Wicked cool error coin! Yes or No?

ironmanl63

Error coin I purchased but I am not sure what to think of it. It looks like an error to me. Looking for some opinions.

Edited because I forgot the pictures.

jayPem

Man Made.

Its a coin, it's an error and it's cool.
Just can't make up mind yet on the wicked.
Since one way or another it's definitely man made, ill go with that 🤔

joeykoins

Yes

Two for one error, to boot!

justmenutty72

Yes

Yes, pretty cool 👌

ironmanl63

Yes

I do not know enough about the minting process to figure out how it would have happened. Maybe some of the error guys will chime in and give a guess as to how it happened.

PerryHall

Yes

Very cool coin.
Can you read the date? That would be a real bonus.

Kliao

Yes

Neat double struck off center cent. Not sure if that center 'damage' is PMD or from the mint. I need to study the minting process more for that one.

ironmanl63

Yes

@PerryHall said:
Very cool coin.
Can you read the date? That would be a real bonus.

If I had to guess I would say 2000 but the last number is just not clear to me. I think an expert would be able to assign a date.

lilolme

@Kliao said:
Neat double struck off center cent. Not sure if that center 'damage' is PMD or from the mint. I need to study the minting process more for that one.

First I don't do errors and don't know this stuff.
But on the 'damage' and what it is I was asking the same thing. What I notice is when the 'damage' interfaces with the edge of the double strikes it is a smooth transition which make me think in the strike. Also on the other side this area is raised so it is 'sunk' on the side with the ridges. Makes me think something else was there when struck. Is it a struck through? Kind of neat even for a non-error type.

Kliao

Yes

@lilolme said:

@Kliao said:
Neat double struck off center cent. Not sure if that center 'damage' is PMD or from the mint. I need to study the minting process more for that one.

First I don't do errors and don't know this stuff.
But on the 'damage' and what it is I was asking the same thing. What I notice is when the 'damage' interfaces with the edge of the double strikes it is a smooth transition which make me think in the strike. Also on the other side this area is raised so it is 'sunk' on the side with the ridges. Makes me think something else was there when struck. Is it a struck through? Kind of neat even for a non-error type.

Thinking of that, maybe a screw was struck through and what we see are the threads of a screw?

jesbroken

Yes

I like it. Nice pickup. Look forward to eoc and others to explain all the occurrences. What are the tracks on one side and the raised area on the other. I'm not into errors but have bought a couple just to have.
Jim

gumby1234

Yes

Uncertain what would cause the reeded tire track looking part that runs across the coin, but the rest looks legit. If that tire track looking mark is from the mint you got a whopper of an error.

Broadstruck

Yes

It's called a saddle strike.

ifthevamzarockin

@ironmanl63 said:

@PerryHall said:
Very cool coin.
Can you read the date? That would be a real bonus.

If I had to guess I would say 2000 but the last number is just not clear to me. I think an expert would be able to assign a date.

It kinda looks like it might be a 2003 or maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me.

justmenutty72

Yes

If I had to take a guess as to what the marks on the coin/s are, I’d say probably the feeder fingers did it. Coin got jammed and feeder fingers couldn’t eject it. I’m not an error specialist though. I specialize in die varieties.

LanceNewmanOCC

Yes

neat saddle strike.

not sure what happened on the obv but it looks legit when image is blown up.

what's weird is the rev looks concave and so does the obv a bit. something long folded around the coin? odd if one item on bottom and one on top.

some long screws have the threadless part at the top so perhaps it was bent around the coin but that would have to have been on the 3rd strike as none of the details are omitted in the key areas from a strike-through.

i have to think that would damage the die so if you figure out the date, keep an eye out for that date having subsequent raised lines unless this wasn't done by dies in the mint or after.

johnny9434

Yes

I'd be very happy with that

CaptHenway

Curiouser and curiouser…..

Coin Finder

What's with the tread marks?

airplanenut

The two strikes look real, but I can’t figure out what imparted all those marks. That said, I can’t think of why someone would do that after the fact—it’s not like a regular coin where damage is imparted to look like an error. This is plenty much an error without those marks, so I am leaning toward them being legit, too.

Any thoughts, @FredWeinberg?

CaptHenway

Some observations.

