1964 Uniface Half Dollar
Zoins
Posts: 34,116 ✭✭✭✭✭
(1964) Half Dollar - Uniface, Double Struck Error - PCGS MS66
This is an interesting error. How does the uniface part of this happen? What was this side of the coin struck against? Was it a flat die, another planchet, or another coin?
From the photo, it seems like there’s a Kennedy impression so could this be a struck-thru grease instead of uniface?
Is there any known provenance for this?
- Cert: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/38653747
- Sale on July 15, 2021: https://coins.ha.com/itm/errors/-1964-50c-kennedy-half-dollar-double-struck-second-strike-95-off-center-uniface-reverse-ms66-pcgs/a/60210-92175.s
Tagged:
1
Comments
@Zions
Yes, this mint error is a nice combination of unusual errors…
Lesson learned: The grade is determined by the struck side (reverse) and not the error side (obverse)?
peacockcoins
Actually, it's a Uniface OBV., not Rev.
There were two unstruck planchets in the collar
when the dies came down. One has a mostly
normal obv. and a uniface reverse, and this is the
bottom piece - a normal reverse, w/ a uniface Obv.
strike, and a second strike 95% Off Center.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Two planchets were struck at the same time which also created a coin with a normal obverse and a blank reverse. What would be really cool is if you could find them both.
So it’s an error label too!
Two planchets makes sense given what it looks like.
Using “uniface” to describe this is interesting because when the term is used for die trials or medals, usually one side is against a flat die, so the faces are completely flat, not mostly flat. Other thing is that “uniface” for die trials is intentional but an unintentional error here.
It's hard to comprehend that the other coin involved in this conflagration is still out there somewhere.
Pete
Not necessarily. Mint could have found one and not the other
The deal that came from had a few 2-pc Sets
of Kennedy's.......
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
I have a pair of Brit 1965 pennies that were struck together.
Question for the Master Fred: if the reverse is the known (struck) side and the obverse is unknown in that it is blank, would not the identifier be the primary identified side (reverse)?
Well, just Love coins, period.
Not quite sure of your question -
Obv. 'unknown' ?
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
I would have described that as struck through a capped obverse die, but in the end it's the same sort of explanation, another planchet got between the coin in the OP and the obverse die.
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'm guessing that error had some help at the mint.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I don't understand the logic that leads to this coin being described as "Uniface Obverse". Uni means one and face is synonymous with side as with a polygon (imagine the coin is a short cylinder). This coin has one face, the reverse, therefore it is Uniface Reverse. If it was intentionally struck as such, it would be certainly called Uniface Reverse, as it bears the reverse image. On such an intentionally uniface coin, it could be said the Reverse design is now functionally the obverse of the object and the reverse is blank, but it doesn't change the fact that objectively the Reverse is what is displayed on the uniface coin. How does being an error lead the description to contradict logic? I contend that uniface doesn't describe the circumstance by which one face is blank, but rather that only one side bears a design, and the proper way to describe it is by saying which side is depicted. Being blank is inoperative, the struck side is what makes the object more than just a piece of metal. I suppose if "it is what it is" I'll just have to accept the logical fallacy... Thank you!
Ok, why the coppery/brown color on the OBV?
.
another wording i've seen is late-stage brockage but maybe that refers to the top piece and not the bottom?
Can you associate this piece and the deal with any provenance? Did you handle this piece and the deal?
Struck thru seems to work. I think of this particular piece as “struck-thru planchet”
I’m not sure what the other piece would be called here, the same?
Uniface seems like a strange way to describe this since the face isn’t completely flat.
Interesting. I thought "uniface reverse" meant that only one side has the design, and it's the reverse, not that the reverse design was the one that was missing.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Really interesting error, and it would be great to have the other coin that would have been part of the problem. Would look great in a dual holder. Cheers, RickO
Yes, but if you framed them and hung them on your wall, would you display the error sides or the properly struck sides?
@moursund.... The error sides would be displayed, but my frame would have the hinged bottom so the display could be lowered and the 'good' sides viewed. I prepare for such things. Cheers, RickO
Or I suppose you could use mirrors to display both sides at once...
That would be a poor reflection of reality....
Cheers, RickO
Why? I see no reason to doubt it.
As per Brocmitchell, that is what I was trying to say.
In other sciences they would have used the reverse as the primary identifier and therefore it would def. have been uniface reverse strike - as PCGS indicated on the slab.
Well, just Love coins, period.