Double Struck Bust Half or Clever Fabrication?

jacrispies

This is an interesting coin. Supposedly a double strike with the first off center, this half has a row of dentil tracks displayed across Miss Liberty. It is bent to a degree and has what looks to be hammer marks on the eagle's shield.

I have concerns that this error is PMD, but I would like to get a few more opinions. I can provide more photos or my thoughts if they are wanted.

All opinions welcome, and thanks for your time!

MarkKelley

Most assuredly PMD. The flattened area on the eagle's claw is from the obverse dent.

Pnies20

Agree. PMD

jesbroken

Not that I know for sure, but appears like press work to me. Perhaps another coin's rim and denticles pressed into the coin resulting in the obv denticles and the reverse damage. JMO
Jim

wozymodo

Note that the denticles are backwards on Liberty's face.

jacrispies

@wozymodo said:
Note that the denticles are backwards on Liberty's face.

That is correct, and evidence of a genuine double strike. This means it was not a vise job of two coins.

I did a photo overlay and the spacing of the dentils overlapped perfectly. So the punch, if this was fabricated, would have been directly modeled from a genuine coin.

habaraca

double struck obverse
pmd reverse

reverse damage does NOT line up with obverse arc of dentiles.

gumby1234

Looks like PMD to me.

gonzer

If it was real, details of the first strike would have been evident, albeit ghost-like.

scubafuel

Pretty sure it's both. The dentil tracks are evidence of an offcenter strike that was mostly erased by the second strike. Then there is some damage to the reverse.
"denticles are backwards" is good evidence it was not a squeeze job.

lilolme

Those are some good pictures. I enlarged the areas around the 'inner dentils' and the V cuts. The V's do not look smooth on the sides and/or bottom but rather more rough surface or moved metal. Suspicious of a tool type cut or something.

.

.

.

jayPem

Coinundrum

jacrispies

Thanks for the opinions. Seems like the consensus is the reverse is damage (I agree). I wanted to get unbiased opinions before I shared my input.

The obverse has some discussion. Like I mentioned, the photo overlay matched perfectly with the dentil size and spacing. There are still a few things that lead me to believe the dentil tracks are PMD, which is the displaced metal, the abrupt stop to the tracks, and the damage to the headband.

Here is a photo of the displaced metal. It clearly shows raised areas around each "dentil" which should not be there because the striking of the die would have flattened all displaced metal.

The second red flag is the sudden stop to the tracks. Of all examples that I have studied in hand and from photos, all coins featured dentil tracks continuing over devices and into the fields until they fade out entirely. Below is the coin is question, as seen the tracks traveling up to the top of the cap and showing no signs of continuation into the field.

The third red flag is the damage, specifically to the I in the LIBERTY headband. The damage from the tracks clearly push up the I, validating that this was punched after the strike. If it was there before the strike, the design in the working die would have pushed all displaced metal aside to leave the perfectly shaped I.

What do you guys think (calling back @scubafuel @habaraca), agree or disagree?

ricko

Now that is an interesting coin... @jacrispies... Good analytical inputs. Would like to see some commentary from @FredWeinberg or @CaptHenway on this issue. Cheers, RickO

CaptHenway

Still thinking about it. My gut feeling is that it is a genuine Mint product.

Working hypothesis: The coin was first struck normally, but as the hammer die raised back up the die holder failed and the die misaligned severely. This left the die tilted with one edge low over the center of the coin, which for some reason did not eject. Perhaps whatever caused the die holder to fail somehow affected the feed mechanism.

Before the press could be brought to a stop, the tilted die came down and impacted the coin, impressing the denticles along the low edge. The raised wedges that form the spaces between the denticles formed these nice triangular indents. One of them fell on the I of LIBERTY, forming that small point to the right.

This angular hit would most likely have bent the coin so that "it would not stack." A bit of percussive maintenance, possibly in the Mint or possibly after it left the Mint, would have fixed this problem and the coin circulated for a while.

TD

jacrispies

@CaptHenway said:
Still thinking about it. My gut feeling is that it is a genuine Mint product.

