1994 D. Need help to identify error.

[mlesage54@hotmail.com]

Can anyone help to identify ?
Regards,
Mike L

[twoyankees]

Mike, it looks like a possible plating issue. I've got a few similar that have smashed bubbles under the mint mark, mabe thats what happened to your coin. Lets see what the pro's will tell us. Tom

[mikediamond]

Split plating next to the mintmark followed by subsurface corrosion and the pushing up of a blister from the expanding metal. It's not an error.

[georoxx]

Well, there are signs of corrosion (for sure) and certain potential for a plating failure, but with the pics being just a bit out of focus, it's difficult to say for sure. The secondary MM image sure is quite removed from the primary, though.

-George

[Roller]

Well, there are signs of corrosion (for sure) and certain potential for a plating failure, but with the pics being just a bit out of focus, it's difficult to say for sure. The secondary MM image sure is quite removed from the primary, though.

-George
As stated many times before on this forum; there are no RPMs possible after 1989 when the mint no longer punched the MM in on the working die by hand. They now engrave the MM directly on the (Galvano? Hub?) with the end result being that doubling may occur but no RPM is possible. This is clearly a plating issue as well explained by MD.

[georoxx]

Of course. Nobody suggested RPM. I was referring only to the displacement phenomonon that resulted in this case from the plating issue.

-G

[Roller]

Most humble apologies for jumping the gun. I interpreted the initial post bo beg the question. My bad. Roll on.

[cents1st]

Cool tripple D, setter must have hit it hard 3x.

[mustbebob]

Cents1st, I am having a hard time understanding a few of your replies. I know they are your opinion, but what is a die setter? Some of your last few replies have used terminology I have not heard of. Where are you getting the info from?

[jfines69]

Cool tripple D, setter must have hit it hard 3x.
We must remember that as of 1990 all MMs are engraved and no longer hand punched... I believe that is what you are implying... If not disregard me... It is split plating with corrosion... The placement of the look alike MM most likely is from the corrosion pushing the metal south away from the MM!!!

[mlesage54@hotmail.com]

Split plating next to the mintmark followed by subsurface corrosion and the pushing up of a blister from the expanding metal. It's not an error.

If it is not an error, why does it look different from how it should look ?

[georoxx]

Anamolies are not always (mint) errors.

-George

[hasfam]

This is the way I think about it myself. A "error" occurs at the Mint during some process of Minting the coin. An error can occur at anytime until the coin leaves the Mint. Any anomoly that occurs or is added to the coin after it leaves the Mint is considered post mint damage, PMD. Even natural oxidation would fit into the PMD in my thinking. An Error is when something went wrong at the Mint, either by accident or intentionally.

[liveandievarieties]

To sew up Rock's point- your 1994-D came out of the mint looking normal. The anomaly at the mintmark (corrosion) occurred after the coin was produced, after it left the mint.

[trails]

This is the way I think about it myself. A "error" occurs at the Mint during some process of Minting the coin. An error can occur at anytime until the coin leaves the Mint. Any anomoly that occurs or is added to the coin after it leaves the Mint is considered post mint damage, PMD. Even natural oxidation would fit into the PMD in my thinking. An Error is when something went wrong at the Mint, either by accident or intentionally.

There are a few things that can happen to a coin while still in the mint that are not errors. Bag marks, such as dents scratches and transferring of design elements from one coin to another are common place. The Post Mint Damage or acronym PMD has been replaced with Post Strike Damage or PSD, which refines the time line to when an error or variety can take place, But even then, this definition has a flaw since edge lettering is placed on a coin after the strike and there have been errors in that part of the coin as well.

This new thought of when damage to a coin is considered in the time line of the coins life is more lenient than what Alan Herbert has concluded in his definition contained in the book "Mint Errors". He stated that any anomaly that occurs immediately after the strike (starting with the rise of the hammer die) is considered damage. This would of course eliminate our favorite anomaly; machine doubling.

BJ Neff

[twoyankees]

To sew up Rock's point- your 1994-D came out of the mint looking normal. The anomaly at the mintmark (corrosion) occurred after the coin was produced, after it left the mint.

That being the case, isn't it possible for the blister/bubble to be on the planchet before the coin is even struck? Something like pre strike damage? Tom