OK, What the heck happened here? Reverse pic's added.

tlhoy

1884 U.K. Penny.
Please note chin, mouth & Victoria DC:
Die erosion?
Glenn

Blackhawk

I don't thinkl that it's die erosion. I was going to say that I thought it to be an extreme case of strike doubling, but then I saw that the lettering to thr right of the bust has no doubling or ghosting. I don't know what to think of this coin...it's neat though, with the double profile and all.

tlhoy

Yes the "Britt:Reg:F:" on the right looks normal.
Weird huh!
Glenn

MSD61

I don't know what to make either. One would think at first glance that it was a case if a double strike as Blackhawk pointed out. But it can't explain the lack of doubling on the right hand side of the bust. Could it have been double struck with un-even pressure on the die with a slight rotation? Maybe this could explain the lack of doubling on the right side of the coin.

Blackhawk

The reeding looks weird on the left also. It may be a double strike. How does the reverse look?

JohnZ

Rotated hub doubling. The rotation point is somewhere around two or three o'clock, which is why there is no doubling on the right-hand letters. This would qualify as a bona fide variety, as a hub doubling is a repeatable error. Nice find!

Edited to add that the reverse may not exhibit anything unusual in this case of this type of doubling.

MSD61

Actually, the lettering looks like it is from two different dies don't you think?

MSD61

Hey, I got the rotation thing down pretty close. Real cool find Glenn!

JohnZ

Actually, the lettering looks like it is from two different dies don't you think?

No. That's the nature of several classes of double dies. A thick shadow of the lettering appears under the sharp relief of the higher devices. It's one of the distinctions between hub doubling and machine doubling.

tlhoy

Reverse picture: Do you think this damage happened when struck?
Glenn

lordmarcovan

VERY cool finds, and great pictures. While some of those features might not command any "book" premium, I would say they might draw some extra bids on eBay, merely for curiosity value.

The second one (1881) looks like a strikethrough to me. Struck through foreign material of some sort?

lordmarcovan

PS- MSD61, I see you are now borrowing my gilt proof 1805 halfpenny icon instead of boiler78's penny. That's fine by me. Would you like to own the actual coin? It will be for sale if I buy the penny from boiler78.

JohnZ

The second one (1881) looks like a strikethrough to me. Struck through foreign material of some sort?

Hey Rob, time to get a new prescription. It's the same coin. 1884.

That's not a strike-through, it's a lamination in which the upper layer of the alloy has peeled off.

How many errors does this coin have?

Very cool.

wybrit

Hey Rob, time to get a new prescription. It's the same coin. 1884.



That is a fantastic find and it is unrecorded. You never know what you might get for that on ebay. Someone might bid that one up. Lower grade bronze seldom gets the high prices except for 1869 pennies (which is insane to me). Having said that, there are a number of folks who could be interested in this one.

Lloyd?

Askari

That's one very cool coin!! Certainly a conversation piece!

laurentyvan

Very unusual coin tlhoy; I've noticed recently that you've been seeking error coins and varieties- "been disappointed so many times"-well, this time not! You seem to have found a bonanza in one coin. Your pictures are excellent, allowing us to see clearly the affected area's- you have the material for a short illustrated article in any one of a number of numismatic publications.

theboz11

Is this where I register for the GiveAway,,, nice offering!!!

tlhoy

Wouldn't you know it, When I think I have an error I don't.
Here I think I have a coin with die erosion or fatigue & it's an error.
I'm so happy!!!
Glenn

JohnZ

Glenn, technically speaking, the hub doubling is a "variety", as it is a repeatable feature.

The lamination is an "error", as it is not repeatable.

CIVITAS

If this is any kind of hub doubling, it is Pivoted Hub Doubling (Class V), not rotated. Rotated hub doubling would result in the entire obverse design being doubled (1955 Doubled Die Cent). JohnZ basically had it right, just wrong nomenclature. I'm not overly convinced that it is hub doubling though.

tlhoy, can you provide closeups of all the letters in ONE, the P and Y in PENNY and the date on the reverse?

JohnZ

Pivoted, yes that's what I meant to say.

Duh. My bad.

tlhoy

Civitas here are the pic's you asked for. The close-up of the E in "one" is with the reverse posted earlier.



I noticed extra reeding by the 18 in the date. Cool.

Lloyd

Glenn
Always stick with the Americans if you want errors explained - they have the terminology for everything...

I've never seen this - I can't explain it.... It looks superb and would go really well to either penny or error collectors ....

Get it explained and hold on to it...

Is there anyone at the Royal Mint he could ask ? ... I wouldn't bother but one of you may know.

Really nice.

L

1jester

Great error/variety coin, Glenn! I dig those types of things.

CIVITAS

OK, here's my two pence worth. (Wokka Wokka!)

I think your coin is actually double struck. During the second strike, the obverse die pivoted a bit (probably at about 2 or 3 o'clock like John said).

Here is why I think as such.

First, can anyone confirm that the Royal Mint was using a "two-squeeze" process to produce dies during this period? In general, double hubbing (or more) is required for a doubled die variety to occur. Assuming they were.....

When a die is hubbed, the highest (and therefore thinnest) part of the hub comes in contact with the die first. In double hubbing, the second hubbing is stronger than the first one. Therefore the secondary image (the one "underneath") should not be thicker than the primary image (the image "on top") with two exceptions.

1. Design Hub Doubling: Hubs from two different designs were used for each "squeeze" (i.e. 1960-D Small Date over Large Date Cent). Since I'm not aware of any design varieties for 1884, this seems like an unlikely explanation. If this were an 1860 or 1861, we might have something to talk about here.

2. A weak second hubbing. It is "technically" possible for a second hubbing to be weaker than the first, however if that were true either you would see:
A. No change in the die because if the die and hub were aligned perfectly then a weak second hubbing would not change the appearance of the stronger first hubbing.
B. A weaker but complete alternate image. Notice that on this coin, the only place you see the thinner "upper" letters is where the thicker "lower" letters were to begin with. The thinner upper letters are not complete. This could only be the result of an incuse die coming in contact with the raised portions of an already struck coin. The second strike was weaker than the first strike and as such did not completely obliterate the results of the first strike, however it was just enough for the flat part of the die to push around the relief metal on the coin and squeeze some of it into the incuse portions of the die. I have a feeling that if you pulled out a micrometer (we all have one of those, don't we? ) and measured, the underlying letters would be thicker than those found on a regular strike from this date (and die) due to the distortion caused by the second striking.

Still a pretty cool find.

laurentyvan

Great thread-really enjoyed following it. Any more surprises on that coin?