Clashed Die Trivia

shylock

Which Indian Head cent is so commonly found with a clash of the reverse wreath on the obverse that nice examples without it sell for a premium?

darktone

1959 ?

Iampoorman2

1891? At least my two do.

LanLord

Perhaps 1877? The premium is in the date not in the die clash? Just a guess, probably a poor one.

shylock

Besides being known for mushy strikes, the 1864 bronze (without L) is fairly tough to find in high grades without obvious clash marks of the wreath extending from the forehead into the field. The first image below is an extreme example that extends all the way down to the chin, while the other 4 more typical examples show it in lesser degrees:

dorkkarl

speaking of clash marks, i will gladly pay greysheet ask or better for any proof 3cn w/ clash marks.

K S

1jester

Although I try to spot and collect every single error coin I see (from circulation), I don't really don't know too much detail about all the types of errors.

You're talking about a die clash. How is it made? And what's the difference between that and a collar clash? I see collar clashes frequently--are they valuable?

shylock

1jester -- normal clashed dies like this one occur when a planchet fails to load and the dies strike each other, leaving a permanent impression in reverse relief in each other. This is then transfered to every coin struck thereafter. The amount of detail depends on how much pressure was applied, and usually only a small segment of the design transfers. On these 1864s there are usually less obvious clashes on the reverse caused by the obverse Indian outline.

I'm not that familier with collar clashes, so I'll use CONECA's definition: "Occasionally, the die shifts slightly out of position and, instead of fully striking the planchet, it partially strikes the collar. As with a die clash, the design of the collar, whether smooth or reeded, is transferred to the die. This, in turn, is transferred to the coins struck by the die. Most often, only the reeded collar clashed coins are of collector interest, but again, only if there is significant design transfer."

1jester

Thanks so much, shylock!! Now I understand. In the example of the different 1864 pennies here, I assume that the different visibility of the clash depends on the striking pressure used on each different planchet? It makes sense. Collar clashes are similar; I've seen coins from the same die come together in a roll, and the exact same error is repeated on each coin, although sometimes it's more or less visible.

shylock

Besides how well they were struck, I think the coins that are struck early on with the clashed die show more detail. In these examples the last image is the best strike of all, yet shows just a trace of the clash. I've always wondered if 1864s actually had more than one die that clashed, accounting for how many examples exist. Plus, examples #1 & #2 look very different. It's not known how many total dies were used for each of the 3 1864 IHs (copper-nick, bronze w/o L and w/L).

toothpuller

Thanks for another educational post Paul. Rick Snow currently has a gem 1864 no L for sale on his website and it is a non-clash example. It is indeed selling for a premium as he is asking about 20% over his pink sheet retail price.

shylock

Toothpuller -- the second image is a PCGS 66RD I once owned, one of my first gem IH buys. I thought the clash was very cool and might actually add a bit of value -- until I started looking closely at other examples. They almost all had it! One of those odd cases where the variety is so common that the non-variety becomes sought after. Needless to say Rick rejected it for consignment in his inventory years later. Something to consider for any prospective IH buyers out there...

1jester

Is it safe to assume, though, that most errors are worth more than their non-error cousins? I've heard that errors are not worth more when you go back beyond 1850 or so, when there were many different die varieties.

shylock

1jester -- As far as varieties go (errors are one-of-a-kind and a different animal) market value is on a case by case basis, determined by rarity and interest. 19th century coins are loaded with minor varieties whose value is purely numismatic. With IHs the Top Three will always command a huge premium (1873 DDO, 1888/7 Overdate, and 1894/1894 RPD). A larger group of others (including the 1888 "1-in-neck" MPD) sell for good prices. There are hundreds of other minor varieties -- discovery coins are made every month -- that are worth no more in the market than the coin they exist on. 1906 alone now has a total of 41 listed by Snow, mostly minor RPDs.

1jester

Errors are one of a kind? Only? I always thought that double dies were errors, but you're saying they are a type of variety. So be it. I'm sure that value is simply determined by collector interest (the market). Is a blank planchet an error? One time I opened up a roll of 1995-D pennies, and found 2 blank planchets. So I know what date they are, even though they are blank. It doesn't really matter to me if it's called a variety or an error. I like both.

Thanks for the info.