Important discovery shown at Central States

EagleEye · April 25, 2015 3:52AM

Jack Beymer discovered an astoundingly weird variety. Undoubtedly genuine and a real head-scratcher!

It's a 1858 Seated Libery quarter with clash marks on both the obverse and the reverse from the reverse die of a Large cent!

The obverse shows the clash on the right side only and the reverse die shows the clash on the right side only. It is only evident in the field areas and is a backward impression of the design, just as it should be. I'll post images ASAP.

Sonorandesertrat · April 25, 2015 3:57AM

Head-scratcher? What are the odds of that happening by accident in 1857---the same year in which three multidenominational clashes appeared on Flying Eagle cents (and a Seated quarter with FE clash marks on the reverse)? Seems like someone (or people) at the Mint were having a good old time.

291fifth · April 25, 2015 4:04AM

You have to wonder if these were made to order "errors" for collectors of the day. It is 1858 and coins for collectors were not an unknown item at the mint during that period.

ThePennyLady · April 25, 2015 4:16AM

Rick asked me to post the photos on his behalf

Swampboy · April 25, 2015 4:16AM

Can't wait for the images.

Cool find!

keyman64 · April 25, 2015 4:22AM

Cool!

Eclectic · April 25, 2015 4:27AM

It appears legit!

jcping · April 25, 2015 4:45AM

Very cool

CaptHenway · April 25, 2015 4:50AM

I saw that coin a few years ago and borrowed to see if I could get a story out of it but was never able to be sure what caused it.

Broadstruck · April 25, 2015 4:57AM

If this is the only example isn't it just a fluke instead of a variety?

Walkerguy21D · April 25, 2015 5:10AM

<< If this is the only example isn't it just a fluke instead of a variety? >>

A deliberate 'made to order' fluke at that....I'm sure it's worth a lot to someone, but not to me - more of an interesting conversation
piece.

lkeigwin · April 25, 2015 5:10AM

Pretty fun coin. I imagine the clash was like this.
Lance.

(edited for horizontal flip of the cent reverse, not vertical)

EagleEye · April 25, 2015 5:24AM

The orientation of the dies is top-to-top on the obverse and top-to-bottom on the reverse. The overlay orientation ikeigwin posted would be for the reverse die, showing the upside-down T in the field. The obverse shows a backwards O.

DAM · April 25, 2015 5:27AM

Neat. Like it.

lkeigwin · April 25, 2015 5:45AM

<< The orientation of the dies is top-to-top on the obverse and top-to-bottom on the reverse. The overlay orientation ikeigwin posted would be for the reverse die, showing the upside-down T in the field. The obverse shows a backwards O. >>

Gotcha. Fixed.
Lance.

steveben · April 25, 2015 5:48AM

cool piece!

CuKevin · April 25, 2015 5:51AM

Very interesting indeed. I wonder if a few more might show up now?

TopographicOceans · April 25, 2015 7:56AM

Very cool

IrishMikey · April 25, 2015 8:17AM

With the caveat that authenticating from an image can be more of a guess than grading from an image, something
about that coin looks wrong to me. In particular, the 'ICA' in AMERICA appears to be slightly flattened or damaged.

If this is the only example that shows up, I would be more inclined to call it post-strike damage than clashing.

EagleEye · April 25, 2015 8:38AM

PSD was certainly concidered and ruled out. The consensus of Jack and myself is that it is a clashed die on both dies and genuine.

CuKevin · April 25, 2015 9:35AM

<< With the caveat that authenticating from an image can be more of a guess than grading from an image, something
about that coin looks wrong to me. In particular, the 'ICA' in AMERICA appears to be slightly flattened or damaged.

If this is the only example that shows up, I would be more inclined to call it post-strike damage than clashing. >>

That would be an impressive feat to be able to fake the above pictured coin. Note that the large cent reverse details are not seen on the devices of lady liberty.

BustHalfBrian · April 25, 2015 9:53AM

If I didn't trust your expertise, judging by the pics, I'd have said it was a vice job - however seeing it in hand could have proved differently.

This appears to be a much more severe die clash than the 1857 clashed w/ Indian cent.

