Options
Impossible Mint Errors
ctf_error_coins
Posts: 15,433 ✭✭✭✭✭
This guy has a couple of "Impossible" Mint errors
I love in his description in that he tells you not to complain to him but to PCGS
Impossible Mint Error one
Number two
I love in his description in that he tells you not to complain to him but to PCGS
Impossible Mint Error one
Number two
0
Comments
apparently all kind of errors abound this esoteric item, including its color
.
<< <i>Description: Unique--yes, truly one-of-a-kind--CENT on NICKEL planchet, labeled by PCGS as a die cap.
Long thought to be impossible because a five-cent blank cannot fit into the die collar used in minting one-cent coins, this lone example has been the subject of rumor for years. It now appears on the market for the first time in almost 15 years, and for the first time ever after authentication, grading, and encapsulation by PCGS.
Do me a favor: Please don't write to tell me this coin does not or cannot exist, and don't write to tell me that it's impossible or that it's not real or that it's an "assisted error."
Tell Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), the world's premier coin authentication and grading company.
After careful study of this unique Lincoln cent, PCGS determined that this coin is a genuine product of the U.S. mint, that it is very real, and that it earns the designation "Mint Error."
This MS62 cent is a professionally documented, authenticated, graded U.S. error coin, the only one of its kind, easily the highlight of any error coin collection. If it does not sell soon here on eBay, I will sell it through Heritage or another auction house--likely for a much higher price.
Take a look at my other "impossible" error coin on eBay now, a 1998-P DIME on CENT stock, PCGS MS67.
Question: It is interesting to note that the other known U.S. off-metal, dual denomination obverse die cap is also dated 1981 from the Philly mint. That one sold for approximately $10,000 (1981-P 10c struck on a 1c obverse cap). Nov-11-13
Answer: Thanks for your note. The coin you mentioned sounds like a true dual denomination--a single coin struck with the dies of two different denominations--whereas mine is a simply an off-metal coin struck with Lincoln cent dies. (I think the "die cap" designation on the label is a misnomer, although it has that capped-die look to it.) Its uniqueness, of course, is that a planchet for a five-cent coin is too large to fit into the collar designed for one-cent coins, leading the "hammer" (obverse die) to strike an uncollared planchet. If you look closely at the reverse in the photos, you should faintly make out the Lincoln Memorial. Upon deformation by the obverse die, the planchet made just enough contact with the reverse die to leave a ghostly impression of the reverse image. I will list another "impossible" single-denomination coin later today, but it's from 1998, not 1991. This one is a 1998-P Roosevelt dime struck on one-cent stock. As with the Lincoln cent already listed, the planchet was too large to fit into the die collar, but this one must have come very close. In fact, the hammer apparently forced the cent planchet into the collar, shearing off the copper edge and exposing the zinc core in the process. The effect is striking (so to speak): a copper dime, obverse and reverse, with zinc reeding. Watch for that one as well. Thank you again. >>
<< <i>.
apparently all kind of errors abound this esoteric item, including its color
. >>
If legit it would state Mint Error in the Cert Verification and not mention other pops.
<< <i>
<< <i>.
apparently all kind of errors abound this esoteric item, including its color
. >>
If legit it would state Mint Error in the Cert Verification and not mention other pops. >>
Very interesting.
<< <i>COIN INFORMATION
Cert Verification #: 5790411
PCGS Coin #: 3043
Date, mintmark: 1981
Denomination: 1C
Country: The United States of America
Grade: MS62RD
Mintage: 7,491,750,000
Holder Type: Standard
Population: 12 >>
Bogus too IMHO.
<< <i>.
apparently all kind of errors abound this esoteric item, including its color
. >>
Hmmmmmmmmm
<< <i>Cert Verification #: 3742465 PCGS Coin #: 5195 Date, mintmark: 1998-P Denomination: 10C Country: The United States of America Grade: MS67 Mintage: 1,163,000,000 PCGS Price GuideSM Value: $27 Holder Type: Standard Population: 40
Bogus too IMHO. >>
Double hmmmmmmmm!
I'm trying to understand how a nickel planchet fit into a chamber intended to strike cents...
<< <i>Fascinating. I think I need another cup of coffee before looking at them again. >>
Ya me too, I shoulda had two cups before posting them .......
Notice the Mint Error and lack of other non error population at the MS64RB grade.
You'll also see a E infront of the PCGS coin #.
COIN INFORMATION
Cert Verification #: 22002136
PCGS Coin #: E2523
Date, mintmark: 1920
Denomination: 1C
Mint Error: D/S- 2nd Strike 10% O/C
Country: The United States of America
Grade: MS64RB
Mintage: 310,165,000
Holder Type: Standard
<< <i>This guy has a couple of really cool "Impossible" Mint errors >>
Interesting turn of events....
<< <i>someone post a valid mint error cert lookup. >>
22002136
Again, just a theory.
But ... I thought in 1998, the cent planchets were received from an external vendor (and the only such planchets) making the possibility of a wrong size stock fairly remote.
