Options
1999D Lincoln cent, struck twice in collar and rotated
Wavysteps2003
Posts: 17
Just an oddity that I ran across while searching some circulated rolls of Lincoln cents
Used a 2002D Lincoln cent for overlays showing the rotation.
Now to find out if there is a possibility that this was made from "soft"dies.
BJ Neff
Used a 2002D Lincoln cent for overlays showing the rotation.
Now to find out if there is a possibility that this was made from "soft"dies.
BJ Neff
BJ Neff
Member of: CONECA, Coppercoins, CFCC, FUN and NCADD. Retired Submariner Service, 21 years.
The opinions that I express do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations that I am a member of.
Member of: CONECA, Coppercoins, CFCC, FUN and NCADD. Retired Submariner Service, 21 years.
The opinions that I express do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations that I am a member of.
0
Comments
They call me "Pack the Ripper"
Hell, I don't need to exercise.....I get enough just pushing my luck.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Tiger trout, Deerfield River, c. 2001.
<< <i>What accounts for the different dates? Did the original (1999) version fall into a hopper of blanks in 2002? Or... >>
That is what I was wondering at first until I reread the thread. The 2002 was just used for a digital overlay.
Very cool find.
Brian
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Join the NRA and protect YOUR right to keep and bear arms
To protest against all hunting of game is a sign of softness of head, not soundness of heart. Theodore Roosevelt
[L]http://www.ourfallensoldier.com/ThompsonMichaelE_MemorialPage.html[L]
Hoard the keys.
My goodness, that thing is crazy. I will post pics if I can find the time tomorrow.
Here at the ANA Museum we're getting ready for Milwaukee! It will be an awesome show!
The Petition Crown is ready to go (I carried it today) (!) and the case for the Mints display of GOLD Sac's will be ready to go soon.
I hope to see many of you there!
I specialize in Errors, Minting, Counterfeit Detection & Grading.
Computer-aided grading, counterfeit detection, recognition and imaging.
Photoshop??? I don't know, but I don't like it.
If you're going to the ANA next week, I'd love
to see it in person ...
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
i hope fred gets a look at it!
keep us posted and
wavysteps2003
Tom DeLorey
I will admit that the overlays are not exact and do not fit percise. The obverse secondary image is off 1 degree (69 instead of 70 degrees) in rotation. I haven't been fooling with the Adobe # 7 that long to get the finer points down yet.
One thing to notice is the secondary partial rim from LIBERTY to the D in GOD. I am pretty much lost on trying to figure out exactly what happened, that is why I have enlisted Mike Diamond's help on this coin and another that appears to be triple struck (a 1998 Lincoln cent) without any rotation. I am sure if it is real and Mike thinks that it is important find, he will do an article in ERRORSCOPE on both of the error coins.
Thank you all for the interest that you have shown on this coin.
BJ Neff
Member of: CONECA, Coppercoins, CFCC, FUN and NCADD. Retired Submariner Service, 21 years.
The opinions that I express do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations that I am a member of.
designset
Treasury Seals Type Set
Equally perplexing is the absence of any trace of the presumed first strike on the obverse face, except where it is overlapped by Lincoln's face. Now, this isn't entirely unexpected, as the effective striking pressure is relatively low here. However, the obverse was struck through a thin layer of oil, and THAT generally has the effect of increasing the preservation of the first-strike design.
Still, my gut tells me this is real and I'm very interested to find out how and why this odd appearance exists. It could be that the incomplete design represents a very weak second strike, but that still doesn't explain why the right side of the Memorial is so strong in the field. This is a recessed part of the coin and a weak second strike should not show up here at all. I suppose it's possible that the die was deformed here so that this area was sunken on the die face and, therefore, raised on the coin. That could have led to a light strike. I am uncomfortable with what amounts to special pleading, however. Even if the die WAS deformed, it should be in the opposite direction. Progressive, indirect design transfer -- which creates a shallow, incuse ghost of Lincoln -- would leave a slight bulge in the die face and an even more recessed field. Also perplexing is the obvious mismatch in strength between the very weak obverse strike and the somewhat stronger reverse strike. Even in a weak second strike scenario, there should be rough parity between them. The obverse strike wouldn't have provided much resistance, especially since it was mostly empty space (the cavity corresponding to Lincoln's head) that contacted the first-strike bust. Under the weak second strike scenario, we'd expect to see some of the letters of LIBERTY on Lincoln's coat. Perhaps the relief wasn't great enough here.