The line across the reverse opposite the thread marks appears to be an incused trench. Look at how the lighting from the North of the coin casts a shadow under the North side of the trench.

The thread marks appear to have been impressed into the planchet by a threaded screw or bolt prior to the strike and then struck flat. The trench on the reverse appears to have been impressed into the planchet by something rounded and smooth, such as perhaps a nail, prior to the strike.

The two obverse impressions appear to have spread outwards during the strike(s), as commonly seen on a single off-center impression or strike, but dual or quad feed dies don't spread outwards during a single stroke. The planchet gets compressed inwards and rises up to form a "saddle," hence the name saddle strike. We don't see this here.

Where the two "spread outwards" areas overlap the thread marks, THEY DID NOT SPREAD THE THREAD MARKS!

Without seeing it, my best guess is that this is a Chinese fake error struck on a pre-mutilated planchet from a single pair of dies, each of which has two partial designs in it and a plain field between them. The plain field flattened down the thread marks between the coin images.

TD

silverpop

50/50 chance it could be real or faked

ricko

Man Made.

That one just causes me to think it has had intentional human influence... Mostly gut feel. Cheers, RickO

Steve27

Yes

This appears to be a "Saddle Strike Without Hump" error, but I would also add it's a "struck through" error as well. Just don't ask what it was struck through.

LanceNewmanOCC

Yes

@CaptHenway said:

.
i think you are correct about the flan having the lines prior to stiking because the lines are smooshed with the obv design and the flan obviously couldn't have been struck with the foreign object there while striking the coins.

i couldn't wrap my mind around what could impart those marks prior to striking but something wrapped around the coin (i say wrapped loosely or 1 on top, 1 on bottom) could be thick enough the dies could come down w/o touching the actual flan (1st strike) then whatever it was, removed, and the coin struck the other 2 times. (fwiw, there were probably 100 things the people at the machines could have had laying around to goof around with)

if someone struck that with counterfeit dies, we are in real trouble. (i don't think/hope that is the case)

ironmanl63

Yes

@CaptHenway said:
Some observations.

The line across the reverse opposite the thread marks appears to be an incused trench. Look at how the lighting from the North of the coin casts a shadow under the North side of the trench.

The thread marks appear to have been impressed into the planchet by a threaded screw or bolt prior to the strike and then struck flat. The trench on the reverse appears to have been impressed into the planchet by something rounded and smooth, such as perhaps a nail, prior to the strike.

The two obverse impressions appear to have spread outwards during the strike(s), as commonly seen on a single off-center impression or strike, but dual or quad feed dies don't spread outwards during a single stroke. The planchet gets compressed inwards and rises up to form a "saddle," hence the name saddle strike. We don't see this here.

Where the two "spread outwards" areas overlap the thread marks, THEY DID NOT SPREAD THE THREAD MARKS!

Without seeing it, my best guess is that this is a Chinese fake error struck on a pre-mutilated planchet from a single pair of dies, each of which has two partial designs in it and a plain field between them. The plain field flattened down the thread marks between the coin images.

TD

Thank you for the observations.

-The trench on the reverse is as you state. I would think the threads would be on the incuse side not the opposite as here. The track marks and the trench line up best I can see.

-Not sure the thread marks were impressed prior to the strike. It appears the marks are over the date and Liberty on the other side. Makes me think they happened at the same time. Not sure the threads were struck flat but it is possible. So you think the tracks and the trench were struck separate. Interesting. If that is the case I would say fake for sure. Could never happen by accident.

-I do not know enough to comment on this. I can only comment on what I see. No clue what a saddle strike should look like.

-It looks to me like the thread marks overlap the strike not the other way around. Just a novices observation by no means a fact.

-Can not affirm or deny if this last point is true buy what I am seeing. It appears to me buy looking at the coin with novice eyes that the threads were struck at the same time or after the other strikes. Although I am still struggling with the trench on the Rev. The tracks or threads should be in the trench not opposite of it.

I hope it is not fake but very much could be.

ironmanl63

Yes

Any other thoughts as to authenticity? @FredWeinberg @ErrorsOnCoins .

ironmanl63

Yes

If needed I could supply more pictures or close ups to help.

