Fantastic Error! How did this this happen?
MrEureka
Posts: 24,286 ✭✭✭✭✭
This piece is actually two. There's the copper piece, which is (more or less) uniface, and a silver piece, which has an indentation in the center. The copper piece fits nicely into the indentation on the silver piece. Notice that the silver piece has been double struck, which is most obvious with Franklin's portrait. Also notice how Franklin's forehead on the copper piece does not line up with his forehead on the silver piece. How exactly did this happen?
Let's add the additional images here. I guess I was wrong in remembering that the copper piece was "more or less uniface".
Let's add the additional images here. I guess I was wrong in remembering that the copper piece was "more or less uniface".
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
0
Comments
Photoshop?
Honestly it looks kind of funky, if the silver piece has been double struck why is one head bigger then the other?
"Question your assumptions."
"Intelligence is an evolutionary adaptation."
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
1) Franklin was struck normally, on a normal 50c planchet.
2) Struck coin stayed in coining chamber.
3) A 1c blank was inserted above the struck 50c coin. (I make no claim whether the error was accidental or intentional; I lean towards the first.)
4) The struck 50c coin and 1c blank were struck again; the collar was depressed, resulting in a broadstrike.
We see the spread out first strike along the circumference on the 50c coin, and in its indented area. The portrait of the indented area aligns with the portrait of the first strike (expanded relative to the second strike due to the second strike being a broadstrike). The second strike of the 50c coin is strong on the center of the reverse, but weak elsewhere, because the 1c blank concentrated the strike into that area.
The 1c coin is a brockage (reverse is one of the 50c obverse), due to the first strike of the 50c coin.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Let's assume that this piece had help. A half dollar planchet and a cent planchet are deliberately placed in a coin press and struck without a collar. Both pancake outwards.
The struck half, with the indent from the cent in it, is put back in the press with a fresh cent planchet in the indent and struck. The second cent pancakes out to the borders of the indent during the second strike.
TD
If it stayed together maybe it would be a 64
<< <i>I would guess that someone made it on purpose. >>
What he said. Dated 1963.
Half Dollar struck normally. Half Dollar and Cent Blank then struck together, as a broad strike. Both coins pancake outward.
BTW, I don;t believe for a second that either one was an accident as much as I believe these were "made to order".
The name is LEE!
TD
Whether it was struck by accident, or had
some help does not make it a non-error coin.
We call it a Mint Error coin - and the subset,
which some like to discuss, is whether it was
struck by accident, or on purpose. That can
be a ligitimate discussion, but it's still a Mint
Error - at least in my view.
By the way, I purchased the two pieces from
another dealer who bought out an estate of
coins, including some very nice errors. I won't
disclose those details at this time, and let the
discussions continue.
Perhaps the two head sizes is due to Ben being two faced?
V/R
S
The Franklin half was broadstruck first, possibly more than once;
then the cent planchet was deliberately placed atop it--note how the date digits on the two sides of the cent do not line up--and broadstruck again.
TD
<< <i>Let's start again.
The Franklin half was broadstruck first, possibly more than once;
>>
I doubt the first strike is a broadstrike, the lettering extends to the edge; there is no "blank" ring around the strike.
Fred, you've seen the coin raw, right? Is the edge reeded?
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's start again.
The Franklin half was broadstruck first, possibly more than once;
>>
I doubt the first strike is a broadstrike, the lettering extends to the edge; there is no "blank" ring around the strike.
Fred, you've seen the coin raw, right? Is the edge reeded? >>
Look at the foreshortening of the lettering in IN GOD and AMERICA on the wider silver strike. What could have caused that?
Why was the date on the silver strike already expanded outwards
before the copper date was struck atop it?
Good question about the reeding. Fred?
TD
One view is it could be an "assisted" error.
My counterview would be the coins came out near perfect--just as the producer intended--so I have a hard time calling that an error. Granted they were not authorized by the mint to do that....
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
The head of Franklin doesn't line up in the raw picture of both pieces together because the cent off metal is not placed upon the half correctly.
<< <i>An extremely nice error mated pair, assisted or not. It's a Half first struck normally and then broadstruck with a cent planchet struck into it.
The head of Franklin doesn't line up in the raw picture of both pieces together because the cent off metal is not placed upon the half correctly. >>
Look at where the date is on the normal copper image relative to the edge of the copper piece, and then look at where the date is on the incused copper image relative to the edge of the copper piece.
The raised image on the silver piece, which caused the incusation on the reverse of the copper piece, was expanded BEFORE the copper piece was struck atop it.
TD
I specialize in Errors, Minting, Counterfeit Detection & Grading.
Computer-aided grading, counterfeit detection, recognition and imaging.
