Check out my new FANTASTIC 11 CENT TWO HEADED MONSTER error!!
ThePennyLady
Posts: 4,481 ✭✭✭✭✭
I just picked up this amazing little two headed monster at the Fremont show. A customer traded it to me for my 1869/69 NGC MS66 RB (plus gave me some additional cash), so you can get an idea how pricey these "two guys" were. I've seen pennies struck on a dime planchet before, but never when the dime was already struck, and what makes this error even more special is that both of the presidents' images line up perfectly together. I showed it around at the Fremont show and everyone was oooohing and awwwwing over it. Even Jack Beymer and Dr. Eugene Bruder were both pretty wowed by this piece and discussed how it would be possible for the error to happen naturally, with the already struck dime getting stuck in the hopper and then when the hoppers were later moved around, the hopper with the dime in it was filled with penny planchets, and then the dime got fed into the penny dies and was struck again there. Whether it was accidental or man made, it's a very very unique error. So what do you all think?
0
Comments
I was a Monkey
<< <i>...the dime is a mod most likely intentional error... >>
And how do you figure that it is most likely an intentional error?
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
wow, that is crazy looking. Nice pickup and thanks for sharing.
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
<< <i>
<< <i>...the dime is a mod most likely intentional error... >>
And how do you figure that it is most likely an intentional error?
Lane >>
easy ....dude at the mint is pissed at his boss...throws a handful of finished dimes into the cent press hopper.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
And by the way, nooo problem with your pictures this time!
<< <i>That is a fantastic looking error Charmy. That would be an awful tough decision trading your 1869/69 Indian though. I would have a definite case of sellers remorse and believe me, I know about that. >>
Here's the 1869/69 that I gave up. Yes, it's a beauty and it was in my personal collection, but I bought one in MS65 RB that I liked better because it was toned. It was a tough decision to part with this 66 RB, and I know others won't necessarily agree, but those who know me know that I love toned coins and I really like the look of the one I have.
Here's the one I "traded":
Here's the one that's now in my personal collection:
In any event, let's get back to the error - has anyone seen any similar ones?
The Penny Lady®
<< <i>
<< <i>...the dime is a mod most likely intentional error... >>
And how do you figure that it is most likely an intentional error?
Lane >>
I have the benefit of seeing it in hand. It is a real cool piece. The one thing that strikes me as maybe intentional is how well it lines up. Lincoln was struck just a tad off center. For a random coin through the process this would be tough to do but sure is possible. Regardless it is just real cool and wont get pried from Charmys hands anytime soon. It doesnt really matter how something like this happened, it did happen and now we get to enjoy!
<< <i>And by the way, nooo problem with your pictures this time!
Hmmmm, the pictures probably came through better on these because these happen to be linked directly to Todd's website (my coin photographer). Did the 1869/69's come through ok? Those are from my website.
The Penny Lady®
<< <i>
<< <i>And by the way, nooo problem with your pictures this time!
Hmmmm, the pictures probably came through better on these because these happen to be linked directly to Todd's website (my coin photographer). Did the 1869/69's come through ok? Those are from my website. >>
Red Xs here on the 69/69.
<< <i>
<< <i>...the dime is a mod most likely intentional error... >>
And how do you figure that it is most likely an intentional error?
Lane >>
Probably the same way that the Sacagawea Dollar Mules were made or better yet, probably with the same intentions that this one was made:
Not trying to take away from the uniqueness or value of Charmy's coin because it certainly is a very valuable collectible. But I also believe that before the US Mint started clamping down on their internal security that there were some folks who worked there that knew the value of some of these error's.
As to whether or not this one was man made, unless its history is documented, one will never know for sure. That history begins with whomever first got their hands on it and how they got their hands on it.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Cool but how could you give up an 1867/7 ms66, in my mind there is no comparison, the dime is a mod most likely intentional error and the latter is a classic error.
Edited to add, I thought it was an 1867/7, but it wasn't
Mr Brunner why do you believe it wasn't an intentional error? >>
The former is simply repunched date with hundreds/thousands of examples, the dime is a unique error. I'm not the biggest fan of moderns either, but this is one WAY COOL ERROR, IMO.