Are these two "impossible" errors thought to be fake errors in fake PCGS holders?
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Link to Heritage.
Link to Cert Verification.
-Paul
It would appear that someone was busy in the backroom of the mint producing small number of these near-impossible errors. Interestingly, all these strikes are uniface.
As to the other "impossible" error, this is a dime struck on a resized (cut-down) cent planchet. A handful of others are known. One suspects these also were intentionally generated.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>
As to the other "impossible" error, this is a dime struck on a resized (cut-down) cent planchet. A handful of others are known. One suspects these also were intentionally generated. >>
I saw one of those in hand in the early 2000s, the zinc core was clearly visible on the entire rim of the coin, indicating that the planchet was carefully cut down to dime size well after it was manufactured. Clearly those coins had a lot of help and did not result from normal Mint operations.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I could swallow one such error in a given year as an accident. But when there is a spate of such errors in a single year, one must strongly consider intentionality behind the phenomenon.
<< <i>1998-P DIME on CENT stock, PCGS MS67. Although exceedingly rare, I have seen several of these over the years--but none graded as high as MS67, with day-one luster.
Like the 1981-P CENT on NICKEL planchet that I have listed on eBay now, this coin was long thought to be impossible, as the planchet is too large to fit in the die collar.
In this case, the hammer (obverse die) sheared off the copper edge of the blank while forcing it into the collar, exposing the zinc core of the planchet in the process. (See last photo.) >>
And in this case, PCGS would not label it as "struck on cent stock" as it is here.
I'm not quite sure who manufactured the planchets at this time. It may have also been a combination of manufacturers.
Plus, the copper plating is done after the blanks are cut out from the stock. If this was the case, I would suspect that this planchet wouldn't receive any copper plating, as mint employees would have treated this blank as they would have an actual dime blank (no copper plating after blanking).
Interesting pieces. There must be some discussion about these pieces somewhere out there? This isn't the first time that they've come to market is it - I thought I saw them before (maybe not).
<< <i>
<< <i>
As to the other "impossible" error, this is a dime struck on a resized (cut-down) cent planchet. A handful of others are known. One suspects these also were intentionally generated. >>
I saw one of those in hand in the early 2000s, the zinc core was clearly visible on the entire rim of the coin, indicating that the planchet was carefully cut down to dime size well after it was manufactured. Clearly those coins had a lot of help and did not result from normal Mint operations.
Sean Reynolds >>
Couldn't an oversized coin being struck in a smaller collar get chopped down to size when the die pushes it down into the collar? Just like the blanks getting cut?
-Paul
<< <i>Here is a picture I saved well over a decade ago of the cent on nickel planchet, taken before the coin was certified. There are distinct marks at K-9 on the obverse that make me believe the coin in the PCGS holder is the same coin pictured below:
Sean Reynolds >>
I don't believe the EBay listed example is the same and we'll have to wait for FredWeinberg to join in on this thread.
Even is legit the seller has sailed far from the shores of reality for one insane fishing expedition with his asking prices!
<< <i>Here is a picture I saved well over a decade ago of the cent on nickel planchet, taken before the coin was certified. There are distinct marks at K-9 on the obverse that make me believe the coin in the PCGS holder is the same coin pictured below:
Sean Reynolds >>
My gut feeling is that they are not the same coin, but I would not swear by it. Look in the unstruck planchet fields below the cent strike.
It is also my gut feeling that these were made at the Mint, but deliberately. I cannot buy the story of the outer circumference of a cent planchet being neatly sheared off by a reeded dime collar during a strike.
TD
<< <i>
Couldn't an oversized coin being struck in a smaller collar get chopped down to size when the die pushes it down into the collar? Just like the blanks getting cut?
-Paul >>
It could, but it would not be perfectly centered, and you would see definite signs of fracturing and tearing on the cut edge. On a zinc plated planchet, you would also separation of the plating from the core. An error known as a "strike clip" is the closest thing to what you're describing, and those have a very distinctive look (image source here):
The dimes on cent stock show no distortion, which indicates that the planchet was cut before the strike, not during it.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>Here is a picture I saved well over a decade ago of the cent on nickel planchet, taken before the coin was certified. There are distinct marks at K-9 on the obverse that make me believe the coin in the PCGS holder is the same coin pictured below:
Sean Reynolds >>
that picture shows a non-circle.
leads me to believe an uncollared strike.
I believe the 1981 Cent struck on a Nickel Planchet
in the Ebay listing is the same as the Heritage coin.
As has been mentioned in this post, there are known
items that were minted 'with help' from various years,
and various error types.
There's a 1964 (D, I think) Dime known also struck
on Cent stock, but Dime diameter, for example.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Full of great information from many experts.
I did think the coins where real from the start, but I never looked up the cert numbers and that (the posts about them) threw me off because of my lack of education about cert numbers.
I love error coins ...........
