Images of Error Coins - Updated with Resubmission

keoj

Recently received 1st batch of error coins that I submitted several months ago. If some of you might remember, these are out of an old collection (acquired in the early '80's). These are meant for comments or just for viewing pleasure. Curious as to which coin has the most value (opinions are good!), and second, the triple struck cent (first image) was deemed not genuine. Not arguing the call at all but curious if anyone has any good theories on how it was made. I did not show the 21-D broadstruck Morgan and a few others. I can throw some more images down if folks would like. It is a VERY eclectic group,

Enjoy. keoj

GoldenEgg

The triple struck cent looks legit to me. Not sure what they’re seeing that gave them hesitation. The two strikes are saddle strikes, meaning they were struck at the same time…something that would be more difficult to fake than a single secondary strike. Send it in again.

Mr Lindy

1964 Cent saddle is real. Dime fold over is very rare. The uniface half on dime is valuable too. More so if its mate escaped. Show some more, please

CoinHunter4

Love all the error coins! Especially the capped bust and the half on a dime planchet.

seanq

There were a lot of 1964 dated multi-struck cents that are now known to be genuine cents with extra strikes from false dies. I believe Frank Spadone illustrated a bunch of them in one of his books, which gave them the veneer of legitimacy, but they were later determined to be fakes. Maybe @FredWeinberg or @CaptHenway can recall more of the story.

Either way the OP's coin isn't a saddle strike because the two off-center impressions are not aligned exactly 180° apart, rather they were distinct single strikes.

The certified coins shared so far are impressive, especially the 11-cent piece and the fold over dime. I am excited to see more pictures from this old time collection.

Sean Reynolds

GoldenEgg

@seanq said:
Either way the OP's coin isn't a saddle strike because the two off-center impressions are not aligned exactly 180° apart, rather they were distinct single strikes.

There is no such requirement in order to be considered a saddle strike. There are certain eras where a head-to-head orientation is common and others where a tails-to-tails orientation is more common, but the exact alignment does not dictate whether it is a saddle strike or not.

A saddle struck coin is one that is struck concurrently by more than one pair of dies. The key word being concurrently. You don’t get the type of distortion that you see on the central strike unless the two subsequent strikes happened concurrently. Thus, they are saddle strikes.

The head-to-head orientation with a narrow gap between them is common for cents of the era, specifically 1964 Philly cents.

BLUEJAYWAY

Liked the presentation. May we see more?

Zoins

Very nice coins @keoj! It's great to see the variety of errors and years your collection covers. I love the foldover dime!

Did you order PhotoVision photos for these?

ricko

@keoj... Wow.... Great error coins.... I do not collect errors, but find them very interesting. Yes, please show us more of this great collection. Cheers, RickO

Kliao

Awesome group of errors! Love them. I would have thought the triple struck cent was real as well, but I guess NGC didn't like it.

keoj

Thanks for the comments!!!! Also, thanks for the comments on the "saddle". The comments regarding genuineness seems a little mixed here and I'll figure it out going forward. I'll post more coins is next couple of days. I did a monster submission (this first group were the higher value coins). BTW...one of my favorites is the double struck 1812 1C. Just a fascinating coin. In the next set, I show a better macro view.

keoj

SullivanNumismatics

Nice group of mint errors! The 1964 does indeed look like the 2nd and 3rd strikes are counterfeit. There are a good number of 1964 counterfeits out there, and I run across the frequently. Fortunately, they are relatively easy to determine as no-good.

The foldover dime is the rarest of the group, far and away. Extremely tough error type to find, and only maybe 3 or 4 clad examples known.

Mr Lindy

I was unaware saddle struck errors could be counterfeit Jon.

@SullivanNumismatics said:
Nice group of mint errors! The 1964 does indeed look like the 2nd and 3rd strikes are counterfeit. There are a good number of 1964 counterfeits out there, and I run across the frequently. Fortunately, they are relatively easy to determine as no-good.

The foldover dime is the rarest of the group, far and away. Extremely tough error type to find, and only maybe 3 or 4 clad examples known.

seanq

@GoldenEgg said:

@seanq said:
Either way the OP's coin isn't a saddle strike because the two off-center impressions are not aligned exactly 180° apart, rather they were distinct single strikes.