If the weak second strike scenario is correct, then the "strike line" just inside the rim would have to be something else entirely, since the die couldn't have descended far enough to leave a trace here.
I can see why Fred has his doubts about the authenticity of this specimen. It may be that he is right. We shall see!
My doubts were based on the Overlay photos, not the one's
that BJ posted a few messages above this.
He emailed me those scans, and I told him that I thought the
coin was real.....
My confusion was based on the 1999/2002-D Overlays........
I'm pretty sure you'll find it genuine, but that's only my view basis
the scans......
Fred
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
The dies kissing a struck coin with raised details hit first in different areas than dies kissing a relatively flat planchet.
Because of the rotation between strikes, much of the memorial building on the second strike fell opposite the raised shoulder of Lincoln. Because of that void in the dies, there was not enough pressure through the coin to strike up the left end of the memorial building during the second strike.
Where the right end of the memorial building fell opposite the field in front of Lincoln's face, there was enough pressure through the coin to force the coin into the reverse die, striking up the right end of the memorial.
In my opinion, a genuine double strike and a neat error!
Tom DeLorey
As far as why the second strike was weak, who can say. A press shutdown is one of the less likely possibilities, in my opinion. Weak strikes caused by insufficient die approximation (evidently the case here) can occur instantaneously and are sometimes self-correcting. I have a triple-struck quarter in which the first strike was in-collar and the second and third strikes were progressively more off-center. The first strike was normal, the second very weak, and the third quite strong. All strikes were delivered by the same die pair. You can find double strikes in which the first strike is weak and the second strong, and vice versa.
Tom Delorey's explanation of why the second-strike Memorial is strongest in the field is supported by my observations. The first-strike head is quite a bit more flattened by the field portion of the die than I had thought. I also attributed most of the flattening apparent in the photo to an accumulation of oil or grease in the recess of the die face. That was an incorrect conclusion.
The coin was struck, put in the vat with the rest of them and eventually made its way back to the presses (presumably with a load of planchets) and was struck again.
I say this because (unless things have changed) the presses used for striking cents are gravity-fed. IE the planchets fall, and are struck in mid-fall. There's no way, in this situation, that the coin would stay there and rotate to be struck again.
Questions I asked myself while coming up with my conclusion;
There's no way the DIES would have rotated (moved/spun) WHILE the coin was still in the "Collar".
Any doubts about the coin being forced back into a collar to be struck again would be explained if the collar is a two-piecer. AND, if it did happen all at once, why isn't there another planchet thrown in there on top of it?
It sounds like I got angry with myself! :-)
Search for "Gravity"
I specialize in Errors, Minting, Counterfeit Detection & Grading.
Computer-aided grading, counterfeit detection, recognition and imaging.
<< <i>I do not believe this error happened at one time.
The coin was struck, put in the vat with the rest of them and eventually mad its way back to the presses (presumably with a load of planchets) and was struck again.
I say this because (unless things have changed) the presses used for striking cents are gravity-fed. IE the planchets fall, and are struck in mid-fall. There's no way, in this situation, that the coin would stay there and rotate to be struck again. >>
This coin was struck in 1999, when many Bliss presses were still in use. Coin are fed in horizontally in a Bliss press where there are lots of opportunities for a second strike. It's possible that the same die pair was involved in both strikes. It's possible that an adjacent die pair (in a dual or quad press) was involved.
However, I even question your starting assumption that such double-strikes are impossible in a Schuler press. There are quite a few in-collar double-strikes with significant rotation known among state quarters struck in Schuler presses. There are even more close double-strikes, triple-strikes, and quadruple strikes known from Schuler presses. Clearly, the presence of a gravity feed presents no insuperable barrier to multiple strikes.
That said, I can't rule out the possibility that we're dealing with a delayed second strike. I've got an article coming out on delayed second strikes and how to identify them. Unfortunately, strength of strike is not a useful diagnostic for identifying such a strike. Neither is the involvement of two different die pairs.