Outline of Lincoln on 1939-D

rollmeupAbe

I came across a 1939-D Lincoln with what appears to be an error that I have not seen before. It looks like an indentation / outline all the way around the image of Lincoln. It is not strike doubling based on all the information I could find on strike doubling. Any ideas on what it might be ? I can e-mail a picture, but unfortunately can not link.

kryptonitecomics

Could it be a die clash of some sort???? It doesn't sound like it and I don't even think it's possible as it would be a reverse die clash on an obverse. It could be something that happened after the coin left the mint, but without a picture it's going to be hard to say from your description.

airplanenut

Abe,

Welcome aboard! Email me at airplanenut312@comcast.net and I'll put the pic up for ya

airplanenut

Hi,

Unfortunately, the pictures are too large for me to put up- the size is right for seeing the coin, but not for the web

Looking at it, all I see is what looks like machine doubling- I have seen this a lot on modern coins, too. In my opinion, it is not an error of great value.

Jeremy

rollmeupAbe

Thanks for the input. I have seen many coins with machine doubling but the difference on this one was that there is no shift to the right or left and the image appears to have a trace all around it which is lower than the surface of the coin. On the close up image the best place to look is the upper forehead right at the hair line. The machine doubling I have seen has always been shifted in one direction and appears to be two images on top of the surface of the coin.

Sorry the pictures were too large to post. Is there a better image format to save the pictures in that reduces the file size ?

kryptonitecomics

Here is the coin and after careful review I just don't see anything out of the norm. Sorry.

Dog97

rollmeupAbe it looks like a die chip or cud right at the hairline but what you describe is Longacre Doubling which is caused by overpolishing the dies where the edge of the field & design elements meet.

Dog97

rollmeupAbe
I got your email....man that was a big pict! It was really detailed though. After seeing the pict it looks like some kind of die deterioration doubling which almost basically the same thing but from different conditions. The break or cud I mentioned is the triangular shaped thing in the field right in front of the junction of the hairline and the forehead. Probably just die wear or polishing.
Here's a link to an error dealer's site who has some good picts of different kinds of doubling.

Text

coppercoins

Actually what Abe has is very common, especially on steel cents and cents dated 1952-1953. I have read an explanation of this effect that leads more toward reduction lathe doubling that was caused when the "feeler" that goes around the galvano or the "cutter" that goes around the master hub is not tightened properly causing one or the other to bounce while making the master hub.

I personally do not buy this theory. I think the cause is a hand-retouched hub, where a person takes a tool and carves around the bust of Lincoln to get a sharper outline. I have heard this theory presented in text as well, which also explains why "all" cents of given dates are not like this.

At any rate, this is not die deterioration doubling, hub doubling, Longacre doubling, or machine doubling. It is different. Viewed at 35X the "line" Abe describes appears as a trench cut around the bust...meaning that it would have to have been done on a hub because it is "sunken-in" on the resulting coins. You would have to add metal to a die to get a sunken in line on a coin - just not the case. I highly doubt anyone would bother retouching the actual coins...so a hub is the answer...and there are working hubs that create the working dies...my guess as the culprit.

That's my two Lincolns worth.

crito

great info coppercoins. does anyone attribute them as legit varieties? I got a sack full of 'em over here, hehe. assumed it was die deterioration doubling myself, guess my 17x loupe ain't good enough no mo'

coppercoins

Although if recognized they would fit into the "variety" category since they are on the die before it is placed into use, my opinion and response is that they are purposeful retouches to enhance the design - not "really" varieties. That along with the fact that they are extremely common narrows down my answer to a simple - no.

coppercoins

Another photo of the same effect, this time on a 1943P cent.

Gilbert

IMO, it is a form of "abrasion doubling," similar too or maybe a less affected form of "Longacre doubling," where the shoulder of the punch around the primary image penetrates the die causing the secondary "step." Its as though the image was overly impressed, forcing too much metal away from the central device and toward the outer design elements. Consider it.

rollmeupAbe

Thanks to all for the input. You are a great group to learn from. Coppercoins special thanks for your detailed input and for your fantastic web site. It's a great place for a beginner to pick up information.

coppercoins

Gilbert - I might be able to accept that theory if this anomaly didn't exist on EDS coins. Abrasion doubling (abraded die doubling) is generally much smoother, without hard outlines, and is raised on the coin's surface because it is the result of metal chipping away from the die, and it only occurs on coins that are minted with at least an LMDS die. These lines exist on EDS coins, the line is sunken in on the coins, and cannot be attributed to die wear...there's simply no logical explanation for a chipping die adding metal to itself, which would have to be the case with a sunken in line on a coin.