BustHalfBrian · April 25, 2015 9:56AM

If I didn't trust your expertise, judging by the pics, I'd have said it was a vice job - however seeing it in hand could have proved differently.

This die clash appears to be a much more severe than the 1857 quarter clashed w/ Indian cent.

Coinosaurus · April 25, 2015 10:24AM

<< Note that the large cent reverse details are not seen on the devices of lady liberty. >>

I saw the coin in hand today and noticed that as well. The clash is seen only in the fields (a microscope might reveal more but I did not see it with a glass).

roadrunner · April 25, 2015 10:49AM

Unless this is only a 1-off specimen it's hard to fathom that this could have gotten by the seated quarter variety collectors over the past 40 years. Heavy clashing (like the 1853 dimes and half dimes) is just not usually seen on the quarters. With 1854-0 huge quarters getting picked off since the 1970's along with 1853-0 quarters with filled mint marks....how does such a monstrous clashing go unnoticed unless "almost none" were struck before the dies were pulled. Maybe some "tinkering" done as a die was ready to be removed from service? 1858 is in the 6 most common dates of seated quarters.

lava · April 25, 2015 10:52AM

So you're saying the thing is flawed?

CuKevin · April 25, 2015 11:02AM

<< If I didn't trust your expertise, judging by the pics, I'd have said it was a vice job - however seeing it in hand could have proved differently.

This die clash appears to be a much more severe than the 1857 quarter clashed w/ Indian cent. >>

From the images, this could not have been done as a vice job. Both the devices of the quarter and the large cent that WOULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR A VICE JOB, would have had the greatest pressure exerted on each other. Since we do not see the details of the large cent reverse impressed into seated liberty, a vice job is not a possible reason. There are also other reasons, just from looking at the photos why it could not have been a vice job.

EagleEye · April 25, 2015 11:21AM

For an explanation, we could look into procedures used at the end of the Large Cent production in 1857 and the startup of a large silver production, owing to the huge Spanish silver melting going on at the time. Quarter dies were installed into the presses used for Large Cents and the dies might have been in the press together. maybe. If the dies clashed while seating the new quarter dies, there could have been a clash made. But there are clashes on both dies from the reverse of the Large Cent die, which is very unusual to my thinking. I would think we would see the reverse cent clash on the quarter obverse or reverse but not both. Nevertheless, they are there.

renomedphys · April 25, 2015 2:53PM

This coin came out of Jack's box while he and I were discussing clashed 1857 fliers and theories about obverse hammer versus anvil dies.

He has a cert slip from NGC that says PMD... but it is clearly not the case.

He told me it was found with a great deal of crud in all of the recesses by an associate. When "cleaned up", jaws promptly dropped.

Fascinating piece, and needs to be certified.

Don't fret too much about the graders getting it wrong. Remember these are a bunch of guys that often can't tell the difference between hairlines and die polish marks.

johnny9434 · April 27, 2015 5:16AM

looks pretty cool from here

CaptHenway · April 27, 2015 6:26AM

My gut feeling was a sandwich coin, but there were parts of it I could not explain, so in my head it was a "no decision."

NumisOxide · April 27, 2015 6:35AM

Hmmmm interesting!

okiedude · April 27, 2015 7:08AM

The pressman had a liquid lunch?

EagleEye · April 27, 2015 10:38AM

Here are better images:

MsMorrisine · April 27, 2015 10:58AM

it can still be real and man made.

it would take effort to clash both obverse and reverse with the same large cent die, no?

maybe in 1859 a mint police officer was criminally charged with smuggling mint errors out.....

segoja · April 27, 2015 2:56PM

Cool Coin

GoldenEgg · April 27, 2015 3:37PM

I would consider it post-strike damage from those pictures.

There is flattening on the obverse (stars & Liberty's legs), and on the reverse (denticles, "AMERICA", and arrows). Additional damage can be seen on the denticles at 2 o'clock on the reverse. I wouldn't feel very confident calling it a genuine error with these features.

Has Fred Weinberg or Mike Diamond seen this piece?

