirculated and any grades of damage contained thereon. Since it is such a broad area of study I will address the notion of "problem" circulated coins in a second part and herein address only those coins that arise as "problem" uncirculated coins.

Uncirculated Coins that appear Circulated: Most investors and collectors will call these "sliders" or "super sliders" and they would advance the notion that they are actually circulated coins that appear uncirculated to the unaided eye. Not disputing the notion that "sliders" and "super sliders" do actually exist this is not what I am talking about here.

What I am talking about here are coins whose surface characteristics at strike contain effects that are so close in appearance to certain types of circulation damage that they are often mistaken for circulated coins because of them. They fall into several broad sub-categories:

• Flat Strike Characteristics
• Die Tool Marks
• Broken Die Errors
• Die Condition Effects

I will talk briefly about all four, but will concentrate my discussion here on the last, which is a little recognized set of phenomena that is hardly recognized by the official coin grading establishment.

1. Flat strike characteristics - Of course this is recognized, and commented on by professional coin graders, hopefully when it applies. It appears most frequently is areas of a device, either obverse of reverse that are highpoints of the design of the die that have flattened out through the use of the die over time that causes the metal to not receive the same pressure as the surrounding areas and therefore causes no luster effect of flow in the coin. On Morgan dollars for instance it is very frequently seen in the hairlines around the ear and on the forehead on the obverse and on the high point of the eagle's breast, or the high points of the eagle's claws on the reverse.

So, how does one tell the difference between a flat strike in these areas and wear that is caused from rubbing against a finger, or inside a pocket over time. well, the answer is found in an old adage. "You are known by the company you keep". Flat strike is smooth, usually without the tell tale microscopic lines that come from rub wear and it is nearly impossible to rub away these small areas of a device without also rubbing away the luster right next to it. Flat Strike generally detracts from the "eye appeal" of a coin, or so it is said, though I cannot say that it has ever caused me a problem, and therefore may well affect the final value of a coin in the mind of the buyer.

2. Die Tool Marks - These are often commented on in microscopic examinations of coins but rarely make the headlines when they are the cause of confusion in understanding and grading a coin that is otherwise uncirculated. These are tiny marks caused by die conditioning tools - usually very small chisels that are used to recondition used dies that have picked up extraneous materials during their striking runs. They will also be used frequently to reinforce the depth around the edges of lettering and other areas of the die that might begin to flatten out after much use. They can, and often do reflect light slightly differently than the surfaces surrounding them and can therefore be mistaken for "bag strikes", "slide marks" and other surface marks that have regular and straightline appearances.

Again, they are generally detected by the company they keep, which is mostly none. Bag Strikes and rubs of one kind or another normally are not completely isolated, but will frequently have something else nearby that is similar. Another thing the collector may want to look at is the symmetry of shadow associated with the mark. Generally die tool marks are wedge shaped and symetrical and the shadow that is cast will be a straight line roughly filling in the space in proportion to the angle of the light that strikes it. Bag strikes are often ragged around their edges and if deep enough to cast shadows will have an irregular, asymetrical shadow going away from the angle of the light striking it. Bag strikes will also usually have a slightly higher ridge of metal on the opposite side of the strike that will cast a longer shadow away from the angle of the light as well as away from the main body of the mark. Rub marks will not cast shadows at all, as they are removal of only a single molecular layer of metal that you could not see the shadow of it anyway.

3. Broken Die Errors: Here lies a whole subculture, and consequently a whole area of study, for the coin collector and investor. Without getting into too much detail these are exactly what the title says, they are surface characteristics that are caused by broken, doubled or otherwise marred dies. They come under two broad categories: Simple: small cracks, gouges or shifting of the dies that cause cuds (lumped metal), lines (cracks) and doubling on the surface of the coins. In ages past these simple die errors and broken die effects were common so in older coins their effects on the value of the coin itself is determined by how rare the particular effect is in that type of coin. Catastrophic: a borken die error that affects more than 15 - 25% of the coin surface was considered catastrophic, requiring the replacement of the die that was broken. The very nature of such catastrophic damage to the die determines the rarity of these kinds of errors and they are often very valuable just because of that. A little known effect of such errors that often goes unnoticed by investor and collector alike, is the uneven toning that may occur to the surface of the coin, both obverse and reverse in the area of a catastrophic die break. I have, in fact, picked up on the broken die error of several coins simply because of the unusual toning patterns that appeared in reciprocal areas of the break itself.