The 1955 poor man's double is a classic case of abraded die doubling, and this outline around Lincoln's bust looks nothing like that. It's a thin, hard outline around the bust that looks like it was tooled into a positive relief hub, not a negative relief die.

rollmeupAbe - That's what I try to do here...give of what I know and absorb the rest. This is a good place to learn things, and a good place to pick up on ideas of future things to put on the web site so others can learn from what questions are asked and what answers are given for those questions.

Dog97

Hey you're pretty good there coppercoins!
See if you can figure this one out on this 50-D Lincoln. It looks like scratches on the coin but the lines are RAISED. Thought it might be scratches on the die but that don't make any sense. Had me scratching my head since Grip sent it to me last year. Excuse the QX3 but it's better than my scanner.

coppercoins

Looks like a deep die gouge to me....is there any way you can get those other images to work for me? the only one I can see is the one that shows the upper left wheat lines. I'd like to be able to see more of the coin if you could swing that for me. It would help my judgement on what you have.

I can tell you already that it's not a scratch on the coin, it's not polishing (way too strong for that), and it doesn't look like a die crack - it's too straight and its edges are too sharp.

coppercoins

Never mind, the photo links worked for me on reload.

That's the wierdest thing I've seen in a long time. Those are likely die gouges of some sort, but I have never seen anything like that. I would have to guess that coin was either struck with a cancelled die (how, I don't know), is a fake of some sort, or is one of the oddest errors I have ever come across.

My first guess looking at the whole coin would be some sort of lamination...but the micro images show they are lines and are raised...very odd.

Dog97

Beats me too. Looks like some kind of alignment marks but design devices were not punched in to the dies and engravers used a jig anyway. Around the wheat head looks like a galvano feeler or hub cutter gone crazy like to said about rollmeupAbe's cent.
Maybe some kind of problem with the polishing stick?
Some kind of fake could be a possibility too. I haven't checked the weight or size but it looks authentic at first glance.

Gilbert

Coppercoins,

Not trying to dispute your well thought out theory, but, since you seem to be fairly knowledgeable in this area, maybe you could read and further evaluate the strike doubling theory as it regards the "shoulder" of the punch causing a secondary image "while striking the die or hub."

I agree you have addressed this insofar as indicating you don't think this is phenomena, and I guess you are leaning toward the "hand-retouched" theory. We both agree that something has occurred within the die making process, but to me, this happening in the reduction process is more likely than the hand retouching of individual dies; it just seems there are too many occurences within the Lincoln series.

If Abe (the bust) was struck first as a central device (and although I know some dies were struck this way, I don't know if early Lincoln's were), why couldn't it be strike doubling in the hubbing process

OR how about, during reduction, for whatever reason a stop/start sequence just at or about the time of cutting the central device; a restart with a differing pressure setting or maybe simply the act of stopping and restarting? Sounds like a theory to me. The more I think about it the more I like it. Wouldn't the central device be cut into the master separately? Strike the central device into a hub/die provides the perfect opportunity for THAT strike to impart a "shouldered strike," for lack of a better, more descriptive term.

Or, maybe I'm just not seeing the process clearly.

jmp81

I have a 1960-P that looks something like that. I had not thought much about it since I am not a Lincoln collector. But here it is.

coppercoins

"Strike doubling" occurs when the die strikes and bounces on the coins it is producing. It not only looks far different from the anomaly questioned in this thread, but it occurs from coin to coin dependent solely on the adjustment of the die making the coins.

The reason I disputed (and still do) this as being any for of strike doubling is because strike doubling is ALWAYS raised from the fields of the coin. It is simply a misgiven first strike with an immediate second strike slightly out of alignment with the first. The first still made its impression causing a field with raised devices, but was flattened somewhat by the second impact.

The anomaly described originally by rollmeupAbe, followed by two separate photographs of same, is NOT raised from the field. It is actually LOWER than the field, a "trench" around the bust, and around the bust only. No amount of strike doubling can cause any part of the coin to be lower in relief than the fields.

Secondarily, dies are not "struck" by hubs. They are also not "cut". They are squeezed, or more fitting, "pressed". Not only are they pressed (rather slowly, might I add) but they are super hot when they are pressed, or "hubbed". There is no immediate impact as there is when making coins. The question of whether strike doubling can happen in the die making process is a non-issue because they are not struck at all in the sense that coins are struck, thus causing strike doubling. Even if they were struck, any doubling caused by the process would still not be lower than the surrounding fields.

As I described before, I do not believe the hand-retouching, carving around the bust, was done on any die. If this had been the case, the line around the bust on the individual coins would be raised, not lowered. What I believe caused this is hand retouching of the HUB, and that does indeed happen, even today....and retouching of such hubs, if cut into, would cause a lowering in the hub, a subsequent raising on the die, thus a subsequent lowering in the coin, which is the case here. Positive, negative, positive. The mere fact that there are so many occurrences in the Lincoln cent series further supports my claim since one hub can make many dies. Each die created by a hub would exhibit the same raised line around the bust from the cut trench in the hub, thus directly transfer that as a cut trench in the coins it minted.

