I'm no expert, but that piece sure looks like it was pressed in a vice with a second coin. If the preceding coin didn't eject, flipped, and got struck a second time creating the incuse design, where did the portrait on this coin come from? I'll look forward to smarter replies.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
It doesn't look like a real "error", but it's interesting. And some of these were done back in the 1880's and 1890's, I believe (I read something somewhere about them actually being done at the mint by a bored guard or something. Maybe total hogwash and maybe I misremember the details, but I saw something. My brain is like a sieve.)
Back in 1999, I had a very similar Indian cent, (1882, I think it was). In addition to the curious "clash" marks on the obverse, the reverse was "clashed" with the reverse of a Seated dime. It was a cool enough "pseudo-error" that I bought it. Paid maybe six or eight bucks. Got twenty or thirty on eBay, without claiming it was a genuine error.
How do obverse clash marks appear on the obverse of a coin?
Don -
I'm no expert either, and I find this one a brain teaser. I thought along the same lines as you -- but why is the Indian profile and the 1 in 1890 apparently the last strike of this coin? A vice strike would have obliterated the upper portion of the 1 in the date (by the 0 of the date) and left an impression in the Indian profile. This coin looks like the initial planchet flipped and stuck to the obverse die, struck twice (I see two feather strikes on the left side of the Indian) against a new planchet, fell off and then made a quadruple strike on the new planchet.
That's what it looks like, but I find it hard to believe. Please, someone give me the play by play of how it was really made.
<< <i>... some of these were done back in the 1880's and 1890's, I believe (I read something somewhere about them actually being done at the mint by a bored guard or something. Maybe total hogwash and maybe I misremember the details, but I saw something. My brain is like a sieve. >>
A silent-but-wise lurker just PM'ed me this:
<< <i>Actually, your memory is intact-mirror reverse-hydraulic press-single collar-ex-Smythe-Mint employee-layered "tinning" to create clash effect- effort was to "create" ddo, -usually on Scovill planchet.. Believe Ruddy ran this down. >>
A little tough to decipher, but see? My brain has not turned to tapioca pudding yet! (Not entirely, anyway.)
<< Actually, your memory is intact-mirror reverse-hydraulic press-single collar-ex-Smythe-Mint employee-layered "tinning" to create clash effect- effort was to "create" ddo, -usually on Scovill planchet.. Believe Ruddy ran this down. >>
Okay, now I understand
Can anyone here explain the "mirror reverse-hydraulic press-single collar-ex-Smythe-Mint employee-layered "tinning" to create clash effect" process to me? I have all night.
<< <i>Can anyone here explain the "mirror reverse-hydraulic press-single collar-ex-Smythe-Mint employee-layered "tinning" to create clash effect" process to me? I have all night. >>
It has something to do with the dilithium crystals in the warp drive.
I think I understood about a third to a half of it. Enough to know that I was right- I did hear about these somewhere. They're not "legitimate" errors, BUT they do have some rather interesting history to them.
<< <i>Scovill supplied planchets for Bronze I.H. C. -, I think until 1906,07, when Mint started up again. Reason for ddo attempt as I recall, was because of the infuence of Snowden and his various writings on the subject of quality on the IHC.
P.S., protest by Mint workers, maybe, against Snowden? We will probably never know. >>
As others have already indicated, this is a "vise job" or "sandwich job", or "hammered coin". A cent was squeezed or hammered into the obverse of this cent. It's not a mint error.
--Mike Diamond
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
<< <i>"Explain how this one was made and if it's authentic."
Mike Byers, Rich Schemmer, Fred Weinberg or any other error guys...put this thread to rest. >>
It's a real coin but not a mint error and as many have told you already, it was hammered or squeezed in a vice with another coin on top of it. Take a few lincolns from your pocket change and go outside with a hammer. Stack the coins on the cement and give them a good hard whack. Take a look at the coin that was in the middle ......... do this and you will have answered the question that you seem to be having such a hard time with.
It appears, from the scans, to be a simple "sandwhich" coin, where another coin was pressed into this piece.
Very common, very easy to do, and again, unquestionably NOT an ERROR....
Fred Weinberg
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
Hope the above 2 posters aren't the high bidders.......
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko.