4. Die Condition Effects: Now this is a classification of Problem Coins that most collectors, or professional grades, or investors who know coins, would lump under one of the three above but which are so specific and identifiable in their effects on the surface of coins that I believe they deserve their own classifications. Here I will be using a combination of terms that are frequently used by professionals as well as some of my own invention. Where I use one of my own invention I will note what professional graders would call it, and explain why I think their term is inadequate:

• Porosity (Stippling): Porosity is used interchangeably among professionals for any patch on a coin's surface that apears to present a somewhat evenly distributed pattern of dots. Unfortunately it is used to descirbe such patterns that are the result of environmental mishandling, such as the corrosion on the surface of high copper content coins, as well as the same kind of pattern that may occur on the surface of a perfectly uncirculated coin that was struck from a die that had become corroded and pitted. It is my opinion then that the tern "stippling" should be used to apply to these patterns that occur to uncirculated coins and have been cause by either the corrosion of the die as noted above, or by the slightly different set of polishing marks that comes from trying to polish out the corroded die.

The differences are again detected largely by the company kept. Porosity in a silver coin is caused by only one of two possible conditions, the stippling I mention above, or an increase in the copper content of the alloy itself which would indicate a counterfeit coin. Again, porosity is a pitting effect, where the surface presents with a pattern of incuse pits while stippling would be either a microscopic pattern of diffuse embossed stipples, or tiny often chaotically directed tool/polish marks.

• Luster Fussiness (hairlines): The definition of hairlines used to be straightforward. It referred to the hairline like marks left on the die and imprinted on the fields of a coin by small particles of fabric or even a hair, or wool fibers by a polishing cloth. Unfortunately, the term has come to be applied, I am sad to say, even by me, to almost anything on the surface of an uncirculated coin that is too small or irregular to be called a "bag strike" or a "rub" or a "slide" mark that interupts the perfectly smooth surface of the luster. 

My desire to call it "luster fussiness" is two fold. First, that is what it looks like, someone or some thing has been fussing with the luster. Second, so many people make such a fuss over it that it just seems to fit.

Now what it is is simple. The luster effect is, as everyone knows, caused by the flow of metel under heat and pressure flowing from the high central points of the planchet towards the rims. Now, in a new, or moderately worn die this effect is intact across the broad surfaces of the devices and the fields. However, in a die that is in transition to becoming a "flat" die this die will no longer be entirely smooth on these broad surfaces and may have, in fact built up single molecule thick channels that will interupt the "luster flow" of metal spreading outward and direct it instead along these meandering chanels. These chanels reflect light differently than the regulated chanels of "luster flow". This creates what I call "luster fussiness" and it is not a wear characteristing and it is not a flat strike characteristic but rather a die condition characteristic that makes every coin a uniquely struck speciman as distinct from any other coin as one finger print is distinct from another. In fact I have long used luster fussiness as a point of identification in making sure that the coins I order from eBay are actually the coins I receive as I have never seen any two coins of the same date, mint or type with exactly the same "luster fussiness".

Now, the problem is, of course, that this also greatly resembles "rub" and "slide" characteristics and so is often labeled on its surface as such. However, there are several characteristics that distinguish "rub" and "slide" from "luster fussiness". "Rub" and "slide" marks, as their names imply are caused by rubbing or sliding from one direction to another against other surfaces. Now, although these may occur in profusion and from different directions they invariably proceed in straight lines uninterrupted by curves. Luster fussiness however, being a characteristic of the "flow" of a liquid, will, as all flows do, follow the path of least resistance. They therefore will more closely resemble the flowing patterns of creeks and riverbeds, with curves and circles and arcs as well as stretches that appear straight.

So, that is the end of this discussion, which of course will lead to our next, which will be the characteristics of circulated "Problem Coins".