Are these die clashes that I'm seeing on the reverse of this 1887 IHC?

Russ · November 14, 2003 6:16AM

There seem to be several in various locations, with the most prominent ones coming off the inside of wreath on the right side. They are even more dramatic than the image shows.

There's also a MAJOR cool one on the obverse located in front of the nose area that appears to be half of a circle surrounded by some type of star. It doesn't show well in the large image, so I'm going to attempt a closeup and post it in a bit.

Russ, NCNE

airplanenut · November 14, 2003 6:19AM

It does look like you've got something there!

Russ · November 14, 2003 6:38AM

Okay, here's a closeup of the clash that appears in front of the nose area:

What is that? There are also several at the top above the head. Working on capturing those.

Russ, NCNE

tjkillian · November 14, 2003 6:40AM

Yes, they are die clashes. Pretty cool, great find!

Tom

uofa1285 · November 14, 2003 6:50AM

Wow, neat find. Nice colors too...MS or Proof?

Doug

coinguy1 · November 14, 2003 6:55AM

<< Wow, neat find. Nice colors too...MS or Proof? >>

Doug, here is an easy, general answer to your question. It is widely believed, that Proof coins are hardly ever struck from clashed dies, presumably because more care is taken in their manufacture.

ccrdragon · November 14, 2003 6:58AM

Definitely clashes - the marks in front of the nose are from the wreath pattern on the reverse, and the marks around the wreath look like the tips of the feathers from the headdress. A really cool find there, Russ!!!!

The large circle in front of the nose is the back edge of the 'C' from the word CENT on the reverse.

mgoodm3 · November 14, 2003 7:04AM

Nice die clash. I find it interesting that clashes become somewhat uncommon in the later issues. Looking at seated half dimes, it's hard to find them without clashes. I think they're common on 3c silvers also. Maybe it's just the small coins.

Russ · November 14, 2003 7:12AM

<< It is widely believed, that Proof coins are hardly ever struck from clashed dies, presumably because more care is taken in their manufacture. >>

I've recently learned that the same general principle applies to die cracks as well. This forum is like a daily free seminar.

Here's a couple more clashed areas from the obverse:

Russ, NCNE

LanLord · November 14, 2003 7:31AM

I see George W Bush's face in the oak leaf to the left of the One Cent!!!!

Russ · November 14, 2003 7:33AM

Lanlord,

You need to have your eyes checked. That's Nixon!

Russ, NCNE

shylock · November 14, 2003 7:36AM

Russ -- I posted some wild IH clashes on my website today that you can compare those marks to.

Russ · November 14, 2003 7:48AM

Shylock,

Those are flat amazing! Both the images and the coins. The clashes on this one are very similar to those on your 1865's, except yours are more dramatic - especially the obverse with multiples of the same clash. Very cool!

Russ, NCNE

shylock · November 14, 2003 7:48AM

...and some overlays using IrishMike's 1865 that show what ccrdragon described: reverse, obverse

EagleEye · November 14, 2003 7:54AM

Those are regular die clash marks. Some proof Indian Cents, like 1891 come with die clash marks as well.

The dies are set a certian distance in the press, so if a planchect misfeeds the dies should just cycle through without striking. If the die is set wrong the dies will clash on the initial test cycle-through. It will be corrected then tried again. I guess three-cent silvers were very difficult to adjust, which is why so many are found with clashing.

shylock · November 14, 2003 8:13AM

Rick -- good to see you stop by the US forum. Does a clash have to be off-center to merit variety status?

Russ -- high end collectors shy away from them but the major clashes have the same feel as errors to me. Pinnacle currently has an 1864 br NGC MS66RB with a strong rev clash.

Russ · November 14, 2003 8:21AM

Shylock,

The obverse clash on that one is no slouch either. Pretty visible.

Russ, NCNE

EagleEye · November 14, 2003 8:22AM

They are too common and there is not enough collector interest to list them. O/C clashes are a different thing altoghether. I list clashed dies as part of a die state study of varieties, but not because of the die clashes.

The ones on your site are super strong!

Pushkin · November 14, 2003 8:23AM

Russ, Shylock

VERY NICE clashes - thanks for the great pics - clashes are definitely cool.

BigE · November 14, 2003 8:25AM

Interesting Rick, so a weak strike could come from the dies not being set up at the correct distance from eachother as well as incorrect pressure or wear------BigE

IrishMike · November 14, 2003 9:40AM

Russ nice coin, but be careful they are addictive. I own three now the 65 on shylocks site, and two 64's this one is raw and excuse the photo not mine.

silverandvinyl · November 14, 2003 6:57PM

Shylock:You're site is very informative.Now I will not ask anymore stupid questions about error coins.I just found
out what term is used for my Rosie dime(indent)Thank you

IrishMike · November 15, 2003 2:34AM

Russ, what is the date on your clashed cent, the 99?

TWQG · November 15, 2003 4:02AM

While interesting, die clash and polish hurt eye appeal for me. Great pics

XpipedreamR · November 15, 2003 4:15AM

I think that all those IHC's are very cool. Wish I had one!

MikeKing · November 15, 2003 7:31AM

<< here is an easy, general answer to your question. It is widely believed, that Proof coins are hardly ever struck from clashed dies, presumably because more care is taken in their manufacture. >>

Mark, please educate me further about this. I am thinking along the line of half cent proofs, like the 1833 proof of which the proofs and the business strikes were made from the same dies. Breen describes the die states which may include light clash marks, and an advancing die crack, but which he still considers to be proof. Looking at these coins, they look very much like proofs to me. So my question is, is the definition of a PROOF different according to when that proof was struck?

Russ...is this coin graded by one of the services, and if so, is it a proof? It looks like a proof to me.

And I wonder, how were proof IHCs made? Did they use seperate dies just for the proofs? Or did they eventually produce the business strikes of the same dies?

Russ · November 15, 2003 8:11AM

<< Russ, what is the date on your clashed cent, the 99? >>

Mike,

It's an 1887.

<< ...is this coin graded by one of the services, and if so, is it a proof? >>

Other Mike,

No, and no.

Russ, NCNE

Conder101 · November 16, 2003 1:24AM

The "general rule" about clashes and die cracks do not apply to early proofs (pre 1858). Often in the early years proofs would be struck from a new die early in the year (which was often then used for business strikes) but if the need for more proofs arose often a business strike die would be pulled off of production, polished, used to strike proofs, and then returned to business strike production. On some of the lower mintage years the dies would have clashes and/or die cracks on them when they were pulled for proof production. There are even a case or two in the copper series where a used business strike dies were polished, used for proofs, returned for business strikes, pulled again, polished and used for proofs a second time and finally used for business strikes until they were retired. So cracks and clashes can be found on early proofs.

Are these die clashes that I'm seeing on the reverse of this 1887 IHC?

Comments

Leave a Comment