<< <i>I don't really care if that one or the Ike example posted were natural errors or assisted errors, either way they are pretty darn cool!!!!
All I'll says is... please put my name in the giveaway... they are all cool enough for me.
Steve
In memory of the USAF Security Forces lost: A1C Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 9/28/05; SSgt Brian McElroy, 1/22/06; TSgt Jason Norton, 1/22/06; A1C Lee Chavis, 10/14/06; SSgt John Self, 5/14/07; A1C Jason Nathan, 6/23/07; SSgt Travis Griffin, 4/3/08; 1Lt Joseph Helton, 9/8/09; SrA Nicholas J. Alden, 3/3/2011. God Bless them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war. I will never forget their loss.
Those Boy's at the Mint are getting creative...
Currently Listed: Nothing
Take Care, Dave
<< <i>I don't really care if that one or the Ike example posted were natural errors or assisted errors, either way they are pretty darn cool!!!!
Wonder what would happen if ? ? ? . . .
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
Yes, it's reeded, from the first original strike.
<< <i>It is a genuine Mint Error -
Whether it was struck by accident, or had some help does not make it a non-error coin.
We call it a Mint Error coin - and the subset, which some like to discuss, is whether it was struck by accident, or on purpose. That can be a ligitimate discussion, but it's still a Mint
Error - at least in my view.
By the way, I purchased the two pieces from another dealer who bought out an estate of coins, including some very nice errors. I won't disclose those details at this time, and let the discussions continue. >>
I totally agree with you Fred, the coin is a Mint Error and should be labeled as a mint error. But IMO the error didnot occur during the minting process. The "error" occured when some mint employee set aside his work ethic to produce this coin. Just like the 1913 Liberty nickels.
At the time, there were few safeguards in place to prevent this type of activity but that has all changed.
Don't get me wrong as I'd really like to have one of these but I seriously doubt that this is anything other than a "made to order" error.
<< <i>Those Boy's at the Mint are getting creative...
The folks that did this are long gone friend. I recall someone here stating that they took one of the ANA's mint floor tours and all pocket change that did not get removed before they went on the floor ..............was confiscated after the tour. It didn't matter. Security is fairly tight and the technology has changed so much that you may never see error's like this produced in the future.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>It is a genuine Mint Error -
Whether it was struck by accident, or had
some help does not make it a non-error coin.
We call it a Mint Error coin - and the subset,
which some like to discuss, is whether it was
struck by accident, or on purpose. That can
be a ligitimate discussion, but it's still a Mint
Error - at least in my view.
By the way, I purchased the two pieces from
another dealer who bought out an estate of
coins, including some very nice errors. I won't
disclose those details at this time, and let the
discussions continue. >>
I find it fascinating that at least some knowledgeable players in the error market consider this type of product a letigimate error even if they believe it to be intentionally produced. This is perfectly similar to those who love white, scrupulously untoned coinage so much that they buy repeatedly dipped and lightly cleaned VF Capped Bust halves because they are white as the driven (dull) snow; or as appropriate to those who love wonderfully toned, apparently original coinage who will spend thousands upon thousands for laughable, AT coinage in the form of cotton candy war nickels, neon blueberry early '60s proofs or Ikes that have garnered a name remniscent of a bird; or perhaps even those who collect Lincoln cents and are willing to buy an altered 1944-D to slip into the 1914-D slot.
In my opinion, which admittedly is not well versed with errors, this was an illicit production, custom made piece that does not deserve the implied respect of a TPG slab or a huge value by someone fluent in the niche.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>
In my opinion, which admittedly is not well versed with errors, this was an illicit production, custom made piece that does not deserve the implied respect of a TPG slab or a huge value by someone fluent in the niche. >>
So I guess we should crack out the 1913 Liberty nickels and 1804 dollars too.
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>
<< <i>
In my opinion, which admittedly is not well versed with errors, this was an illicit production, custom made piece that does not deserve the implied respect of a TPG slab or a huge value by someone fluent in the niche. >>
So I guess we should crack out the 1913 Liberty nickels and 1804 dollars too.
Sean Reynolds >>
I don't like those, either.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Still cool. Still collectible. But not an error.
TD
You are two of the opinions I respect the most here but in this case i want to show you the error in your thinking and why this is indeed a mint error.
1. It was made at the mint.
2. It is an not what the mint is contracted to make, thus it is an error.
Every process (such as that to make coins) has an equipment portion and a human portion. If either one fails then the result is negative and if it results in a coin of incorrect material properties, then we call it an error. If, as you believe, this malfunction was of human nature, then the Mint, being a modern company with a modern corrective action program, would give this to their Human Performance coordinator to address. So what you are discussing is which part of the process broke down, the machinery, or the personnel. In most cases we see malfunctions of the machinery. In this case we may have a malfunction of the human element. Of course it was long ago and cannot be specifically addressed but we see so few of these it appears the mint addresses it pretty well.
