1911 Wheat Cent with notable anomaly on both sides. (Indian 1c error and Lg Cent planchet(?) added.)
ProfHaroldHill
Posts: 1,339 ✭✭✭
I don't much post here anymore, but someone whose opinion is based on decades of professional numismatic experience said that he believes this to be an 'incomplete punch error, with mottling from poor alloying'. He suggested posting it here for the opinion of Mr Weinberg, if he should see it and wish to comment.
There are also a couple/few others here on this board with a lot of experience in error coins. Their opinions/musings of course are welcomed as well, with 'Thanks In Advance'. (I have several old errors/possible errors and the expense of certifying them means I need to do as much 'homework' as possible before picking which ones to send in.)
Note the reverse, at left, where the 'line' meets the rim. It 'vanishes' then reappears up on the rim. That seems, to me at least, to indicate that the 'line' was not punched/cut into the coin after striking, but that it had happened before striking.
I remember when!
Comments
Looks like a nice "Incomplete Clip" error plus an unrelated metal mix error. I like it!
I agree and a well worn example too. Cool find! The wear makes it harder to authenticate, but it looks right.
unrelated metal mix error
If that was the case wouldn't one see evidence of metal mix error on the obverse as well as the reverse? The discoloration seen on the reverse looks like paint?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Resembles an incomplete clip but I'd want to see it in hand to make sure it wasn't PMD. The reverse under PLURIBUS looks quite a bit deeper than the rest of the arc on the reverse, and I would also like to carefully examine the edge for any sign of the punch that was worn away on the tops of the rims.
Here is a picture of an incomplete clip on a much higher grade coin, but with a similar depth of punch in the field. You can see how deep the punch can be seen even on the rim, I am suspicious that your coin could have worn to the point where it was completely obliterated.
EDITED TO ADD: on the obverse of your coin, the arc of the punch seems to cure inward at the inside of the rim. It should continue with exactly the same arc up across the rim were it present before the planchet was upset and the coin was struck.
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
Improper allowing originates in the melt and then ends up in the poured ingot. The ingot is rolled into a strip of the proper thickness. Depending on sizes of the poorly mixed inclusions and where they end up in the ingot, its possible for them to only be on one side of the coin.
I think it's possibly that running through the upset mill after the blank was punched may have caused the distortion near the rim
Theoretically coarse inclusions on one side of a coin, such as this, could result from contaminants on one side of the mold getting melted into the ingot, or contaminants on a roller getting rolled into an ingot/strip, or probably other perfectly normal random happenings.
Nice!
I agree with @CaptHenway's assessment. First thing I though of when I saw the cent, was a misaligned and incomplete planchet punch. Cheers, RickO
I hear your point but it would not obliterate any signs of it on the rim or push the punch inside of the rim. Here's another coin from my collection which has a little distortion from the strike but the arc on the rim is uninterrupted.
I would also point out on this coin that the deepest / widest areas of the incomplete punches are where the design is the deepest, as there would be less pressure from the dies and less movement of metal to fill in the punch. On the OP's coin, the deepest part of the punch is hear the rim to the left of E PLURIBUS, where the struck coin is at its thinnest. The thickness to the right of that is somewhat expected, as it is opposite the bust on the obverse and under less striking pressure.
Again it is tough to attribute this without the coin in hand, but I would venture to say that I have seen and studied more of this error type than most here, and think it is likely that this coin was damaged post-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
The 1903 Indian looks like a genuine tapered planchet, but I think the value is well below the cost of certification. I hope the large cent planchet is genuine, the "proto-rim" is a little thinner than others I have seen but for a later date planchet it may be right. There are others here who are much better equipped to give an opinion on that one than me.
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 agree with what you say on the large cent planchet, and agree that it could just be from a different date that what we have seen. Precise weight and diameter would be good to know.
TD
Large cent planchets can be dated (to a range) by the width of the rims. Very think rims are late, thinner rims like this example are earlier. I forget the exact date ranges, or exactly what the third category is. Maybe someone else can fill in the details.
For thought: How would someone ever figure out how to assign rim thickness to specific date ranges of undated blank planchets? There is a very good and very simple answer that doesn't need any tricks.
I know .......
Smack on. I think it is certifiable as a large cent planchet.
You want to tell them?
Go for it @CaptHenway (especially if you remember the date ranges for large cent planchets...)
Very cool if it is a large cent planchet!
The upset rims on large cent planchets can be studied, and dated within ranges, via the study of off-center error strikes. Even if the date is not showing on the off-center error, many such coins can be identified and dated via die characteristics listed in Sheldon and Newcomb. The unstruck areas show you what the planchets looked like in that year.
Unfortunately I do not feel qualified to describe the characteristics of the different ranges, but there are people who can.
The identification can be applied to other series. While I was at ANACS we received in for grading a complete clock of off-center silver dollars at the 12 clock positions. Most of them could be identified by date and mint, and the differences in the upset rims were quite striking. The New Orleans dollars had the highest part of the raised rim closed to the edge of the planchet, and the Carson City coins the furthest from the edge. Look at some NO and CC dollars and you will see that the NO dollars tend to show the outer ring of the rim strongest and the denticles weak, and vice versa on the CC dollars. The P and S planchets were centered between the two extremes and rather similar.
TD