MALAYSIA COIN STRIKING ERRORS:WHAT HAPPEN TO THIS 10 CENTS COIN?
What Happen To This Malaysia 1977 10 Cents Coin?
Striking Errors? Yes.
Brockage Errors? Yes.(Obverse)
Counter Brockage Errors? May Be.(Reverse)
Strike Through Errors?May Be.(Reverse)
Strike Out Of Collar Errors? Yes.(Oval Shape)
Every time,when I look at this coin,I need paracetamol!
Striking Errors? Yes.
Brockage Errors? Yes.(Obverse)
Counter Brockage Errors? May Be.(Reverse)
Strike Through Errors?May Be.(Reverse)
Strike Out Of Collar Errors? Yes.(Oval Shape)
 |
| Malaysia.1977.10 Cents.Obverse. (Dickson Niew Collection) |
Each time,when I stare at this coin,I need paracetamol!
I haven't find a good explaination to this error coin.
Can you help me?
 | |
|
Funny but its true, what error coins can do, haha.
ReplyDeleteThis coin reminds us of a Singapore 10 cents coin with multiple errors put up on sale in the net.
With our limited knowledge, we really have no idea what are the causes but it sure looks interesting.
Thanks a lot for sharing, Dickson.
Hello Dickson,
ReplyDeleteAllow me to comment on this interesting error you have here.
Since you mentioned that this could be a counter-brockage coin, then it has to be a brockage coin first. As we know, a brockage strike happened when a fully struck coin and a planchet entered the coining chamber simultaneously and these 2 coins would have the following features:
(I'll take a full brockage strike to explain since yours does not appeared as a partial brockage.)
a)
1 coin (the struck coin)would have double strike on 1 side and a slightly flattened enlarged relief design on the opposing side.
b)
Another coin (the planchet) would have a strong strike on 1 side and a slightly enlarged incused image of the struck coin.
Now as we match these criteria to your specimen above, neither would fit it.
A full counter-brockage strike would have created another 2 coins again:
1 coin (the brockage coin)would have a depressed enlarged relief image on 1 side and a strong strike on the opposing side.
Another coin would have a double strike on 1 side and a flattened enlarged incused design on the opposing side.
These counter-brockage strike doesn't fit with your specimen either. The complicated brockage-counter-brockage is definitely not relevant here.
Your specimen here appears to be a Post Mint job heavily hammered or struck together with another similar 1977 coin with the reverse facing the coin's obverse thereby created the partial incuse reverse image and the obvious damage on the corresponding opposing reverse side.
Thank you for sharing.
Dear whycollect,
ReplyDeleteSome of these error coins are difficult to explain,is just like breaking the Davinci Code!
Thank you.
Dear Nuchatter,welcome again!
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your very details and lenghtly explaination.Yes,what looks like it suppose to be,but some feature is missing.
Your last part of the explaination is getting closer to the answer.
I guess,could it be a 1977 10 cents normal struck coin find it ways back into the coining press and was struck in between a 1977 10 cents die cap errors and a 1977 10 cents capped die errors simultaneously?
Another Davinci Code to break!Haha!
Thank you nuchatter!
Or,could it a Trial/Test Errors during the technical adjustment of the coin press?
ReplyDeleteHi Dickson,
ReplyDeleteAssuming the said situation occurred, the struck coin would have very obvious striking evidence from both the die capped coins but it is not there.
A trial test would not leave an incused reverse on the coin. TRy hammering 2 coins on your own and you can come up with one too. I did mine and it came up perfectly.
Good day
Dear nuchatter,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your further explaination.
I will try to hammer one when I am back to my kampung,as I don't have a big hammer in my KL home!And I am worry that my neighbour will mistaken for an earthquake!