So you like errors huh, check this one out

poptopsRus · October 26, 2004 2:58AM

This one just walked into the shop today. Nice 1919 Lincoln double struck.

SQLgeek · October 26, 2004 2:59AM

Wow that is nice,.

LALASD4 · October 26, 2004 3:00AM

How much did you get that for?

poptopsRus · October 26, 2004 3:02AM

<< How much did you get that for? >>

I haven't got anything for it yet since I haven't sold it.

LALASD4 · October 26, 2004 3:03AM

I was saying, how much did you paid for it?

poptopsRus · October 26, 2004 3:05AM

<< I was saying, how much did you paid for it?

>>

Oh sorry, I paid lower 3 figures for it.

LALASD4 · October 26, 2004 3:06AM

How much do you want to sell it for?

poptopsRus · October 26, 2004 3:10AM

<< How much do you want to sell it for? >>

I'm would like to sell it for millions and millions but I am a realist. Feel free to PM me an offer if you are intersted.

shylock · October 26, 2004 3:15AM

Great coin, a Doubled Liberty Lincoln! What's going on above the ONE of ONE CENT? Would love to see a closeup of that area.

poptopsRus · October 26, 2004 3:23AM

With my current camera I'm not too go with up close and personal sorry.

mgoodm3 · October 26, 2004 3:26AM

Very cool error.

Tootawl · October 26, 2004 3:33AM

<< 

<< I was saying, how much did you paid for it?

>>

Oh sorry, I paid lower 3 figures for it. >>

Very cool error! Since you paid in the lower 3 figures, I'll make you an offer in the upper 3 figures:
$9.99

HEY! That's three figures ain't it?

poptopsRus · October 26, 2004 3:37AM

<< 

<< 

<< I was saying, how much did you paid for it?

>>

Oh sorry, I paid lower 3 figures for it. >>

Very cool error! Since you paid in the lower 3 figures, I'll make you an offer in the upper 3 figures:
$9.99

HEY! That's three figures ain't it?

>>

Well I guess you could call that 3 figures, if that's the case I paid 5 figures for it then

I wasn't trying to even sell this coin when I posted it but it shows just strong the error market is right now. I deal in errors and they are getting very difficult to find and to keep in stock. I wouldn't be surprised to see a coin like this sell for low 4 figures in a few short years.

nwcs · October 26, 2004 3:40AM

COOOOOOOLLLL!!

LALASD4 · October 26, 2004 3:55AM

The two Liberty will look good with the two America.

rfogg · October 26, 2004 3:57AM

Yet another freak. Does this happen often, clad only one side?

jonesy · October 26, 2004 3:58AM

Nice error!! It still amazes me that smoeone would spend an error coin.

relayer · October 26, 2004 3:58AM

Is that considered a two-cent piece?

FredWeinberg · October 26, 2004 3:59AM

This Quarter is an "acid treated" job, and
not a genuine mint error...........sorry.......

Fred

poptopsRus · October 26, 2004 4:01AM

Nice 2002, thats a toughie

LALASD4 · October 26, 2004 4:01AM

I agree with Fred, that does not look right to me.

rfogg · October 26, 2004 4:15AM

Really Fred?
How can you tell it's acid treated. Just a newbie question.

poptopsRus · October 26, 2004 4:20AM

<< Really Fred?
How can you tell it's acid treated. Just a newbie question. >>

The porus surface is a dead give away. Normally when they are missing a layer the are slightly weakly struck but the side in acid has very poor detail left and very porus. Sorry but it is a fake error.

JRocco · October 26, 2004 10:40AM

Congrats on that 19, now that is a really nice error coin.

rich · October 26, 2004 12:12PM

<< Great coin, a Doubled Liberty Lincoln! What's going on above the ONE of ONE CENT? Would love to see a closeup of that area. >>

Looks like another E. Also, on Lincoln's lapel looks like a partial date 19.How is that possible to have just the E up there w/o the rest of it and a partial date on the lapel ???? Is this possible? Anybody out there with an answer?

astrorat · October 26, 2004 12:46PM

Something seems a bit amiss . . . why is the original 19 still so prominant? I would have thought that the 19 would have been visible, but not so prominant.

Lane

errormaven · October 26, 2004 12:47PM

You'd better make sure it's authentic. I don't see a collar scar on the reverse. The absence of a collar scar is not always a sign of fakery, but its presence adds comfort. I also see that E PLURIBUS UNUM on the first strike shows a lot of spread that seems to be due to die fatigue. However the second motto is crisp. Since dual presses weren't in use this early on, strikes by two different die pairs would be unusual (although not impossible). Check to see if the die markers are the same between the two strikes. The roughness in the upper left quadrant is also a bit worrisome. It always pays to be cautious when dealing with early Lincoln cent double strikes. There are quite a few convincing fakes out there.

rich · October 26, 2004 1:09PM

As always,Thanks Mike for your informative response.

Jared, I agree with Mike .Sending it out for study and authentication is the wisest thing to do before you do anything else with it.Good Luck with this unusual piece and keep us posted.

rich

errormaven · October 26, 2004 10:24PM

<< The roughness in the upper left quadrant is also a bit worrisome. >>

I meant the upper right quadrant of the reverse.

seanq · October 26, 2004 11:19PM

I don't mean to throw cold water on your purchase too, but I agree completely with Mike (errormaven) - use extreme caution with these early double-strikes. There are a slew of fakes out there, most of them dated 1918-1921, and they even fool the experts on occasion (a fake 1918 double-struck cent even made the cover of ErrorScope some years back, misattributed as a genuine error).

The thing that always makes me immediately suspicious is that every double-struck coin I've seen from this era has the second strike between K-11:30 and K-1:30, which conveniently allows both dates to show. Yet I can't recall seeing even a single double-struck Lincoln from that era with the second strike at K-3:00 to K-9:00 and neither date showing.

Sean Reynolds

poptopsRus · October 27, 2004 1:27AM

Well guys, as with anything I sell, I guarantee it. This is a very nice piece and under close examination I believe it to be 100% genuine. Nothing on this piece bothers me with the first or second strike.

LALASD4 · October 27, 2004 9:46AM

Looks like another E. Also, on Lincoln's lapel looks like a partial date 19.How is that possible to have just the E up there w/o the rest of it and a partial date on the lapel ???? Is this possible? Anybody out there with an answer?

Look like there is a indented area close to the wheat, maybe something small got into that area during the second strike?

rfogg · October 27, 2004 10:12AM

Here's a 1959 Lincoln with no I in Liberty. Was this common?

rich · October 27, 2004 2:07PM

Welcome to the discussion Randy,your cent has a missing I in liberty because that part of the die was filled with grease or dirt .This can occur in any part of the design or date and motto. The filled small areas like the date and motto are usually common.Although they do not command the high premiums like Doubled Die errors,They are fun to collect and you can put together a really neat collection at a very resonable cost.Nice to see a new face in the crowd.
Errors are fun!

stevenamills · October 28, 2004 8:10AM

<< 

The thing that always makes me immediately suspicious is that every double-struck coin I've seen from this era has the second strike between K-11:30 and K-1:30, which conveniently allows both dates to show. Yet I can't recall seeing even a single double-struck Lincoln from that era with the second strike at K-3:00 to K-9:00 and neither date showing.

>>

FWIW:

So you like errors huh, check this one out

Comments

Leave a Comment