Nicely centered and blemish free!
peacockcoins
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Very neat error and probably the most dramatic I've seen of its type...but no way would I part with that Indian for it. And the market for that error is much thinner than for the Indian. But collecting is about what you like. And that's an easy coin to like. Congrats. >>
Well, as I mentioned above, the 1869/69 MS66 RB was an "extra" coin that was for sale any way, since I had replaced it with one I liked better. So really, I now have two DIFFERENT coins in my collection that I love. Don't get me wrong, that 66 RB is a killer coin, and I did agonize over which one of the 1869/69's to keep since the one I liked was a lower grade, but toning makes all the difference to me. Any way, me and my customer are both very happy campers with the deal!
The Penny Lady®
Here's another one.
Auction results
Actually I like the alignment of Charmy's better. Anyone know how many are known?
<< <i>Very cool!
Here's another one.
Auction results
Actually I like the alignment of Charmy's better. Anyone know how many are known? >>
Same year also....
Yes, it’s impressive, but if it was intention, that kind of takes some the luster off of it.
<< <i>
<< <i>This is an interesting item, but my interest and respect is lowered by the fact that this coin was made during a time when U.S. mint employees were guilty of some hanky-panky. They were making mint errors for personal fun and profit.
Yes, it’s impressive, but if it was intention, that kind of takes some the luster off of it. >>
Of course, to each his/her own, but I am very happy with the transaction. And I only mentioned the deal included the 1869/69 to give you an inkling of the value at least I placed on this error - it was not mentioned to be a comparison of one coin being better to own than the other - they are in two different leagues in my view (no apples/oranges discussion necessary ;-) ). As I mentioned above, I now have two very different coins in my personal collection that I am completely happy owning, and my customer has an awesome coin in his too. Don't forget, I also received cash for the transaction, so it was not an even swap by any means. Yes, of course that 1869/69 is a fantastic high grade coin, but it was one I didn't need since I was happy with the other one pictured above.
Actually, I wasn't even looking to own an error like this one, but when I first saw it, I went "WOW!" - it was so unique, intentionally made or not, that it was worth it TO ME to make the deal with my customer. Simply put, this error coin "tickles my fancy"! And isn't that what coin collecting, or collecting anything for that matter, is all about? Perhaps to you, or others, you would not have done this, but then again, you probably didn't already have another awesome 1869/69?
The Penny Lady®
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
<< <i>Very cool!
Here's another one.
Auction results
Actually I like the alignment of Charmy's better. Anyone know how many are known? >>
Wow, Rick, thanks for finding that link, it's very interesting!
The Penny Lady®
<< <i>Cool but how could you give up an 1867/7 ms66, in my mind there is no comparison, the dime is a mod most likely intentional error and the latter is a classic error.
Edited to add, I thought it was an 1867/7, but it wasn't
Mr Brunner why do you believe it wasn't an intentional error? >>
First, I never said it wasn't intentional. My question was to why would somebody immediately think it was more likely an intentional error.
It really is a neat coin and a nice example of a double denomination, but these are not that rare (Fred Weinberg currently has at least four in inventory) and they are known to occur for many different years. This type of error (double denomination) is also known for nickels on cents (which are much more rare). The really rare ones are the errors with two different dates (see here).
The same bins are used to tote planchets and struck coins. If a bin of struck dimes is not emptied properly and a few dimes get caught in the "cracks," then when the bin is reused to move cent planchets into the hoppers before striking, a struck dime can get dislodged and make its way into the striking chamber. These are perfectly reasonable errors to occur during the normal minting process as opposed to those that were helped (e.g. Sac mules).
Thus, it seems more reasonable to me that it was an accidental error than some mint worker playing around.
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>This is an interesting item, but my interest and respect is lowered by the fact that this coin was made during a time when U.S. mint employees were guilty of some hanky-panky. They were making mint errors for personal fun and profit.
Yes, it’s impressive, but if it was intention, that kind of takes some the luster off of it. >>
If I remember the news stories from that era, the coins were legitimate mint errors but instead of throwing them into the melting pot, they were being smuggled out by some crooked mint employees.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
ok, maybe half-sister because it is on a struck half dime (1857)
www.brunkauctions.com
<< <i>The one thing that strikes me as maybe intentional is how well it lines up. >>
That was my thought as well. You have only about a 3% chance of randomly coming within 5 degrees of perfect alignment either way.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>Want to see it's older sister??
ok, maybe half-sister because it is on a struck half dime (1857) >>
Savoy, Very nice coin, even better since it's an Indian cent, so do they call this a 1 1/2 cent?
