How would you classify these feature on a coin?

[augur]

17 minutes ago, morezone said:

Thought I'd add an observation I made a while back.  If anyone has some ASE handy, spin the coin round and look at the edge.  I'm pretty certain that the rim changes thickness.  Might be deliberate in the design.  Might just be how it's manufactured due to an image/pattern being pressed onto what used to be a flat surface.  You can see this effect more clearly on the proof than the bullion.  Here some pics and you can see the height difference between the highest and lowest parts.

ASE is American Silver Eagle? But this is made by the US Mint, correct? That also explains why NGC doesn't consider this as an error as it is commonplace.

Is this then only a feature with American coins or has anybody another 1oz silver coin with a similar wedge shape? If not could it be the US minting machines?

[augur]

1 minute ago, Gav said:

The ASE also has a slight lip too.

The lip, I believe, is intentional on almost all coins to protect the rim. The 2017 £5 proof sovereign (and maybe the others, too) seems to be an exemption for non circulation coins. 

[Gav]

The lip, I believe, is intentional on almost all coins to protect the rim. The 2017 £5 proof sovereign (and maybe the others, too) seems to be an exemption for non circulation coins. 

There is the rim, and then there is a lip. The lip is sharp and not even.

I thought that the rim is to protect the coins' face, and a lip isn't normal.

[augur]

4 minutes ago, Gav said:

I thought that the rim is to protect the coins' face, and a lip isn't normal.

The rim does protect the coins face but collectors coins tend to have a lip to protect the rim (with exemptions of course) while circulation coins don't have this extra lip. 

[Gav]

The rim does protect the coins face but collectors coins tend to have a lip to protect the rim (with exemptions of course) while circulation coins don't have this extra lip. 

Always learning something new. Thanks

Though as a side note, the leopards only have a partial lip. A full rim but the lip is only on the top left of my coins and doesn't go fully around the coin.

[Avlis]

Another explanation might be that some dies include the rim but some don't as maybe in this case ,so if there is not such a high relief in certain areas near the rim the excess material has got to go somewhere so producing a thicker rim in some areas of the coin and not others ....just thinking.    

[blab]

Does it all actually matter? Its still a silver bullion coin at the end of the day.

[augur]

12 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

or simply the two dies not positioned exactly square to each other in the press?

 

7 hours ago, Avlis said:

As Steve suggest this is probably the dies not being aligned square and parallel to each other imo

 

Using my (extremely good vision) I can ascertain that the dies are parallel but the reverse is offset towards the front paw. This leads to more material being displaced (or not compressed) in the tail section and the higher rim and more pronounced lip in this area.

On the parallel sample the reverse dye is dead centre.

I don't know if it will be possible for me to show this on photographs at all but it just seems down to manufacturing tolerances.

[Gav]

Does anyone know if we have a group member that has been involved with the production of minting coins?

[Avlis]

so it maybe plausible that material is flowing up the sides of the dies unevenly ,especially if the dies are not perfectly centred with each other

[augur]

I would think that's the conclusion of this

[Pampfan]

28 minutes ago, Gav said:

Does anyone know if we have a group member that has been involved with the production of minting coins?

If we did I doubt they would step forward.

[Gav]

Since you dragged me in [mention=3391]Jester[/mention], I don't believe there is censorship on this forum of any kind and valid questions should be allowed to ask, especially by newbies. 

I'm not satisfied with this conclusion, it was left me with more questions than answers.

Would the leaning tower of leopards not have been noticed and why is the Five Cedis not got this error?

[Avlis]

Gav..without being able to physically measure the coins with a dti or see the coins being struck ,the best we can do is speculate Ie that one of the dies has worked loose and not striking dead centre due to the vibration that occurs produced by a few hundred ton press even with the best dampening .personally I think you have got mint error coins ,but not a desirable error just crap quality control ...sorry mate..

[Gav]

Gav..without being able to physically measure the coins with a dti or see the coins being struck ,the best we can do is speculate Ie that one of the dies has worked loose and not striking dead centre due to the vibration that occurs produced by a few hundred ton press even with the best dampening .personally I think you have got mint error coins ,but not a desirable error just crap quality control ...sorry mate..