--Jerry
The chance that someone will win the lottery is very very small but someone does win once in a while, or is the lottery fixed?
San Diego, CA
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
"error" in the same sense that 1913 nickels are "coins"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>That is a good point, Jerry, and quite logical. However, we appear to disagree on what may be no more than semantics and this would be the how or motive that the error came into manufacture. It seems you are claiming a malfunction of the human component of the organization and the way I would interpret that would mean a physical error or oversight error by humans in the production or quality control of the coins. I view this as an intentional product produced outside the parameters of Mint guidance and without Mint authorization and secreted away to exit in a manner that would elude observation. Certainly, one might claim this is an error in oversight and thus a Mint error. I think it more accurate to label it as a product of intentional and unauthorized use of US Mint machinery. Is that an error? I guess it depends on how broadly you cast the oversight error net vs. outright fraud and deception. >>
Ok. but if you think of the human part of the equation as an organization rather than an individual, then the intent of the organization (management, supervisors, procedures, processes, quality control, etc) is clearly to produce only the minted products. The intent of one individual to do something else is a "malfunction" of the organization. --jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>That is a good point, Jerry, and quite logical. However, we appear to disagree on what may be no more than semantics and this would be the how or motive that the error came into manufacture. It seems you are claiming a malfunction of the human component of the organization and the way I would interpret that would mean a physical error or oversight error by humans in the production or quality control of the coins. I view this as an intentional product produced outside the parameters of Mint guidance and without Mint authorization and secreted away to exit in a manner that would elude observation. Certainly, one might claim this is an error in oversight and thus a Mint error. I think it more accurate to label it as a product of intentional and unauthorized use of US Mint machinery. Is that an error? I guess it depends on how broadly you cast the oversight error net vs. outright fraud and deception. >>
Ok. but if you think of the human part of the equation as an organization rather than an individual, then the intent of the organization (management, supervisors, procedures, processes, quality control, etc) is clearly to produce only the minted products. The intent of one individual to do something else is a "malfunction" of the organization. --jerry >>
Absolutely agree.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>Good Mornin'
Yes, it's reeded, from the first original strike. >>
Thank you.
Now, if the first strike was normal sized, in the collar, and the final strike was the cent planchet atop an already expanded coin, then there must have been a second strike from the half dollar dies that was a broadstrike, with the strike of the cent planchet atop the expanded coin being the third strike.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>That is a good point, Jerry, and quite logical. However, we appear to disagree on what may be no more than semantics and this would be the how or motive that the error came into manufacture. It seems you are claiming a malfunction of the human component of the organization and the way I would interpret that would mean a physical error or oversight error by humans in the production or quality control of the coins. I view this as an intentional product produced outside the parameters of Mint guidance and without Mint authorization and secreted away to exit in a manner that would elude observation. Certainly, one might claim this is an error in oversight and thus a Mint error. I think it more accurate to label it as a product of intentional and unauthorized use of US Mint machinery. Is that an error? I guess it depends on how broadly you cast the oversight error net vs. outright fraud and deception. >>
Ok. but if you think of the human part of the equation as an organization rather than an individual, then the intent of the organization (management, supervisors, procedures, processes, quality control, etc) is clearly to produce only the minted products. The intent of one individual to do something else is a "malfunction" of the organization. --jerry >>
So the "error" part was in hiring this person in the first place?
The name is LEE!
is an error by definition or not, but I can say
that the "market" buys/sells/trades them as
errors, and will continue to do so, no matter
what the intend was for the coin.
You can each determine for yourself what YOU
would call it, but I can tell you that every person
who would buy it, collect it, keep in their collection,
and so on, considers it an error - your 'subset'
definition of what's an 'error' and what is 'intentional'
is fine - for your purposes.
I guess that's what these Boards are for. Continue
the discussion folks.
is an error by definition or not, but I can say
that the "market" buys/sells/trades them as
errors, and will continue to do so, no matter
what the intend was for the coin.
You can each determine for yourself what YOU
would call it, but I can tell you that every person
who would buy it, collect it, keep in their collection,
and so on, considers it an error - your 'subset'
definition of what's an 'error' and what is 'intentional'
is fine - for your purposes.
A similar debate could easily be had about patterns, as the majority of items in the Judd book were made for no legitimate purpose. Instead, they were made so they could be sold to collectors. I've often thought that if I were to collect US patterns, I would stick to the legitimate ones. Funny thing is, I don't think I would feel that way about collecting errors. I guess it all boils down to personal preference.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.