One of the coolest Lincoln errors I've ever seen...
sadysta1
Posts: 1,309 ✭✭✭
sadysta1
Posts: 1,309 ✭✭✭
sadysta1
Posts: 1,309 ✭✭✭
Comments
LOVE IT!!!!!!!
Hell, I don't need to exercise.....I get enough just pushing my luck.
That's an amazing coin
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
Is it for sale?
This one will cost you almost four large....
-YN Currently Collecting & Researching Colonial World Coins, Especially Spanish Coins, With a Great Interest in WWII Militaria.
My Ebay!
I had to smile
A great opportunity for the budget minded collector to fill this rare hole in their collection$23,900
(for a 1796 half dollar in AG)
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
That looks like the coin that Twotawl has,doesn't it ?
Registry 1909-1958 Proof Lincolns
---------------------------------
"No Good Deed Goes Unpunished!"
"If it don't make $"
"It don't make cents""
Please explain how a coin can be almost perfectly round with little planchet stretching after 4 strikes. You would think that with the rev indents there would be a least a little planchet splitting.
(scratching head)
Let me see if I got this right;
4k initial strike broad strike
8k and 2k saddle strike
12k off center strike
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
<< <i>errormaven-
Please explain how a coin can be almost perfectly round with little planchet stretching after 4 strikes. You would think that with the rev indents there would be a least a little planchet splitting.
(scratching head)
Let me see if I got this right;
4k initial strike broad strike
8k and 2k saddle strike
12k off center strike >>
The coin is greatly expanded as the result of strikes 2, 3, and 4, which I presume are all uniface (struck against a blank planchet). Splitting is not an inevitable consequence of such stress. Copper-alloy planchets resist tensile stress far better than copper-plated zinc planchets. I have seen other quad strikes from this period and most show no splitting either.
The sequence of strikes you laid out is correct.
--Mike Diamond
I also presume also that the initial broadstrike enlarged the diameter of the planchet and reduced the thickness so that the additional strikes didn't stress it much in the way of metal flow.
Copper-alloy planchets vs copper-plated zinc planchets explains it.
I'm mostly familiar with 97 errors where splitting usually is an inevitable consequence of such stress when a large indent is involved.
<< <i>Thanks!
I also presume also that the initial broadstrike enlarged the diameter of the planchet and reduced the thickness so that the additional strikes didn't stress it much in the way of metal flow.
Copper-alloy planchets vs copper-plated zinc planchets explains it.
I'm mostly familiar with 97 errors where splitting usually is an inevitable consequence of such stress when a large indent is involved. >>
I suspect the stress would have been almost the same whether or not the first strike had been a broadstrike. But you are correct that the initial thinning produced by the broadstrike would have slightly reduced the effective striking pressure on subsequent strikes.
Zinc is an interesting metal in that it is soft, but exhibits resistance to tensile stress when it is subjected to rapid deformation. The same effect exists with silly putty. Stretch it slowly and it stretches way out. Stretch it quickly and it breaks. Its viscoelastic properties are thus different from bronze or brass.