And that is what I was worried about. But Scottsdale is a mint with a very good track record, and why I suspect that it was intentional.

 

I personally think it is neat that the denomination error version has a physical error too!

 

[sovereignsteve]

2 hours ago, Gav said:

And that is what I was worried about. But Scottsdale is a mint with a very good track record, and why I suspect that it was intentional.

I personally think it is neat that the denomination error version has a physical error too!

 

Personally I think you have a very strange way of looking at things, essentially wishful thinking.

Minting a 5 cedis coin as 100 cedis is a mint error, a genuine mistake in the make up of the dies for whatever reason. Although it must have been deliberate as it's impossible to mistake 100 for 5.

Making a mis-struck round such as this seems to be, is definitely a process error, a cock up, appalling workmanship, call it what you will. There's no way it will have been deliberate. These people are in the business of making rounds attractive enough so that people will want to stack and collect them. It is extremely unlikey they would produce such tatty crap deliberately. You say yourself, they have a good track record, why would they want to tarnish their reputation for quality products?
The fact the two "errors" are linked is probably due to the two different sized dies that you tell us were used; they physically didn't match up in the press and worked loose.
 

[Gav]

Personally I think you have a very strange way of looking at things, essentially wishful thinking.
Minting a 5 cedis coin as 100 cedis is a mint error, a genuine mistake in the make up of the dies for whatever reason. Although it must have been deliberate as it's impossible to mistake 100 for 5.
Making a mis-struck round such as this seems to be, is definitely a process error, a cock up, appalling workmanship, call it what you will. There's no way it will have been deliberate. These people are in the business of making rounds attractive enough so that people will want to stack and collect them. It is extremely unlikey they would produce such tatty crap deliberately. You say yourself, they have a good track record, why would they want to tarnish their reputation for quality products?
The fact the two "errors" are linked is probably due to the two different sized dies that you tell us were used; they physically didn't match up in the press and worked loose.
 

Wishful thinking would be that this is a quality error like you said, errors in the coin world are highly sort out especially if they are unintentional and they slip through QC. I'm trying to establish if it was intentionally produced, which would be less good for my coins.

I would prefer to settle on poor quality, as it means that the poor quality error is on another error which then means that there are two separate errors on the same coin. Now that is what I certainly would WISH the coin to be.

But that wishful thinking doesn't fit well with the picture that I see. I could be wrong and that is why I keep looking for answers and I don't just accept any answers just thrown out there.

Maybe you are right and it is an error on an error. There I thought that the mint choosing a denomination that is illegal in Ghana was unique, how unique would it be that the mint had two separate unconnected errors on the same coin.

[emoji857]

[Avlis]

Even if the die is secure  doesn't mean there isn't some play/movement somewhere along the line ...possible play in or bent press ram for   Example. Just  wondered have you measured the width and depth of the rim edge on both sides of the coin,this would confirm if the dies are centred correctly and give an indication whether extra material is on one side or both  ...to measure the depth just use the tail of your vernier caliper as a depth gauge also you could measure inside the rim with the smaller jaws to see how circular ( or not ) the strike is ........gav .....look on the bright side ....on a hot day if you need to wedge the door open ...you've got a whole stack of wedges....

[Gav]

Even if the die is secure  doesn't mean there isn't some play/movement somewhere along the line ...possible play in or bent press ram for   Example. Just  wondered have you measured the width and depth of the rim edge on both sides of the coin,this would confirm if the dies are centred correctly and give an indication whether extra material is on one side or both  ...to measure the depth just use the tail of your vernier caliper as a depth gauge also you could measure inside the rim with the smaller jaws to see how circular ( or not ) the strike is ........gav .....look on the bright side ....on a hot day if you need to wedge the door open ...you've got a whole stack of wedges....[emoji4]

The thickness on the high side of the coin I measured is 3.8mm the thin side is 3.15mm. The lip/extra material is too small to measure properly, probably my guess is less than 0.25mm high and less than 0.06mm thick.

From the videos I saw about minting coins, the dies look like they can't have any play on them. I think they have a screw type connection, but that is just a guess.