The Penny Lady®
<< <i>
Probably the same way that the Sacagawea Dollar Mules were made or better yet, probably with the same intentions that this one was made:
Not trying to take away from the uniqueness or value of Charmy's coin because it certainly is a very valuable collectible. But I also believe that before the US Mint started clamping down on their internal security that there were some folks who worked there that knew the value of some of these error's.
As to whether or not this one was man made, unless its history is documented, one will never know for sure. That history begins with whomever first got their hands on it and how they got their hands on it. >>
Of course it was "man made" (all coins are, after all
That Ike is a neat "error" for sure. It was intentionally made that way, and here is my reasoning.
As you know, US Mint proof coins are normally struck twice. The only way that Eisenhower's ear and head detail could show up inside the circular depression is if it was stamped at least once before the cent blank was placed on top of it. And once a struck coin is ejected from the collar, it will NOT fit back into the collar again. So the only way this coin could have been made is as follows:
1) Someone stamped the IKE normally once, without ejecting it from the collar.
2) Before the second proof strike was made, the machine was stopped and a cent blank was inserted into the coining chamber on top of the struck Ike.
3) The assembly was struck a second time and then ejected normally.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Probably the same way that the Sacagawea Dollar Mules were made or better yet, probably with the same intentions that this one was made:
Not trying to take away from the uniqueness or value of Charmy's coin because it certainly is a very valuable collectible. But I also believe that before the US Mint started clamping down on their internal security that there were some folks who worked there that knew the value of some of these error's.
As to whether or not this one was man made, unless its history is documented, one will never know for sure. That history begins with whomever first got their hands on it and how they got their hands on it. >>
Of course it was "man made" (all coins are, after all
That Ike is a neat "error" for sure. It was intentionally made that way, and here is my reasoning.
As you know, US Mint proof coins are normally struck twice. The only way that Eisenhower's ear and head detail could show up inside the circular depression is if it was stamped at least once before the cent blank was placed on top of it. And once a struck coin is ejected from the collar, it will NOT fit back into the collar again. So the only way this coin could have been made is as follows:
1) Someone stamped the IKE normally once, without ejecting it from the collar.
2) Before the second proof strike was made, the machine was stopped and a cent blank was inserted into the coining chamber on top of the struck Ike.
3) The assembly was struck a second time and then ejected normally. >>
Which makes it a MM-error!
The name is LEE!
Every once in a while, a coiner would lose a finger to the machinery. Or worse, the just the outer skin part of their finger. It seemed like it happened every other year.
Messing around with coin stamping machines seems foolhardy.
Just me.
How common are Double Denom Strikes anyways.
I personally would keep the classic error.
TheKid!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
Need a Banner Made? PM ME!
<< <i>I think I would have not traded the 1869/69 NGC MS66 RB for this 11c.
Just me.
Since you probably don't already have an 1869/69, I can understand your point of view. However, not to beat a dead horse here, but perhaps you missed the part that the 1869/69 was a DUPLICATE - I would not have done the deal with this 1869/69 had it been my ONLY ONE. And as I mentioned above, I also received cash so it was not a straight out trade, the transaction was a very good deal in my eyes.
And it is my understanding that there are only 10-20 known of this error, so intentionally made or not, it is truly rare, and I love having it in my collection!
The Penny Lady®
Charmy, many here don't read very well.
Tremendously cool error!
<< <i>
And it is my understanding that there are only 10-20 known of this error, so intentionally made or not, it is truly rare, and I love having it in my collection! >>
Charmy,
That rarity estimate may be true of double denominations with two different dates, but double-denominations with the same date are a bit more common than that. There was a large collection of these errors auctioned off by Bowers & Merena at the 2003 ANA, I found some old research I compiled around that time. I found 15 dual-dated cents on dimes at that time (including four 2000-P cents struck on 1999-P dimes), between the auction and the ANACS pop reports. Cents struck on dimes with the same date are more common than that, IIRC the sale included several examples as well. 11-cent pieces are considerably less common than cents on dime planchets.
I don't and won't make any judgement on your trade, I just wanted to give you some proper context. In my book, if both parties are happy at the end of the day that is really all that matters.
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
Very cool coin btw