This One's Been Bugging Me For Awhile... Any Idea What it is?

braddick

Reverse:


Obverse:



If it's real, it's the oddest error I've yet to see.
Any speculations?

Dennis88

Looks like a normally struck nickel, but then again struck with an obverse die....

Strange,

Dennis

Placid

Rampage

Looks like a double struck nickel. I would have to see it in person to give my final assessment, but if there is no damage on that coin, and there appears not to be-and it is the correct weight-then I would say double struck.

MrLee

Very odd indeed. No damage to the obverse (as I can see). The reverse features are backwards (The "CENTS" is reversed) but with a normal facing portrait. Looks as though another Lib reverse was pressed against a two-headed Lib. Lots of wear too so this circulated awhile.

majorbigtime

<< <i>Looks like a double struck nickel. . >>



Doesn't look like a flip-over double strike to me (no reverse image on obverse)!

It's a conundrum!!

oldcameoproofsguy

ms70

Maybe a flip-over that landed on top of a blank planchet?

MFH

Could it be a clashed die ?
-----------------------------------

Just looked at it again, it can't be a clashed die, every imprint is correct.

That sure is one odd strike; Is it genuine ?

oldcameoproofsguy

If it was a Brock, wouldn't the image of Liberty be mirrored?

I'll bet Dog97 would know.

Cratylus

I know one thing, if it's a legit mint error then that's a cool coin to own!

Gemini

<< <i>
>>

Ditto HA HA

Rampage

<< <i>

<< <i>Looks like a double struck nickel. . >>



Doesn't look like a flip-over double strike to me (no reverse image on obverse)!

It's a conundrum!! >>



I did not say flip over double struck. My guess would be reverse double struck, which was known back then, and the obverse would be normal.

Rampage

I could be wrong. It would not be the first time. I deal with lots and lots of modern errors-mated pairs, double strikes, etc.

lathmach

I'd put my money on it being a cast counterfeit.

Ray

BigE

I agree, cast counterfeit-----------------------BigE

majorbigtime

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Looks like a double struck nickel. . >>



Doesn't look like a flip-over double strike to me (no reverse image on obverse)!

It's a conundrum!! >>



I did not say flip over double struck. My guess would be reverse double struck, which was known back then, and the obverse would be normal. >>



Sounds impossible to me--it had to be struck against something or it would be like pushing a string!

Rampage

Yep, could also be a fake.

Rampage

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Looks like a double struck nickel. . >>


Doesn't look like a flip-over double strike to me (no reverse image on obverse)!
It's a conundrum!! >>


I did not say flip over double struck. My guess would be reverse double struck, which was known back then, and the obverse would be normal. >>


Sounds impossible to me--it had to be struck against something or it would be like pushing a string! >>



Not impossible. Check out some error coin books, or error coin websites and look at older coinage.

Mind you-I am not saying that what I said is 100% correct, but it is known to happen, and of course, it may very well be fake, that is why in my first or second post, I said if the weight was correct, i.e. hinting to the fact it may be fake!

lordmarcovan

<< <i>I know one thing, if it's a legit mint error then that's a cool coin to own! >>



Heck, even if it ain't a legit error, I think it's cool.

I bought an 1882 Indian cent once, with several clashes on it, one of which was from the reverse of a Seated dime. Almost certainly a "manufactured" error, but I thought it was neat, anyway. I got it for like five bucks and sold it on eBay for close to ten times that (being careful to stress the fact that it probably wasn't a real error).

Isn't there a story about some night watchman at the mint during the later 1800's, who was making all sorts of weird "clashed" coins to amuse himself?

shylock

It had to of been struck directly by the obverse die, a clash would show the obverse design inverted (upside down and flipped horizontally). My guess is it's a flipover in which most of the lower relief reverse detail on the obverse has worn off. I do see some faint elements of the reverse on the obverse -- a leaf from the wreath to the right of the hair curl and something else at 12:00.

majorbigtime

<< <i>It had to of been struck directly by the obverse die, a clash would show the obverse design inverted (upside down and flipped horizontally). My guess is it's a flipover in which most of the lower relief reverse detail on the obverse has worn off. I do see some faint elements of the obverse on the obverse -- a leaf from the wreath to the right of the hair curl and something else at 12:00. >>



Good detecting--maybe you should change your handle to Sherlock!

shylock

majorbigtime - I love a good coin mystery as much as anyone.

Here's a pic from an older Longacre's Ledger of a flipover 1858 Flying Eagle in which the obverse shows almost all of the detail. Rather than ejecting from the press the coin flipped over and, like most flipovers, rotated as well. The second strike was also slightly off center. After the initial strike there wasn't enough metal left on most of the reverse to strike up into the obverse die for the second strike, causing the faint detail on that side.