<< <i>Canada has produced a fair number of coins struck on oversized planchets and coins. Many carry a 1978 cent design. I have no doubt that most or all of these were intentionally fabricated. >>
I don't think I could find the citation right now, but I remember reading that in the late 1970s the Canada Mint had a place on their tour where you could strike a souvenir coin with a real die, and that most if not all of the very strange overstrikes from that era came from that source.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>I've heard that from several independent sources. But there would have to have been other sources as well, given the exotic and complex nature of some of these intentional errors. For example, I have a Canadian cent (presumably 1978) brockaged by a much larger Latin American coin. >>
Mike,
I would think something like that could be easily explained by the availability of a set of cent dies to the public. It could have been a foreign visitor to the Mint placing a coin from their home country between the 1978 cent dies on the tour. The tourist would have the coin from their home country with the 1978-dated reverse of a Canadian cent impressed in it, while a blank placed under it (presumably to prevent the larger coin from damaging the collar) would be as you describe.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>... he actually states (or implies rather) that it was struck on a cent planchet, but the "extra" diameter was sheared off by the collar during strike. >>
<< <i>Couldn't an oversized coin being struck in a smaller collar get chopped down to size when the die pushes it down into the collar? Just like the blanks getting cut? >>
I'm not certain how the collar is held in place in the earlier US Mint Bliss presses.
But on my 1986 vintage US Mint Grabener coin press, the collar is pushed upwards into position by air pistons.
If the upper die comes down and impacts the collar (or impacts an object that won't fit into the collar), the air pistons will allow the collar to drop down, so as to avoid catastrophic damage to the dies, collar, and press.
If I were striking a dime-sized item on my coin press, and I placed a zinc cent blank over the collar hole, and then stamped it, there might be a slight bending of the planchet but it would end up broad-struck and would NOT be sheared off at the collar diameter.
If the collar was held rigidly in place, then the upper die and collar would act like a blanking punch.
So what's the big deal?
In most or all presses, the collar is supposed to give way. But sometimes it gets frozen in the "up" position, giving rise to a variety of stiff collar errors ranging from off-center strikes with strong collar scars to warped off-center coins to strike clips.
The modern Schuler press evidently comes with a rather stiff collar; most off-center strikes show the unstruck portion of the coin pushed up by the collar.
Strike clips produced by a planchet trapped between the descending hammer die and collar are rare. Among U.S. coins, they're most abundant in zinc cents from the period 1989 - 1994.
<< <i>Thanks for the information. This is the first I've heard of the collar being supported by air pistons. Makes sense.
In most or all presses, the collar is supposed to give way. But sometimes it gets frozen in the "up" position, giving rise to a variety of stiff collar errors ranging from off-center strikes with strong collar scars to warped off-center coins to strike clips.
The modern Schuler press evidently comes with a rather stiff collar; most off-center strikes show the unstruck portion of the coin pushed up by the collar.
Strike clips produced by a planchet trapped between the descending hammer die and collar are rare. Among U.S. coins, they're most abundant in zinc cents from the period 1989 - 1994. >>
On the Bliss presses, the collar would have to have some way to yield, otherwise there wouldn't be any relatively-flat off-center strikes from that era.
<< <i>Thanks for the information. This is the first I've heard of the collar being supported by air pistons. Makes sense.
In most or all presses, the collar is supposed to give way. But sometimes it gets frozen in the "up" position, giving rise to a variety of stiff collar errors ranging from off-center strikes with strong collar scars to warped off-center coins to strike clips.
The modern Schuler press evidently comes with a rather stiff collar; most off-center strikes show the unstruck portion of the coin pushed up by the collar.
Strike clips produced by a planchet trapped between the descending hammer die and collar are rare. Among U.S. coins, they're most abundant in zinc cents from the period 1989 - 1994. >>
In addition to elliptical strike clips like the one I posted earlier, I have seen similar errors on saddle strikes. Instead of buckling between the two sets of dies, one of the two small struck regions is cut or torn off the planchet. The resulting coin looks like an off-center strike on a clipped planchet, but the edge of the "clip" shows signs of major trauma. Like elliptical strike clips, most of the examples I've seen have been on early zinc Lincoln cents.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>A Sean said, if the perimeter of the planchet were sheared off by the collar, the reverse face would show downwarping along the perimeter. No downwarping appears on any of these dimes struck on resized cent planchets. >>
Plus, as I pointed out earlier, the shearing would have to have been done by a REEDED collar!
<< <i>
Strike clips produced by a planchet trapped between the descending hammer die and collar are rare. Among U.S. coins, they're most abundant in zinc cents from the period 1989 - 1994. >>
On the Bliss presses, the collar would have to have some way to yield, otherwise there wouldn't be any relatively-flat off-center strikes from that era. >>
The collar is supported by springs in the Bliss press, or so I read.
By the way, here's a column I published on intentional errors:
http://www.coinworld.com/articles/assisted-and-intentional-errors-are-not-alway
RIP Mom- 1932-2012