2006 gouge or extra column?

eagames · Expert Member

This is on a 2006-P.
It's only on one die and I have several of them.
It looks like a weak but very straight bar or gouge in the bay.
What is it, any ideas Question

Any bumps you see by the statue are just spots except the one bump below his hand, there's nothing else to note that I see on these.

BTW Bob, this is the same as one I sent you last year and you said you weren't sure but would send it to someone for an opinion.

Bob P · Site Admin

Ed,
I am sorry, but I don't remember it. Chances are, it slipped off the radar. Let me look through my log books and see if I can't track it down. Sorry about that Embarassed

coop · Expert Member

Bill Slaughter might have seen this one?

wavysteps2003 · Expert Member

Looking at the picture, the line appears to be broken in spots and a bit curved. I would speculate that this is a die gouge / scratch.

BJ Neff

Bob P · Site Admin

Ed,
I did track this one down. I received a reply on it in January, and I forgot to forward that email to you. Anyway, I can confirm what BJ has already said, and that is that it appears to be a die gouge. I had three people look at it, and the opinion was all the same. Sorry about the delay in getting back to you on this. Just goes to show that sometimes, even I (the one who tracks everything) can screw up. Crying or Very sad

Dick · Expert Member

Bob, don't feel bad. It just proves you are human!
The "line in the bay between cols. 7, and 8, appears to be a gouge, and there is a fainter line that runs parallel to the "deeper" one. I think it is a gouge.
Dick

coop · Expert Member

I'm guessing a die scratch. Gouges usually happen closer to the rim and field area.

Dick · Expert Member

Sounds good to me. I bow to experience!
Dick

Bob P · Site Admin

Coop,
You got me with a new theory. I have never heard of die scratches and gouges primarily found on certain parts of a coin? Where did that come from??

wavysteps2003 · Expert Member

I think that Coop may be refering to the theory of probability, which goes something like this.

We first must start with a base, which in this case is a field and the probability that a die scratch or gouge will ocur somewhere in that field. At this point, all parts of the field are subjected to the same probability that they can experience a die scratch or gouge. Now when adding parameters that could change that probability, certain areas will increase the chances of having a mishap occur.

If you were add indents and rises to the field, chance will increase that the indents will see more die gouges than the rises for particles that cause die gouges tend to settle in the recessed areas. If we are taking about two fields such as a hammer and anvil field, the anvil field will be more subject to die gouges than the hammer field for again, the particles that cause gouges have less tendency to stick to a moving object. This can also be applied in some way to inadvertent (not abraded scratches caused in removing clashes and such) die scratches occurring near the rim of the die. Since the rim is closser to outside influences that can cause such an occurance, the center is less prone to this type of fault being further away.

It is all in probabilities.

BJ Neff

Bob P · Site Admin

Just my opinion guys....but, I commonly don't like to deal with probabilitieswhen identifying an anormaly, and I do not think that this is a sure enough way to determine if in fact a mark is a gouge or scratch. Tooling marks can occur anywhere on the die, and that is in fact could be a gouge or a scratch. Polishing is usually always considered scratches. Usually, you can tell the difference by the way it looks. I think we are getting involved with semantics here. Either way, I do not believe this theory should be used as there is no way to be absolutely certain. We can call it what we like based on what we know, or we could do away with the wording 'scratches or gouges' and replace them with the word anomaly or something else. In your opinion, for the variety collector or the attributer does it make a difference?

eagames · Expert Member

The reason it seemed possible as a weird DDR is the spacing is right for it to be his right hand and the edge of the column. The unlikely part is if it was a column it would probably show at the center (highest part ) of the column not the edge.

Dick · Expert Member

Gentlemen, I have ead your posts, and I am inclined to side with Bob, in that other that when grading a coin, the "minor imperfections" that exist thru the very normal usage of the coin should not be considered other than for identification of a die, and/or die stage. A scratch, or gouge both disturb the surface , in a more or lessor degree, and cause that appearance to be more, or less noticable. The only actual value, if one would call it that, is for the uniniciated to ask , "What is that mark". We who have been around for a "day, or two", have seen those marks many times,and could care less, other than to mentally comment to ourselves, that is a scratch, or gouge, if severe enough. As far as determining what anomaly it is, yes semantics play a part, but only a very minor one.ANY mark that can be used to properly identify the die, die stage, and type of anomaly, can, has, and always will be acceptable. In other words, "who cares", if it is a scratch, or gouge? It only serves to help identify a situation, nothing more, nothing less. I rest my case. I don't know if it is worth "two cents", but you have it!
Dick

coop · Expert Member

Scratches and gouges happen to coins and neither creates collector value. Markers can happen/disappear/not apprear and not change identification. I was commenting as the location and size was very small, longer than wide, then I assumed it was a scratch. If it were wider then I would call it a gouge. But either way, it doesn't make any difference is value. Just observational differences.
My reference for the above statement is just my observation on studying dies through the year. Opinions are formed and then changed as new findings result. Most theories start this way and then are adjusted to new information that is found.
But either way, I feel it is not die doubling, just an anomoly that happened to the die. The mark inside the center bay is an unknown to me at this time. It seems that if it is a class 9 single squeeze it is very minor. Something I would still hang on to as I always figure if I can keep it in my grasp, maybe something will come up later and I'd have to kick myself for spending it. SO I would file it away till more infomation is known about this coin.

Bob P · Site Admin

Actually Coop, Ed, BJ and Dick, this conversation had turned out to have far more value than I originally thought. It wasn't supposed to turn out like that, but it does make one think about the less 'glamorous' side of the hobby. We all have our terminology, and some of it is used more loosely than others.
What this does do is bring up a very valid point in the long run. There are always two sides to any conversation or point of view. Sometimes, we get lost in the terminology we use, and assume everyone else knows exactly what we mean. We find out later that this is not always the case. We can delve very deep into this instance in particular and ask the question: When I say die gouge, what does average Joe collector envision? Does he/or she see a strong, deep trench on the coin, or do they assume it is a more severe scratch? Do they know the difference? Is there a difference? Do they care?
This conversation points us directly to the anomaly. It is not marker info we are talking about, but the point in question to begin with. Most have determined that this anomaly is not what we thought it 'could' be. If it isn't, what exactly is it? This is all part of the fun I have dealing with you guys. I can now see deeper into your thought patterns, even if it is a trivial as terminology. I for one am happy to see your opinions posted here for others to see also. It shows that not all is cut and dry. Not even something like this. I learned something today...did you??