DaveWcoins · April 27, 2015 9:57PM

Hmmm...

errormaven · April 27, 2015 10:29PM

I believe I looked at this coin with Capt. Henway and developed grave doubts about its authenticity. On both faces the normal raised design is warped and muted where it overlaps the clash and the surface of the coin has an undulating topography. This is not what you should see in a genuine clash.

messydesk · April 27, 2015 10:53PM

A head-scratcher indeed. For this to be a legitimate clash or series of clashes that happened in the press indicates that it would have been possible for two-headed or two-tailed large cents or seated quarters to have been struck as well. If mischief at the mint was responsible for this and other well-established multi-denominational clashes, you'd think a "legitimate" trick coin would exist. Wish I would have seen it at CSNS, as I could have taken photos of it.

FredWeinberg · April 28, 2015 12:21AM

Mornin' all -

I believe Jack sent me this coin a few years ago, and I did not
think it was a genuine error or die clash.

As mentioned above, the surfaces are off, and I really don't like
the area on the right side of the reverse - warped displaced lettering
and denticles.

I can't explain it, but I just don't think it's the real thing;
as Bill Fivaz is famously quoted for saying about an altered coin:

"I wasn't there when it was made"
(i.e; so I can't tell you exactly how it was made)

FredWeinberg · April 28, 2015 12:35AM

I believe Jack sent me this coin to examine
a few years ago.

I didn't feel it was a genuine die clash.

As mentioned in previous posts, the surfaces
of the coin are 'off' (wavy in parts), and I also
don't like the right side of the reverse where
the "America" lettering, and denticles are.....

I can't explain exactly how it was made, but
as Bill Fivaz is famous for saying about pieces
he's shown that are not errors:

"I wasn't there when it was made, so I can't
tell you exactly how it was done"

I'm ready to stand corrected, but at a minimum,
it certainly doesn't pass the smell test to my eyes.

FredWeinberg · April 28, 2015 12:36AM

Hmm...I've replied twice this morning to this
thread, and neither post has show up.....

roadrunner · April 28, 2015 1:01AM

<< Hmm...I've replied twice this morning to this
thread, and neither post has show up..... >>

Frequently happens with the software. I've been seeing this since mid-December. Sometimes I've had to wait up to an hour to see my post show up.

DaveWcoins · April 28, 2015 1:04AM

<< I believe Jack sent me this coin to examine
a few years ago.

I didn't feel it was a genuine die clash.

As mentioned in previous posts, the surfaces
of the coin are 'off' (wavy in parts), and I also
don't like the right side of the reverse where
the "America" lettering, and denticles are.....

I can't explain exactly how it was made, but
as Bill Fivaz is famous for saying about pieces
he's shown that are not errors:

"I wasn't there when it was made, so I can't
tell you exactly how it was done"

I'm ready to stand corrected, but at a minimum,
it certainly doesn't pass the smell test to my eyes. >>

I'm with you, Fred.

Other than being struck by counterfeit dies (which is possible), I don't know how it was made. But I just don't think it is "right".

messydesk · April 28, 2015 1:06AM

<< I'm ready to stand corrected, but at a minimum,
it certainly doesn't pass the smell test to my eyes. >>

Synesthesia and error authentication.

Thanks for your opinion, Fred.

messydesk · April 28, 2015 1:08AM

Does this match a known authentic die marriage for this date? Did Larry Briggs ever take a look at it? If it's a valid die marriage for which a later die stage showing die breaks and no clash exists, then that would pretty much condemn the clash as bogus.

CaptHenway · April 28, 2015 2:25AM

<< Hmm...I've replied twice this morning to this
thread, and neither post has show up..... >>

There is a glitch in the forum software. When you posted the first time pages 1 and 2 were full so your first post started page 3, but because the software was ignoring somebody else's post or two the software said to itself "Self, page 2 isn't full yet, so don't be showing page 3 yet!"

You can overcome this by going to the last page showing in the thread, looking at the address line at the top of the screen which shows the page number of the thread, clicking after the end of the thread and increasing the page number by one (such as from 2 to 3 or 19 to 20) and clicking on "GO."