Furthermore, if examined closely, the coins with this particular anomaly show "ending" marks in the trench in different areas, where the cutting tool was stopped and lifted. Not once, but many times. Under enough magnification it becomes obvious that the lines had to have been "cut" into something...as stated before, it would be ridiculous to claim it had happened to the individual coins, and it's impossible for it to have happened to a die because of the nature of the cuts...so the hub is the last remaining candidate.

coppercoins

That appears to be a double struck in-collar. The effect is different from the one I've been describing and looks completely different...but that is a very nice coin, worth a decent premium to an error collector if what I see in the photo is what I think it is.

Conder101

All of the Lincoln cent dies werr made by the "master hub-master die-working hub-working die" method. The Master hub was created using a reducing machine from a galvano model that contained the entire design not individual parts. The cutting tracer starts in the center of the desig and hub and moves outward very slowly as the die and galvano are slowly rotated so the cutter makes a very tight spiral from the center outward. There would not be a shoulder created on the die unless it also existed on the galvano.

The hubbing of the dies is not likely to so be a source of a "strike doubled" die since the hubbing is more of a strong squeezing of the the hub and the die together at very high pressure than an impact striking like coins are made.

I do have another possibility. If the die is insufficiently annealed when it comes back for its second hubbing as the hub is squeezed into the dieand tries to sink deeper the overly hard outer parts of the die resist the metal movement lateraly and it throws up a small "build-up" ridge around the devices. Normally when the die is polished this ridge would be polished away but if it isn't then it would produce a "trench" around the devices on the coin.

coppercoins

Conder - That would be fine if the line around the bust was raised on the coins...it is not a "shoulder", it is a "trench"...again, it is sunken in, actually LOWER than the field surrounding the bust. Resistance by the die wouldn't cause this. It is obviously cut, not the result of a machine flaw. It looks like someone took a tool and traced the outline of the bust on a positive relief device...the master hub or a working hub.

coppercoins

Conder - Never mind, I just re-read your post and understand what you were saying.

If the trench around Lincoln wasn't so clean, and if the tooling marks didn't show as being so obvious, I might buy into that theory...and it could well be the case with some of the coins - but the ones I have examined have the tooling marks instead of the more globulous raised rim around the portrait (on the die) that would cause a more uneven, softer edged trench. As you can see in the photo of the 1943 I posted, the trench is very cleanly cut. It has the same width all the way around.

Gilbert

Well, Coppercoins, my apologies. It wasn't my intent to argue semantics.

Hubbed = pressed = struck. I "wrongly" assumed that while talking and describing the die making process, the intent of my theory wouldn't be lost for merely describing a process, instead of properly labelling it. Maybe you were just putting it on context for "educational" purposes.

Again, transferring the design to the master die by tracing or engraving, onto/into a metal rod, is the book description and "cutting" is not.

My apologies for even getting caught up using the term "strike" doubling, as I learned some time it is more advantageous to describe this category of doubling as "mechanical or machine" doubling, for the very seem reason I am again responding to this thread. Whether it is the result of "bouncing, loose dies or ejection" it occurs during the "mechanics" of the coin striking process, and not in the "hubbing" process where dies can be doubled or the "planchet" making process

Maybe somebody should just kick it around with Wexler or Flynn. There are enough examples of this on both Lincolns and Washingtons that they had to have considered it by now, and frankly, I've always been curious about this "tracing" around the central device. Dog, your a CONECA member, right? Help me out here.

coppercoins

I understood your theory and understood its intent. There is no need to apologize for anything, and I don't think I am arguing semantics. I'm trying to get a point across that the cause of the trench around the bust on all of the Lincoln cents I have examined with such anomalies is obviously hub retouching and nothing else. Examine a 1943 cent under a 35X scope and you'll see it for yourself. The reason I say 1943 is because many of them are like this.

The line grooved around the bust is even in width, has ending marks where they turn corners, and are lower than the surrounding fields. Nothing other than something tracing around the bust on a positive relief device could possibly have caused the grooves I have seen. Perhaps you have seen something different, which is entirely possible. The original question in the thread, however, asked about the carved trench around Lincoln's portrait.

The only reason I pointed out that dies are not struck in the hubbing process was because your theory surrounding these trenches suggested that dies were struck, and if that had been the case, it might have explained something to the effect you are describing - but since dies are not struck with force, rather pressed, it changes the possibility of your theory entirely.

I will send a photo to John Wexler and James Wiles and ask their opinions. I'm not sure whether or when I will get an answer, but I will post it here when I do, if I do.

I too am a member of NCADD and CONECA.