WAYNEAS

Man Made.

Always an interesting visual piece.
My thoughts are constantly asking me: accidentally or deliberately made?
I can never tell but as long as you value it, it is a winner.
Wayne

ironmanl63

Yes

@WAYNEAS said:
Always an interesting visual piece.
My thoughts are constantly asking me: accidentally or deliberately made?
I can never tell but as long as you value it, it is a winner.
Wayne

Have you seen this coin before? It sounds like you have.

I am not an error guy at all but thought this piece was pretty cool and possibly genuine. I actually do not value it much and if I was told buy experts it was fake I would lose no sleep. But if they said it was genuine I would start to value it much much more! LOL. I hope it is real because that would be pretty neat.

CoinHunter4

Yes

I’d say it’s pretty cool.

Having seen a lot of cents, I’d say that this coin is very likely a 2001-D

ironmanl63

Yes

The no's are starting to climb. If some of them would explain why that would be cool. Even if just a gut feeling. A link to where you could buy a hundred would slam the door shut on it being a genuine error.

jmlanzaf

No

I like to be different. But don't we have a saddle strike with a strike through over the top? That's a triple strike error of two different types.

ironmanl63

Yes

@jmlanzaf said:
I like to be different. But doubt we have a saddle strike with a strike through over the top? That's a triple strike error of two different types.

It would be awesome if it turns out to be genuine. I am really waiting to hear what Fred Weinberg has to say!

jmlanzaf

No

@ironmanl63 said:

@jmlanzaf said:
I like to be different. But doubt we have a saddle strike with a strike through over the top? That's a triple strike error of two different types.

It would be awesome if it turns out to be genuine. I am really waiting to hear what Fred Weinberg has to say!

Agreed. But I simply can't understand what appears to be a strike through over the top of the saddle...

JBK

No

I voted "no" only because I can't explain how it happened.

FredWeinberg

Interesting coin, that's for sure.

I like Tom's analysis, but disagree that it's a counterfeit double strike......

The strikes appear to be genuine, although I've not seen, or recall seeing,
a 'saddle strike' cent from the 2000's era - don't think the Mint has those
collars in use any more.

The 'thread marks' on the obv., and the 'trench' on the reverse do appear
to be on the planchet before striking, although I've never seen that pattern
before (trench, yes, but not those 'thread marks').

My supposition is that the planchet was damaged, and then there were
two off center strikes made on it - as far as the date, I see someone mentioned
that the last digit might be a '3', but I'm guessing that it's a 2000 dated piece.

However, enlarging the date area, it appears that the 'thread' goes -over- the
2nd '0', not under it - (see a small indent on the top right of the '2', also), so
I'm not sure what that means - if we say that shows it was damaged after
striking, it doesn't explain the nicely formed 'trench' on the reverse, that
looks like it was there before striking.....(filled die on the last two digits, probably)

A most unusual item - hard to condemn or confirm from the photos only -
as good as they are.

What I used to call a 'stumper' -

Wish I could be more confident on way or the other, but I can't at this point.

ironmanl63

Yes

There is still hope. I think this needs to go to an expert or one of the services.

Onastone

Yes

It's a new 2 cent piece!

gumby1234

Yes

@ironmanl63 Fred is retired now but is the expert on errors. He the go to guy.

jmlanzaf

No

@FredWeinberg said:
Interesting coin, that's for sure.

I like Tom's analysis, but disagree that it's a counterfeit double strike......

The strikes appear to be genuine, although I've not seen, or recall seeing,
a 'saddle strike' cent from the 2000's era - don't think the Mint has those
collars in use any more.

The 'thread marks' on the obv., and the 'trench' on the reverse do appear
to be on the planchet before striking, although I've never seen that pattern
before (trench, yes, but not those 'thread marks').

My supposition is that the planchet was damaged, and then there were
two off center strikes made on it - as far as the date, I see someone mentioned
that the last digit might be a '3', but I'm guessing that it's a 2000 dated piece.

However, enlarging the date area, it appears that the 'thread' goes -over- the
2nd '0', not under it - (see a small indent on the top right of the '2', also), so
I'm not sure what that means - if we say that shows it was damaged after
striking, it doesn't explain the nicely formed 'trench' on the reverse, that
looks like it was there before striking.....(filled die on the last two digits, probably)

A most unusual item - hard to condemn or confirm from the photos only -
as good as they are.