Thanks for your comments Fred & Mike. Can either of you explain how it was made, in detail? The last strike is often the tell-tail sign of an error, and in this case it looks like the date survived the last strike. How come the "0" from this sandwich strike didn't bisect the "1" and leave an indentation there? And why didn't the sandwich strike leave reverse impressions of the Indian on the Indian profile? The only obvious impressions a supposed sandwich/vice strike left were feathertip indentations in the fields and reverse impressions of the date.
I'm trying to figure out what happened to all the other relief design elements that would have been pressed into this coin by another 1890 by a vice. This is one of those threads that has received very general replies but nothing specific.
It really isn't worth your time or ours trying to figure out how someone did it. They did it.
Fred
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
The damage to the 1 in the date is from the "O" in the "OF" from a different coin whose date isn't evident in ths picture. The 1 should be in relief as is normal but pushed down in the center where it is damaged.
Usually these are made by sqeezing in an hydraulic press. -around 40 ton if memory serves.
Tweeked and edited to add that both coins are damaged in the process. In some areas one coin "wins" and in other areas the other does.
No hydraulic press is needed. A vise or a hammer will do the job quite nicely. Depth and coverage of the impressed, incuse design elements varies with the magnitude of the force, the angle of the force, and whether the force is centered or off-center. Narrow, raised design elements such as letters and numbers tend to resist deformation more than does the field.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
The damage to the 1 in the date is from the "O" in the "OF" from a different coin whose date isn't evident in this picture. The 1 should be in relief as is normal but pushed down in the center where it is damaged.
Cladking -- You supplied the best info to this post so far. I stand corrected, the underlying "0" under the "1" of the date is actually the "O" of OF -- not the zero from the date -- from a rotated IH. I'm still trying to understand how the "1" survived this later strike intact but I appreciate a post from someone who actually took a long look at this coin.
This is the sort of auction you see on EBay and think immediately "it can't be authentic". The error experts agree, but I have a problem with Fred's it really isn't worth your time or ours trying to figure out how someone did it. That's the fun of it! And it makes us more informed error collectors.
This is the sort of auction you see on EBay and think immediately "it can't be authentic". The error experts agree, but I have a problem with Fred's it really isn't worth your time or ours trying to figure out how someone did it. That's the fun of it! And it makes us more informed error collectors. >>
Certainly this is where the fun is, but these are virtually impossible to figure out.
Most of the ones I've seen were sqeezed in an hydraulic press in a stack of as many as ten or twelve coins. The coins are often just stacked at random so obverses may hit oth- er obverses or reverses. As pressure is slowly applied the coins bigin to deform. They first will bend so as to become flat to one another. Since thicknesses and positions vary the degree to which they cut into other coins will also vary.
No matter how these are done they can be very deceptive. Most incuse designs in reverse are done by one of these means. Many of these are seen of cents and dimes from the 1880's to the 1940's.
Many times looking at such things in a mirror can help a lot.
I assumed that the question had been answered pretty well in the previous 25 or so postings on this particular item.
What I meant was I didn't know if it was a hammer, vise, press, hydrolic press, train track, rock, scissors, papper,etc. and what part of the other coin was on this coin when "sandwhiched", and what was the "angle of the dangle", etc. - my point was it was a "sandwhich altered" coin - pressed by another coin - and discussed in pretty decent detail in all of the prior posts. I know the fun of trying to figure out how a true mint error is made, or what might cause another type of error on an error coin (double error, etc.). I am a great believer in knowing about the Minting Process.
I can now acknowledge that there are many collectors out there who would like to have a lenghthy discussion of exactly how an altered/damaged coin comes into exisitance.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
I can now acknowledge that there are many collectors out there who would like to have a lenghthy discussion of exactly how an altered/damaged coin comes into exisitance.
Fred - That was the point of my thread and you didn't come across as rude at all. As an error dealer you've developed a sixth sense for what is authentic and I'm sure you're presented with raw coins like this all the time.
This is like one of those AT toning threads where everyone agrees it's AT but can't exactly explain how it was done.
It's not that I've seen these thousands of times before - we all need to learn about them, and those of you who know me know that I willingly share my observations and experiences with errors.
Again, my point was that (after reviewing the thread -again- this morning, I felt it was very well addressed many many many times in the prior 25 posts, so I didn't see the point of continuing to go into such detail again and again.