Working hypothesis: The coin was first struck normally, but as the hammer die raised back up the die holder failed and the die misaligned severely. This left the die tilted with one edge low over the center of the coin, which for some reason did not eject. Perhaps whatever caused the die holder to fail somehow affected the feed mechanism.

Before the press could be brought to a stop, the tilted die came down and impacted the coin, impressing the denticles along the low edge. The raised wedges that form the spaces between the denticles formed these nice triangular indents. One of them fell on the I of LIBERTY, forming that small point to the right.

This angular hit would most likely have bent the coin so that "it would not stack." A bit of percussive maintenance, possibly in the Mint or possibly after it left the Mint, would have fixed this problem and the coin circulated for a while.

TD

Great analysis and one to be considered. Do you know of any other examples that have been the result of the obverse die misaligning unparallel to the reverse die and striking the coin?

To follow this theory, and the die's edge impacted the obverse, there would be no unstruck or smashed areas opposite of the dentil tracks. The coin would have smashed into the reverse die for a second time, potentially giving that area a crisper strike as opposed to weakness.

That means when the dentil tracks were placed, the coin was on a flat surface.

CaptHenway

It is hard to guess what the reverse area opposite the denticles looked like before it was hammered.

It is possible that a slight bend remained so that the area opposite the denticles remained high and word down flat in circulation. Who has the coin? DOes it rock?

jayPem

It definitely rocks..

dcarr

At first, something seemed off on this. On the dies, and on a normally-struck coin from those dies, the denticles point towards the center of the circle. But on the face of the coin in question, the stray denticles appear to point away from the center of the arc.

However, after further study, the marks do seem to be an exact match for the denticles on this off-center Bust half dollar:

The picture above is from an eBay listing - I am not the seller and I don't know the seller:
https://ebay.com/itm/144369709782

So I think the coin in question is likely a genuine mint error involving a secondary contact between the obverse die and the coin (which was already normally struck before the secondary contact with the obverse die).

As to how this secondary impact could have happened, I think it is possible that the obverse die was resting face up (on a workbench or something) and the coin was laying on that die (face down and off-center). When the coin received a blow or blows from a hammer or other such tool, the impact(s) pushed the coin into the die, causing both the obverse and reverse marks.

jacrispies

@CaptHenway I have the coin in hand, for now. Good points mentioned. Nothing is recognizable in the flat spot to determine what it was. Although it is unnaturally scratched up, perhaps that was simply cabinet friction. The coin does rock in multiple directions when placed on a flat surface. Here are a couple photos so you can get an idea of the magnitude.

jacrispies

@dcarr That is the trickiest part of the equation. The dentils match that of a genuine coin so it was either struck by a genuine die or struck by something that was modeled after a genuine die. The big difference is the sudden stop of dentil tracks at the top of the cap. If it did hit the obverse die for a second time, the rim, one of the highest points of the coin, would most certainly be affected. To see the dentil track suddenly stop on a single dentilation is the remaining concern.

CaptHenway

@jacrispies said:
@dcarr That is the trickiest part of the equation. The dentils match that of a genuine coin so it was either struck by a genuine die or struck by something that was modeled after a genuine die. The big difference is the sudden stop of dentil tracks at the top of the cap. If it did hit the obverse die for a second time, the rim, one of the highest points of the coin, would most certainly be affected. To see the dentil track suddenly stop on a single dentilation is the remaining concern.

Take a can of soup and pretend that the bottom is the face of the die. Place it on the kitchen counter. Now tilt it a bit and see how the rim lifts up from the counter as you move away from the contact point. The denticles on the die moved up and away from the coin the further you got from the center of the contact point. That is why the denticle track ends.

CaptHenway

@jacrispies said:
@CaptHenway I have the coin in hand, for now. Good points mentioned. Nothing is recognizable in the flat spot to determine what it was. Although it is unnaturally scratched up, perhaps that was simply cabinet friction. The coin does rock in multiple directions when placed on a flat surface. Here are a couple photos so you can get an idea of the magnitude.

You've got a high point on each side. They are both worn, so obviously this coin circulated like this. This tells me that it is a genuine coin of the period.

And, I am liking my hypothesis more and more.