There is no such requirement in order to be considered a saddle strike. There are certain eras where a head-to-head orientation is common and others where a tails-to-tails orientation is more common, but the exact alignment does not dictate whether it is a saddle strike or not.

A saddle struck coin is one that is struck concurrently by more than one pair of dies. The key word being concurrently. You don’t get the type of distortion that you see on the central strike unless the two subsequent strikes happened concurrently. Thus, they are saddle strikes.

The head-to-head orientation with a narrow gap between them is common for cents of the era, specifically 1964 Philly cents.

I understand your point about the alignment of the dies, I was referring to the orientation of the two concurrent strikes. The image below is what I am used to seeing in a saddle strike, where the dies are oriented 180° apart:

You are correct that saddle strikes dated 1964 have the dies offset, this wasn't something I understood when I made my post but a trip through Heritage's archives shows you are correct. The screengrab below has the OP's coin in the upper left, and five certified saddle strikes from Heritage's archives dated 1964 (and in one case, 1965).

Two of the previously certified examples are nearly identical to the OP's coin. Now is the existence of (at least) three identical error coins, created by an improbable chain of events (perfectly centered broadstrike, followed by a saddle strike), and all oriented so the date is prominently visible.... suspicious? To me, yeah, especially since there are other known multi-struck 1964 cents that are obvious counterfeits. But it's not proof of anything. I also haven't examined any of them in person and PCGS and NGC have, and they declared (at least) two of them to be genuine.

I should also note that Heritage sold a very similar 1966 dated error, certified by PCGS, that shows the dies oriented 180° apart like the undated example in the first photo:

If I am the OP, I would send the coin back to (edited) NGC with photos of the other identical coins that they have certified and ask them what makes his coin different.

Sean Reynolds

SullivanNumismatics

@LindyS said:
I was unaware saddle struck errors could be counterfeit Jon.

@SullivanNumismatics said:
Nice group of mint errors! The 1964 does indeed look like the 2nd and 3rd strikes are counterfeit. There are a good number of 1964 counterfeits out there, and I run across the frequently. Fortunately, they are relatively easy to determine as no-good.

The foldover dime is the rarest of the group, far and away. Extremely tough error type to find, and only maybe 3 or 4 clad examples known.

I'm not sure that coin is counterfeit, but the lower strike's design looks a bit off. I'd have to see it in person to determine either way.

FredWeinberg

Although the rims of the second and third strike are sharper where they meet the original first strike, based on the photos,I would consider the OP’s raw coin to be genuine.( sharper than the other five coins shown in the collage)

The counterfeit 1964 cents mentioned were struck and distributed in New York City, and the counterfeiters were found guilty -those coins were all double ((or triple struck), mostly double struck in the collar, And look completely different from these triple or quadruple struck 1964 cents.

goodmoney4badmoney

I'm surprised they called the 1964 not genuine.

CaptHenway

@seanq said:
There were a lot of 1964 dated multi-struck cents that are now known to be genuine cents with extra strikes from false dies. I believe Frank Spadone illustrated a bunch of them in one of his books, which gave them the veneer of legitimacy, but they were later determined to be fakes. Maybe @FredWeinberg or @CaptHenway can recall more of the story.

Either way the OP's coin isn't a saddle strike because the two off-center impressions are not aligned exactly 180° apart, rather they were distinct single strikes.

The certified coins shared so far are impressive, especially the 11-cent piece and the fold over dime. I am excited to see more pictures from this old time collection.

Sean Reynolds

As I recall, by the time I got into the game professionally at Collectors Clearinghouse in the Spring of 1974, the 1964 multi-strikes had already been condemned as "fakes." Whether or not the original normal strike was genuine or not was not an issue. "Everybody" knew that the 1964 multi-strikes were bogus, because the various off-center strikes were.

As a result, I never handled any. Nobody bothered to send them to Clearinghouse, and nobody bother to send them to ANACS after I moved there in 1978. They were old news.

I do think that the 1964 shown above could be a genuine saddle strike, but I would reserve opinion on it until after I examined it in hand.

TD

keoj

Thanks all you commented on redoing the 1964 saddle strike submission. Second time a charm.

keoj

Kliao

Awesome result and congrats!

Crypto

The 1811/10 half doesn’t look off center to they eyes, more broadstruck

Treashunt

Please, post some more!