Obviously, I didn't get the point of these threads - folks love to talk about the "fine" points of hammered coins.......
Fred
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Hammered coins are one of the easier fakes to diagnose and understand. There is an entire universe of fake errors, many of which we don't understand. It is not necessary to understand how a fake was made in order to make that determination. All you need to show is that the coin violates the finite constraints imposed by the minting process. Every fake presents one or more red flags that tip off the collector that something isn't right.
For example, in the case of the hammered coin, fakery is established by the fact that:
1. A genuine brockage on a second strike would result in great expansion if the coin is struck out-of-collar. If it was struck in-collar, there would be signs of excessive striking pressure, such as finning.
2. There are no known genuine brockages on a second strike among Indian cents.
3. Hammered coins are usually out-of-round, although they have fully formed design rims.
4. Hammered coins lack the matte surface that generally accompanies an indent or brockage on a second strike.
5. The opposite face of a hammered coin usually shows flattened design elements or another brockage, both of which will not be found in a genuine error.
6. The original design elements are abnormally well preserved in a hammered coin and the "brockage" is unusually light and unexpanded.
I could go on. But you see my point. You don't have to understand how a fake was made in order to condemn it.
There are very clever fakes out there that can fool an expert. I've been burned on more than one occasion by fakes that were so convincing it took me several years to determine they were bad.
-- Mike Diamond
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
I wrote the seller this morning and asked a couple of questions, addressing some of the points errormaven makes in his post above. You can scroll down the auction page and see it in the listing. The seller added the reverse pic and I can now say the coin is 100% authentic. You could conceivably take a hammer and smash the obverse of a normal cent to look like the obverse, but the reverse and rim would be horribly distorted in the process.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Just as a curiosity, I have a 1 rupee coin from India with a partial collar. Afterward, a fake brockage was impressed on the obverse face so forcefully that much of the obverse design was obliterated. But the reverse was completely unaffected. I don't know how it was done, but I know it's a fake because a small flap of metal that was torn up and folded over after all strikes were completed was mashed down by the fake brockage. If this clue was not present, I'd still be pondering it's authenticity. Another clue that it's fake is that there's no doubling on the reverse face, which would almost be a requirement of a partial brockage on the second strike.
I bought this coin from a well-known error dealer. I don't blame him at all for selling me this "enhanced error" as it took me two days to figure out it was bogus. I decided to keep it as an object lesson.
On one or two occasions, I've condemned a genuine error as fake because it violated rules I had always assumed were inviolate. Sometimes one's notions of what is, and isn't, possible in a coinage express must be expanded. But that doesn't happen very often.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
shylock
Posts: 4,288 ✭✭✭
Comments
I'm no expert, but that piece sure looks like it was pressed in a vice with a second coin. If the preceding coin didn't eject, flipped, and got struck a second time creating the incuse design, where did the portrait on this coin come from? I'll look forward to smarter replies.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Error experts... >>
Not me!
But I have had one like that.
It doesn't look like a real "error", but it's interesting. And some of these were done back in the 1880's and 1890's, I believe (I read something somewhere about them actually being done at the mint by a bored guard or something. Maybe total hogwash and maybe I misremember the details, but I saw something. My brain is like a sieve.)
Back in 1999, I had a very similar Indian cent, (1882, I think it was). In addition to the curious "clash" marks on the obverse, the reverse was "clashed" with the reverse of a Seated dime. It was a cool enough "pseudo-error" that I bought it. Paid maybe six or eight bucks. Got twenty or thirty on eBay, without claiming it was a genuine error.
Don -
I'm no expert either, and I find this one a brain teaser. I thought along the same lines as you -- but why is the Indian profile and the 1 in 1890 apparently the last strike of this coin? A vice strike would have obliterated the upper portion of the 1 in the date (by the 0 of the date) and left an impression in the Indian profile. This coin looks like the initial planchet flipped and stuck to the obverse die, struck twice (I see two feather strikes on the left side of the Indian) against a new planchet, fell off and then made a quadruple strike on the new planchet.
That's what it looks like, but I find it hard to believe. Please, someone give me the play by play of how it was really made.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
It's an angled lousy photo off of Ebay.
