Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Going against the grain and saying that is a counterfeit. There are several similarly bizarre errors dated 1918-21 which are of questionable origin.
My biggest issue is the second strike on the obverse. The clear rim and lack of distortion at the edge of the strike, the very smooth looking stretch, and the way the rim of the first strike wasn't completely flattened are all unusual for an off center strike. Also look how round the planchet is despite being out of the collar, and how well the 0 in the date is struck on both impressions of the die despite being at the very edge of the strike.
What this all says to me is that the planchet was impressed by the dies very slowly and carefully, not rapidly as you would see in a Mint press. My feeling is that the coin was made with false dies using a genuine US Mint planchet.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"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
Sean, I always respect your opinion, and the piece definitely needs to be authenticated before it is sold. There is the nagging fact that the two obverse strikes show almost the exact same parts of the die. Could be coincidence.
Reminds me of two fake Standing Liberty Quarter errors that a certain dealer known for dealing in S.L. quarters had in his case at an ANA show decades ago. One was off-center on a silver quarter planchet, and carefully positioned so that you could see the date and the mint mark area. The other was second struck off-center on a genuine S.L. quarter, but carefully positioned so that the date and mint mark area were off the coin.
You could see enough of the two off-center strikes to be positive that the two off-center strikes were made from the same die pair, but the date and mint mark on the off-center strike were different from the date and mint mark on the host double struck coin. I tried to explain to him how this proved that the two off-center strikes were fake, but he would not listen to me. After all, he was the expert.
All of that said, nice wood-grain cent planchet. The planchet is definitely vintage.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Tom, I am struggling to find a picture right now, but there is a 1921 Lincoln cent O/C with a mirror reverse brockage that looks exactly like this coin but without the second strike. Same orientation, same amount off center, and same lack of distortion at the edge of the strike.
I am 100% convinced they are from the same source, but I am only 98% convinced that the source was not the US Mint.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"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
It appears to have the 'fabric' of a genuine
1920 Cent, and I've seen a few 1919's, 1920's,
& one or two 1921's with the same type off center
Brockage strike, but not double struck like
this piece. Most of the '19's and 20's are
considered genuine O/Ç Brockage strikes.
Although the overall 'look' is good, I'm concerned
about the collar slide mark area on the 2nd strike,
and the very different look to the brockage area
on the reverse, 2nd Strike area. Don't recall seeing
that kind of effect on a D/S uniface 2nd strike quite
like it.
So, it initially looks good, looks 100 years old, etc. -
but something makes my Spidey Sense 'ring out' .
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
It looks most likely authentic to me. It's unusual to me, but I'd want to see it in person to be "100% sure." The coin's strike, the surfaces, luster, and overall appearance look authentic to me. Even the planchet itself looks dead on for that era.
It's unusual nature, being double-struck and brockage is probably my biggest "concern", but then again, 1920 has a number of mirror brockages using the obverse on reverse, so an additional 2nd strike isn't "too unusual."
So, see if I have this sequence straight. Coin A is struck normally but sticks to the reverse die. The Planchet B for this Coin B is fed in on top of Coin A but off center, and it receives an off-center obverse and an off-center first brockage reverse. Even though unrestrained by a collar there is surprisingly little spreading, possibly inhibited by Planchet B being caught up in the raised details of Coin A.
Coin B clangs around the coining chamber while Planchet C is fed in atop Coin A. Coin B finishes clanging around and end up partially overlapping Planchet C. The three layer sandwich is struck. There is a lot of spreading.
The spreading may have been enhanced by the fact that there are now three thicknesses of metal between the dies, and it has to go somewhere. Also, and FWIW, Coin B is sitting atop a smooth Planchet C rather than a detailed Coin A.
Fred, does that address your concerns about the spreading? Also, would the fact that the mushy reverse of the second strike was created by a planchet hitting against a brockage affect the overall appearance?
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Tom, your points above make sense, but the coin still
needs to be examined - as I mentioned, it has the right
'fabric' look, and I see your process - I'm just sayin' that
I can't be 100% certain from the photos.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
That "point" is just a continuation of the trough between the shoulder and the rim.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Smittys
Posts: 9,876 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Looks Good.
Excellent Coin.
That would be a neat coin to own.
peacockcoins
That looks cool and real to me.
My Original Song Written to my late wife-"Plus other original music by me"
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A11CC8CC6093D80
https://n1m.com/bobbysmith1
What, no offer?
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Ok, I offer to buy that coin. OP can Pm me if he wishes
Super cool coin...normally not a huge fan of errors but will make an exception for that one.
Smitty's, what would you grade that coin?
From the photos, the obverse looks AU58 but the reverse looks MS64, IMO. Kinda odd.
Can you get a better image of the obverse?
Looks real to me. I like this one, a great example of several errors in one coin.
the WOW factor personified!
Sure looks real to me!