What I used to call a 'stumper' -

Wish I could be more confident on way or the other, but I can't at this point.

If the damage were prior to strike, why wouldn't the obverse rim be more complete? If it were because the trench was fully formed shouldn't the strike be virtually nonexistent along the trench?

I don't know about Tom's "Chinese counterfeit" but it sure looks like some form of shenanigans.

jmlanzaf

No

@ironmanl63 said:
There is still hope. I think this needs to go to an expert or one of the services.

That's going to be $100 bet. No one is more expert than Fred. It might help him to have more photos at different angles.

The fact that he doesn't think a saddle strike is even possible for that time period is not very encouraging.

ironmanl63

Yes

@jmlanzaf said:

@ironmanl63 said:
There is still hope. I think this needs to go to an expert or one of the services.

That's going to be $100 bet. No one is more expert than Fred. It might help him to have more photos at different angles.

I know Fred is the man but he is also retired. If he would be willing to inspect the coin in hand it will be on the way tomorrow.
Who am I to make a retried guy work! LOL.

I also am not willing to bet 1 cent because I have absolutely no idea if it is genuine or not. All I have is hope.

jmlanzaf

No

@CaptHenway said:
Some observations.

The line across the reverse opposite the thread marks appears to be an incused trench. Look at how the lighting from the North of the coin casts a shadow under the North side of the trench.

The thread marks appear to have been impressed into the planchet by a threaded screw or bolt prior to the strike and then struck flat. The trench on the reverse appears to have been impressed into the planchet by something rounded and smooth, such as perhaps a nail, prior to the strike.

The two obverse impressions appear to have spread outwards during the strike(s), as commonly seen on a single off-center impression or strike, but dual or quad feed dies don't spread outwards during a single stroke. The planchet gets compressed inwards and rises up to form a "saddle," hence the name saddle strike. We don't see this here.

Where the two "spread outwards" areas overlap the thread marks, THEY DID NOT SPREAD THE THREAD MARKS!

Without seeing it, my best guess is that this is a Chinese fake error struck on a pre-mutilated planchet from a single pair of dies, each of which has two partial designs in it and a plain field between them. The plain field flattened down the thread marks between the coin images.

TD

This still seems the most likely explanation.

jmlanzaf

No

@ironmanl63 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ironmanl63 said:
There is still hope. I think this needs to go to an expert or one of the services.

That's going to be $100 bet. No one is more expert than Fred. It might help him to have more photos at different angles.

I know Fred is the man but he is also retired. If he would be willing to inspect the coin in hand it will be on the way tomorrow.
Who am I to make a retried guy work! LOL.

I also am not willing to bet 1 cent because I have absolutely no idea if it is genuine or not. All I have is hope.

Lol. I wasn't trying to put Fred to work. But pictures at different angles might help. I was putting YOU to work. Lol

ironmanl63

Yes

More than willing to try and take any photos that will help find the truth. I can also do zoom shots on any area anyone needs to see.

CaptHenway

Fred, what do you think of my point that where the planchet metal was (allegedly) stretched, the spacing between the thread marks did not increase accordingly?

TD

Atcarroll

@gumby1234 said:
Uncertain what would cause the reeded tire track looking part that runs across the coin, but the rest looks legit. If that tire track looking mark is from the mint you got a whopper of an error.

Looks like a bolt

gumby1234

Yes

@Atcarroll said:

@gumby1234 said:
Uncertain what would cause the reeded tire track looking part that runs across the coin, but the rest looks legit. If that tire track looking mark is from the mint you got a whopper of an error.

Looks like a bolt

Could be a bolt from the machinery at the mint.

@ironmanl63 could you snap some angled photos that show the edge and part of the obverse and reverse.kinda 30 degrees or so.

jmlanzaf

No

@CaptHenway said:
Fred, what do you think of my point that where the planchet metal was (allegedly) stretched, the spacing between the thread marks did not increase accordingly?

TD

That would only be true if the bolt was struck first, would it not?

ironmanl63

Yes

Here is what I could do. The depth is hard with the micro shots.