TD

gumby1234

The dentils are wrong. They should be going the same directions the ones around the coin. The points should be facing left not right.

jacrispies

@CaptHenway said:

@jacrispies said:
@dcarr That is the trickiest part of the equation. The dentils match that of a genuine coin so it was either struck by a genuine die or struck by something that was modeled after a genuine die. The big difference is the sudden stop of dentil tracks at the top of the cap. If it did hit the obverse die for a second time, the rim, one of the highest points of the coin, would most certainly be affected. To see the dentil track suddenly stop on a single dentilation is the remaining concern.

Take a can of soup and pretend that the bottom is the face of the die. Place it on the kitchen counter. Now tilt it a bit and see how the rim lifts up from the counter as you move away from the contact point. The denticles on the die moved up and away from the coin the further you got from the center of the contact point. That is why the denticle track ends.

I enjoyed the soup can analogy. Although I understood the situation, that may clear it up if others are confused. You are right, the dentil tracks do not extend all of the way out to the rim. But the rim of the can does not suddenly come to an end, it gradually inclines until it is entirely out of the way. As the dentil tracks gradually stretch across the neck of Miss Liberty, one should expect at least one more dentil visible to a small degree on the second ridge of the cap. Going with the soup can analogy, the die would have to look as pictured:

Moving back from culinary to coins, the wear pattern is not consistent if the flat spot opposite of the dentil tracks was solely due to wear. Take a look at the obverse, most of the weakness can be attributed to an incomplete strike. The highest point on the obverse is Miss Liberty's ear. Notice most of the detail is remaining, no wear to even compare with the missing eagle's talon. That makes the reverse weakness tied to either strike weakness or PMD (pounded into a flat surface). Because the obverse dentil track is considered to take place post strike, that means whenever the obverse was hit with a dentil track, the reverse was on a flat surface. There is not enough strike weakness opposite of the talon to show that it is strike weakness.

Do you or anyone else happen to know of any early US coin that had a die fall diagonally on a coin when it was resting on a flat surface? If this is the first example known, I seriously doubt it is.

Thanks for the input, I am glad we can debate this out. I hope others are able to add input so we can get a multitude of opinions.

jacrispies

@gumby1234 said:
The dentils are wrong. They should be going the same directions the ones around the coin. The points should be facing left not right.

Not exactly. Pictured below are genuine double struck bust halves with the dentil shape correct. This pattern matches the coin in question. Even though the coin in question has been attributed to post strike, the source (obverse die) is the same so the shape would be the same.

gumby1234

It wouldn't be the first time that a TPG was fooled by a coin or a counterfeit even. Counterfeits have made it into all of the top TPG slabs. I would imagine a fake error could make it into a slab as well. The question is why would the points of the dentils be facing the opposite direction?

jacrispies

@gumby1234 said:
It wouldn't be the first time that a TPG was fooled by a coin or a counterfeit even. Counterfeits have made it into all of the top TPG slabs. I would imagine a fake error could make it into a slab as well. The question is why would the points of the dentils be facing the opposite direction?

I have over 25 photos of off center double struck bust halves saved, including coins from the collections of Russ Logan and Henry Hilgard, all have the same dentil pattern. I have never seen a double struck coin with the dentils facing the opposite direction.

gumby1234

all the pics you just posted have them all opposite of how they should be oriented. Any double struck coin should have the dentils and any other design elements facing the same as the first strike. Dentils, stars, profile whatever it is should all be facing the correct way. If a dentil looks like this ( UUUU ) then on the second strike it should also like like UUUU not upside down.

gumby1234

I think this is a Dan Carr piece but should show what I mean.

rte592

Just call it chop marked.
.

dcarr

@gumby1234 said:
I think this is a Dan Carr piece but should show what I mean.

On my dies that I used for that, the denticles ran completely off the edge of the die.
That is not necessarily the case on the original dies. The denticles could have ended before running off the edge of the die. The way to confirm that is to look at a genuine off-center strike to see what the very edge of the die face looked like. This one I posted previously tells the tale, I think:

gumby1234

@dcarr could you try to replicate what they think happened because I dont understand exactly.