What I'm looking for is an explanation, not a generic reply. Tell me how it was forged.
<< <i>The coin doesn't even appear to be round any longer.
It's an angled lousy photo off of Ebay.
What I'm looking for is an explanation, not a generic reply. Tell me how it was forged. >>
Sure, just give us high resolution multiple-angle pictures first...
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream
San Diego, CA
<< <i>... some of these were done back in the 1880's and 1890's, I believe (I read something somewhere about them actually being done at the mint by a bored guard or something. Maybe total hogwash and maybe I misremember the details, but I saw something. My brain is like a sieve. >>
A silent-but-wise lurker just PM'ed me this:
<< <i>Actually, your memory is intact-mirror reverse-hydraulic press-single collar-ex-Smythe-Mint employee-layered "tinning" to create clash effect- effort was to "create" ddo, -usually on Scovill planchet.. Believe Ruddy ran this down. >>
A little tough to decipher, but see? My brain has not turned to tapioca pudding yet! (Not entirely, anyway.)
<< <i>You might have a pornographic memory, too. >>
That can be a liability at times.
Okay, now I understand
Can anyone here explain the "mirror reverse-hydraulic press-single collar-ex-Smythe-Mint employee-layered "tinning" to create clash effect" process to me? I have all night.
<< <i>Can anyone here explain the "mirror reverse-hydraulic press-single collar-ex-Smythe-Mint employee-layered "tinning" to create clash effect" process to me? I have all night. >>
It has something to do with the dilithium crystals in the warp drive.
Seriously, I'd appreciate some error expert input on this strange coin.
<< <i>Scovill supplied planchets for Bronze I.H. C. -, I think until 1906,07, when Mint started up again. Reason for ddo attempt as I recall, was because of the infuence of Snowden and his various writings on the subject of quality on the IHC.
P.S., protest by Mint workers, maybe, against Snowden? We will probably never know. >>
Mike Byers, Rich Schemmer, Fred Weinberg or any other error guys...put this thread to rest.
--Mike Diamond
<< <i>"Explain how this one was made and if it's authentic."
Mike Byers, Rich Schemmer, Fred Weinberg or any other error guys...put this thread to rest. >>
It's a real coin but not a mint error and as many have told you already, it was hammered or squeezed in a vice with another coin on top of it. Take a few lincolns from your pocket change and go outside with a hammer. Stack the coins on the cement and give them a good hard whack. Take a look at the coin that was in the middle ......... do this and you will have answered the question that you seem to be having such a hard time with.
It appears, from the scans, to be a simple
"sandwhich" coin, where another coin was
pressed into this piece.
Very common, very easy to do, and again,
unquestionably NOT an ERROR....
Fred Weinberg
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
I'm trying to figure out what happened to all the other relief design elements that would have been pressed into this coin by another 1890 by a vice. This is one of those threads that has received very general replies but nothing specific.
If you can answer this question, than I can give you an answer.
If I go from Los Angeles to New York, can you tell me how I did it?
San Diego, CA
It was made by another coin pressed into yours.
It really isn't worth your time or ours trying to
figure out how someone did it. They did it.
Fred
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
The damage to the 1 in the date is from the "O" in the "OF" from a different coin whose
date isn't evident in ths picture. The 1 should be in relief as is normal but pushed down in
the center where it is damaged.
Usually these are made by sqeezing in an hydraulic press. -around 40 ton if memory serves.
Tweeked and edited to add that both coins are damaged in the process. In some areas one
coin "wins" and in other areas the other does.
date isn't evident in this picture. The 1 should be in relief as is normal but pushed down in
the center where it is damaged.
Cladking -- You supplied the best info to this post so far. I stand corrected, the underlying "0" under the "1" of the date is actually the "O" of OF -- not the zero from the date -- from a rotated IH. I'm still trying to understand how the "1" survived this later strike intact but I appreciate a post from someone who actually took a long look at this coin.
This is the sort of auction you see on EBay and think immediately "it can't be authentic". The error experts agree, but I have a problem with Fred's it really isn't worth your time or ours trying to figure out how someone did it. That's the fun of it! And it makes us more informed error collectors.