TD

koinpro · May 15, 2015 9:40PM

Here are images of this coin. They are dark and of high saturation due to me shooting with low lighting and a slow shutter speed to highlight the clash marks. I make no assessment at this time. You be the judge.

1) The coin is out-of-round being 24.18 mm +/- measured from 12:00 to -6:00 O'clock and 24.36 mm +/- measured from 3:00 to 9:00 O'clock. This might be normal for the era and fact the coin is circulated. Also, if the individual dies clashed into a Large cent reverse die (which is a larger diameter die, they (quarter dies) could have spread it tiny bit due to the benefit of a sloppy collar. All conjecture on my part.

2) It is of correct weight at 6.2 +/-.

3) The stars and Miss Liberty's foot on the right side of the obverse are weak, while the designs corresponding to these on the left side of the coin are strong. The Large cent die being set at a slight tilt (vertically misaligned) may help explain this though it is pure conjecture. Additionally, the shut-height (spacing) between dies is increased ever so slightly after a clash. The clash being mainly restricted to the right side on the obverse and reverse would create a slightly wider shut-height on the right side of the coin. An increase in shut height on the right side could cause a weaker strike on that side. All pure conjecture.

4) The word AMERICA seems tilted inward on a slope that I can't explain. However, the fact the large cent die is larger and that the quarter die and was apparently shifted (horizontally misaligned) to the left in relation to the Large cent die may have played a part in this. Again, pure conjecture.

5) The reverse die shows a lot of pitting inside and around all the devises as does the obverse to a lesser degree. This may have been rust on the dies but I would think the spikes on the coin would have worn away to a degree that they wouldn't be so apparent.

6) There is no evidence of buckling in the field and design areas were there are no clash marks, contrary to what other observers have suggested in the past.

stash · May 15, 2015 9:57PM

<< Here are images of this coin. They are dark and of high saturation due to me shooting with low lighting and a show shutter speed to highlight the clash marks. I make no assessment at this time. You be the judge.

1) The coin is out-of-round being 24.18 mm +/- measured from 12:00 to -6:00 O'clock and 24.36 mm +/- measured from 3:00 to 9:00 O'clock. This might be normal for the era and fact the coin is circulated. Also, if the individual dies clashed into a Large cent reverse die (which is a larger diameter die, they (quarter dies) could have spread it tiny bit due to the benefit of a sloppy collar. All conjecture on my part.

2) It is of correct weight at 6.2 +/-.

3) The stars and Miss Liberty's foot on the right side of the obverse are weak, while the designs corresponding to these on the left side of the coin are strong. The Large cent die being set at a slight tilt (vertically misaligned) may help explain this though it is pure conjecture. Additionally, the shut-height (spacing) between dies is increased ever so slightly after a clash. The clash being mainly restricted to the right side on the obverse and reverse would create a slightly wider shut-height on the right side of the coin. An increase in shut height on the right side could cause a weaker strike on that side. All pure conjecture.

4) The word AMERICA seems tilted inward on a slope that I can't explain. However, the fact the large cent die is larger and that the quarter die and was apparently shifted (horizontally misaligned) to the left in relation to the Large cent die may have played a part in this. Again, pure conjecture.

5) The reverse die shows a lot of pitting inside and around all the devises as does the obverse to a lesser degree. This may have been rust on the dies but I would think the spikes on the coin would have worn away to a degree that they wouldn't be so apparent.

6) There is no evidence of buckling in the field and design areas were there are no clash marks, contrary to what other observers have suggested in the past.

Images Copyright Ken Potter 2015. >>

I see your making your rounds Mr. Potter, good to see you Ken ... Richard Stachowski

DaveWcoins · May 15, 2015 10:13PM

Excellent images -- thank you.

I would like to examine the edges. Does the reed count match the quarters of that date, for example?

Without seeing the coin in hand, I cannot definitively say. But I am strongly leaning toward counterfeit dies that were clashed by the counterfeiter prior to striking this coin.

I do think it is a very cool study piece.

Important discovery shown at Central States

Comments

https://thepennylady.com/

Leave a Comment