What The Heck Wheat Penny?

CaptMorgans

So is this someone trying to do counterfeit back in the day? Can't figure out what is with this penny I got in a bag of wheaties.

1Mike1

That is interesting. Maybe @FredWeinberg @CaptHenway or @ErrorsOnCoins can help.

1Mike1

What does the reverse look like?

AUandAG

Looks legit to me......at least I can't figure out how someone could do this outside the mine.

bob
PS: I don't do errors.

Tom147

Hmmm !!! Interesting.

Oldhoopster

Possibly a fake made from a soft metal transfer die. The letters in LIBERTY look spread out

If it was double struck, there should be evidence on the reverse

1Bufffan

What if they changed only the obverse Die the Reverse would not have changed but I agree if it was struck twice it would have to show some type of movement! on the reverse as well, That is a very interesting repunched date!

CaptMorgans

Here is the reverse...

FredWeinberg

Overstruck with false dies— a counterfeit Overstrike

Jimnight

I agree with @FredWeinberg . My very first impression was some kind of counterfeit.

Namvet69

And it goes into your fakes, oddities, magicians coin and minor errors binder. Peace Roy

ricko

Interesting find.... Very different from the parking lot coins we see so often....Someone tried a very clever trick to make an expensive 'error' coin.... Cheers, RickO

CaptHenway

@Oldhoopster said:
Possibly a fake made from a soft metal transfer die. The letters in LIBERTY look spread out

If it was double struck, there should be evidence on the reverse

Yes, false dies overstrike.

abcde12345

"False Die"
Which one? the 1918 or the 1919?

CoinJunkie

The false die was dated 1918.

AUandAG

Interesting that someone would go to such lengths to make this example. Wow is all I can say.

bob

JesseKraft

@ricko said:
Interesting find.... Very different from the parking lot coins we see so often....Someone tried a very clever trick to make an expensive 'error' coin.... Cheers, RickO

@AUandAG said:
Interesting that someone would go to such lengths to make this example. Wow is all I can say.

It was probably a test-strike for the counterfeit dies, and not intended to create an "error" coin. More than likely, he/she then struck many more on homemade copper blanks to make the venture worth it.

abcde12345

Would have been more realistic if the false die was also dated 1918 and if the two rotations were not that far apart.

JesseKraft

@abcde12345 said:
Would have been more realistic if the false die was also dated 1918 and if the two rotations were not that far apart.

The false die was dated 1918. It's the undertype that's dated 1919.
Again likely not meant to be "realistic." Probably the result of a true counterfeiter in 1919 or early 1920s testing out their counterfeit dies before making more.

We could use this piece for diagnostics of the die to try and find examples without an undertype.

BLUEJAYWAY

@JesseKraft said:

@ricko said:
Interesting find.... Very different from the parking lot coins we see so often....Someone tried a very clever trick to make an expensive 'error' coin.... Cheers, RickO

@AUandAG said:
Interesting that someone would go to such lengths to make this example. Wow is all I can say.

It was probably a test-strike for the counterfeit dies, and not intended to create an "error" coin. More than likely, he/she then struck many more on homemade copper blanks to make the venture worth it.

One might wonder why all the effort to counterfeit a common cent. Do not see much value there in passing counterfeit cents.

gonzer

Spadone's book has a few examples illustrated I believe.

FredWeinberg

The false die over strike is 1919

JesseKraft

@BLUEJAYWAY said:

@JesseKraft said:

@ricko said:
Interesting find.... Very different from the parking lot coins we see so often....Someone tried a very clever trick to make an expensive 'error' coin.... Cheers, RickO

@AUandAG said:
Interesting that someone would go to such lengths to make this example. Wow is all I can say.

It was probably a test-strike for the counterfeit dies, and not intended to create an "error" coin. More than likely, he/she then struck many more on homemade copper blanks to make the venture worth it.

One might wonder why all the effort to counterfeit a common cent. Do not see much value there in passing counterfeit cents.

If you make enough of them, then there's value in it. In the early 1920s, daily wages averaged $2.50 for unskilled workers to $5 for skilled workers. Once all of the pieces of a counterfeiting operation were in place, this amount could be equalled in a couple of hours. Then there is the risk of getting caught. If the average person went around trying to spend counterfeit $100s in this period, red flags of suspicion would raise everywhere. Counterfeiting silver dimes, quarters, and halves, while more value per piece, had their own considerations to weigh. To make a counterfeit silver coin appear most-genuine, the counterfeiter needed silver, thus driving up his/her cost, and the same, really, copper-nickel to counterfeit five-cent pieces. Copper, on the other hand, could be acquired cheaply (or for free to those so inclined to merely take it) and nearly perfectly match (alloys aside) the true composition of the coin. Whoever made this thought about how to make a most-realistic counterfeit coin with the least-likely denomination to get caught.

The coin below shows that this mindset is still alive in the present era. A test-strike of counterfeit dies over a 1985 Lincoln cent. It makes you (or me, anyway) wonder even more, "Why?" But, again, equal to a counterfeiter's goal of making money is to not get caught.

stockdude_

Wow! Havent seen a 1919/1918 double die for awhile. Will you send it in ?