<< <i>
This is the sort of auction you see on EBay and think immediately "it can't be authentic". The error experts agree, but I have a problem with Fred's it really isn't worth your time or ours trying to figure out how someone did it. That's the fun of it! And it makes us more informed error collectors. >>
Certainly this is where the fun is, but these are virtually impossible to figure out.
Most of the ones I've seen were sqeezed in an hydraulic press in a stack of as many as
ten or twelve coins. The coins are often just stacked at random so obverses may hit oth-
er obverses or reverses. As pressure is slowly applied the coins bigin to deform. They
first will bend so as to become flat to one another. Since thicknesses and positions vary
the degree to which they cut into other coins will also vary.
No matter how these are done they can be very deceptive. Most incuse designs in reverse
are done by one of these means. Many of these are seen of cents and dimes from the 1880's
to the 1940's.
Many times looking at such things in a mirror can help a lot.
I assumed that the question had been answered pretty well in
the previous 25 or so postings on this particular item.
What I meant was I didn't know if it was a hammer, vise, press,
hydrolic press, train track, rock, scissors, papper,etc. and what part of the other coin was
on this coin when "sandwhiched", and what was the "angle of the dangle", etc.
- my point was it was a "sandwhich altered" coin - pressed by another coin -
and discussed in pretty decent detail in all of the prior posts. I know the
fun of trying to figure out how a true mint error is made, or what
might cause another type of error on an error coin (double error, etc.). I
am a great believer in knowing about the Minting Process.
I can now acknowledge that there are many collectors out there who would
like to have a lenghthy discussion of exactly how an altered/damaged
coin comes into exisitance.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Fred - That was the point of my thread and you didn't come across as rude at all. As an error dealer you've developed a sixth sense for what is authentic and I'm sure you're presented with raw coins like this all the time.
This is like one of those AT toning threads where everyone agrees it's AT but can't exactly explain how it was done.
<< <i>It really isn't worth your time or ours trying to
figure out how someone did it. They did it. >>
I guess I need to grow some skin but,
I took it as being rude as hell.
Yea..I know.. I'll shut up now.
need to learn about them, and those of you who know me know that
I willingly share my observations and experiences with errors.
Again, my point was that (after reviewing the thread -again- this morning, I
felt it was very well addressed many many many times in the prior 25 posts, so I didn't
see the point of continuing to go into such detail again and again.
Obviously, I didn't get the point of these threads - folks love to talk about the
"fine" points of hammered coins.......
Fred
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
For example, in the case of the hammered coin, fakery is established by the fact that:
1. A genuine brockage on a second strike would result in great expansion if the coin is struck out-of-collar. If it was struck in-collar, there would be signs of excessive striking pressure, such as finning.
2. There are no known genuine brockages on a second strike among Indian cents.
3. Hammered coins are usually out-of-round, although they have fully formed design rims.
4. Hammered coins lack the matte surface that generally accompanies an indent or brockage on a second strike.
5. The opposite face of a hammered coin usually shows flattened design elements or another brockage, both of which will not be found in a genuine error.
6. The original design elements are abnormally well preserved in a hammered coin and the "brockage" is unusually light and unexpanded.
I could go on. But you see my point. You don't have to understand how a fake was made in order to condemn it.
There are very clever fakes out there that can fool an expert. I've been burned on more than one occasion by fakes that were so convincing it took me several years to determine they were bad.
-- Mike Diamond
San Diego, CA
I wrote the seller this morning and asked a couple of questions, addressing some of the points errormaven makes in his post above. You can scroll down the auction page and see it in the listing. The seller added the reverse pic and I can now say the coin is 100% authentic. You could conceivably take a hammer and smash the obverse of a normal cent to look like the obverse, but the reverse and rim would be horribly distorted in the process.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I bought this coin from a well-known error dealer. I don't blame him at all for selling me this "enhanced error" as it took me two days to figure out it was bogus. I decided to keep it as an object lesson.
On one or two occasions, I've condemned a genuine error as fake because it violated rules I had always assumed were inviolate. Sometimes one's notions of what is, and isn't, possible in a coinage express must be expanded. But that doesn't happen very often.
And most of the time...they make my head hurt!!
If I only had a dollar for every VAM I have...err...nevermind...I do!!
My "Fun With 21D" Die State Collection - QX5 Pics Attached
-----
Proud Owner of
2 –DAMMIT BOY!!! ® Awards