Nice error!
That is impressive... Have never seen one like that before.... Looks like @ErrorsOnCoins wants it....Cheers, RickO
Going against the grain and saying that is a counterfeit. There are several similarly bizarre errors dated 1918-21 which are of questionable origin.
My biggest issue is the second strike on the obverse. The clear rim and lack of distortion at the edge of the strike, the very smooth looking stretch, and the way the rim of the first strike wasn't completely flattened are all unusual for an off center strike. Also look how round the planchet is despite being out of the collar, and how well the 0 in the date is struck on both impressions of the die despite being at the very edge of the strike.
What this all says to me is that the planchet was impressed by the dies very slowly and carefully, not rapidly as you would see in a Mint press. My feeling is that the coin was made with false dies using a genuine US Mint planchet.
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
Sean, I always respect your opinion, and the piece definitely needs to be authenticated before it is sold. There is the nagging fact that the two obverse strikes show almost the exact same parts of the die. Could be coincidence.
Reminds me of two fake Standing Liberty Quarter errors that a certain dealer known for dealing in S.L. quarters had in his case at an ANA show decades ago. One was off-center on a silver quarter planchet, and carefully positioned so that you could see the date and the mint mark area. The other was second struck off-center on a genuine S.L. quarter, but carefully positioned so that the date and mint mark area were off the coin.
You could see enough of the two off-center strikes to be positive that the two off-center strikes were made from the same die pair, but the date and mint mark on the off-center strike were different from the date and mint mark on the host double struck coin. I tried to explain to him how this proved that the two off-center strikes were fake, but he would not listen to me. After all, he was the expert.
All of that said, nice wood-grain cent planchet. The planchet is definitely vintage.
TD
Tom, I am struggling to find a picture right now, but there is a 1921 Lincoln cent O/C with a mirror reverse brockage that looks exactly like this coin but without the second strike. Same orientation, same amount off center, and same lack of distortion at the edge of the strike.
I am 100% convinced they are from the same source, but I am only 98% convinced that the source was not the US Mint.
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
This is a very interesting coin -
It appears to have the 'fabric' of a genuine
1920 Cent, and I've seen a few 1919's, 1920's,
& one or two 1921's with the same type off center
Brockage strike, but not double struck like
this piece. Most of the '19's and 20's are
considered genuine O/Ç Brockage strikes.
Although the overall 'look' is good, I'm concerned
about the collar slide mark area on the 2nd strike,
and the very different look to the brockage area
on the reverse, 2nd Strike area. Don't recall seeing
that kind of effect on a D/S uniface 2nd strike quite
like it.
So, it initially looks good, looks 100 years old, etc. -
but something makes my Spidey Sense 'ring out' .
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Thank you Fred, Sean, and Tom.
IMO, this coin should go to PCGS so Fred can look at it in hand and mike a judgment on the piece.
I know error coins. What I do not know is counterfeit dies.
It looks most likely authentic to me. It's unusual to me, but I'd want to see it in person to be "100% sure." The coin's strike, the surfaces, luster, and overall appearance look authentic to me. Even the planchet itself looks dead on for that era.
It's unusual nature, being double-struck and brockage is probably my biggest "concern", but then again, 1920 has a number of mirror brockages using the obverse on reverse, so an additional 2nd strike isn't "too unusual."
Does the fact that 1920 Lincolns tend to be rather crisply detailed, more so than this one appears to have been, come into play here?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Really nice, someone should go for it !!! 👍
So, see if I have this sequence straight. Coin A is struck normally but sticks to the reverse die. The Planchet B for this Coin B is fed in on top of Coin A but off center, and it receives an off-center obverse and an off-center first brockage reverse. Even though unrestrained by a collar there is surprisingly little spreading, possibly inhibited by Planchet B being caught up in the raised details of Coin A.
Coin B clangs around the coining chamber while Planchet C is fed in atop Coin A. Coin B finishes clanging around and end up partially overlapping Planchet C. The three layer sandwich is struck. There is a lot of spreading.
The spreading may have been enhanced by the fact that there are now three thicknesses of metal between the dies, and it has to go somewhere. Also, and FWIW, Coin B is sitting atop a smooth Planchet C rather than a detailed Coin A.
Fred, does that address your concerns about the spreading? Also, would the fact that the mushy reverse of the second strike was created by a planchet hitting against a brockage affect the overall appearance?
TD
Tom, your points above make sense, but the coin still
needs to be examined - as I mentioned, it has the right
'fabric' look, and I see your process - I'm just sayin' that
I can't be 100% certain from the photos.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
The circled area looks strange to me. Shouldn’t this “point” have been obliterated by the last strike? It may be a trick or the photography.
I think you’re confusing which strike happened first. The strike with the brockage was first.
That "point" is just a continuation of the trough between the shoulder and the rim.
Cool piece I like