Options
Error folks -- decipher this brockage/counterbrockage/other
jonathanb
Posts: 3,747 ✭✭✭✭✭
I consider myself fairly expert when it comes to errors. This one has me stumped, though. Does anyone else want to take a shot at explaining what happened here? There are at least three separate things that need to be explained:
1) There is an expanded, rotated counterbrockage strike of the obverse. This can be seen with ERTY near 7:00 and 19xx near 2:00.
2) There is a weak, nonexpanded brockage strike of the reverse. This is in normal orientation relative to the reverse (which also is normal).
3) There is a strong, nonexpanded brockage within a football-shaped area from 11:00-2:00. This area is depressed relative to the rest of the face.
The rotated counterbrockage and weak brockage image form a known combination (a "brockage-counterbrockage" strike). A similar specimen was described in the Nov. 12, 2012 Coin World and is pictured online. That's fine enough. I can't come up with a sequence that produces the additional, sunken, strong football-shaped area on this one.
FWIW, this piece came with a note that it was found in a bag of 1977 cents. It is a normal-diameter copper cent, with a normal reverse.
1) There is an expanded, rotated counterbrockage strike of the obverse. This can be seen with ERTY near 7:00 and 19xx near 2:00.
2) There is a weak, nonexpanded brockage strike of the reverse. This is in normal orientation relative to the reverse (which also is normal).
3) There is a strong, nonexpanded brockage within a football-shaped area from 11:00-2:00. This area is depressed relative to the rest of the face.
The rotated counterbrockage and weak brockage image form a known combination (a "brockage-counterbrockage" strike). A similar specimen was described in the Nov. 12, 2012 Coin World and is pictured online. That's fine enough. I can't come up with a sequence that produces the additional, sunken, strong football-shaped area on this one.
FWIW, this piece came with a note that it was found in a bag of 1977 cents. It is a normal-diameter copper cent, with a normal reverse.
0
Comments
Festivus miracle?
That is really an interesting piece!
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Sure is neat, though! I love those errors that make you really scratch your head.
Coin A is struck but fails to leave the coining chamber, coming to rest atop the reverse die and rotated.
Coin B is struck atop coin A, receiving an incused brockage obverse on its underside. Coin B then adheres to the upper, obverse die and becomes a cap.
Coin B then strikes an unknown number of blank planchets, lets call them C thru X, creating a series of counterbrockages during which the incused cap wraps itself around the end of the upper, obverse die. As it spreads it becomes thin, but remains slightly thicker in the middle because the cap has a slight "dome" to it.
The press cycles without a blank planchet feeding into the collar. The dome of the Coin B cap kisses the reverse die and receives a weak impression of the Memorial and part of the T of CENT.
Planchet Y feeds in offcenter, above the ED STATES oF arc of the reverse die, and is struck down against that part of the die by the descending Coin B cap, receiving a strong off-center impression on what is now Coin Y. However, Coin Y bonds to the Coin B cap.
The combined Coin B/ Coin Y cap then strikes this coin, Coin Z, between the thin part of Coin B, the thick part of Coin Y, and the reverse die.
Of course these could be variations at different stages, but this sequence works.
TD
Neat.
Thanks!
TD
<< <i>Does the brockage consisting of ED STATES OF sit at a level higher, lower, or even with the less complete brockage that mainly consists of the Lincoln Memorial? >>
He stated that the area is depressed relative to the rest of the coin.
Here's my most recent treatment of brockage-counterbrockage errors:
http://www.coinworld.com/articles/numerous-pathways-lead-to-brockage-counterbro/
We agree that a counterbrockage cap expands during striking. We also know that copper cents have a uniform alloy, and that the dies were operated under a (theoretically) standard pressure. It seems reasonable to me that the amount of expansion on the first strike would also likely show some standard behavior.
Given that I've rarely (never?) seen a Lincoln cent counterbrockage with less expansion than this one, and given that I've seen a lot of counterbrockages with similar expansion, my guess is that this actually is a first-strike counterbrockage.
The entire production sequence could then collapse to four strokes of the die:
1) Coin A is struck but fails to leave the coining chamber, coming to rest atop the reverse die and rotated.
2) Coin B is struck atop coin A, receiving an incused brockage obverse on its underside. Coin B then adheres to the upper, obverse die and becomes a cap.
3) Coin C misfeeds, arriving off-center. It is struck by the cap, simultaneously producing a strong impression of the reverse on coin C, and also a weak impression of the reverse on the rest of the cap, which was already thinner as a result of having been struck in step (2) outside of the collar and unconstrained. Coin C fuses to the cap.
4) Coin D (this coin) feeds in properly, and is struck in the collar by the cap composed of the fused B and C.
It could still be a first-strike counterbrockage if the coin resting on the anvil die and the planchet fed on top of it were struck out-of-collar. Then both would expand, carrying the incuse letters on the reverse face of the top coin beyond the confines of the striking chamber. Then the first counterbrockage produced by the newly-formed cap would show quite a bit of the raised design elements cut off at the edge of the coin.
<< <i>Let me take a shot at it.
Coin A is struck but fails to leave the coining chamber, coming to rest atop the reverse die and rotated.
Coin B is struck atop coin A, receiving an incused brockage obverse on its underside. Coin B then adheres to the upper, obverse die and becomes a cap.
Coin B then strikes an unknown number of blank planchets, lets call them C thru X, creating a series of counterbrockages during which the incused cap wraps itself around the end of the upper, obverse die. As it spreads it becomes thin, but remains slightly thicker in the middle because the cap has a slight "dome" to it.
The press cycles without a blank planchet feeding into the collar. The dome of the Coin B cap kisses the reverse die and receives a weak impression of the Memorial and part of the T of CENT.
Planchet Y feeds in offcenter, above the ED STATES oF arc of the reverse die, and is struck down against that part of the die by the descending Coin B cap, receiving a strong off-center impression on what is now Coin Y. However, Coin Y bonds to the Coin B cap.
The combined Coin B/ Coin Y cap then strikes this coin, Coin Z, between the thin part of Coin B, the thick part of Coin Y, and the reverse die.
Of course these could be variations at different stages, but this sequence works.
TD >>
You really need to take a ride with my wife, because this is how she gives directions...and she thinks I'm the one who is lost!
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
The exact sequence, I'm not sure because it's hard to tell what all is going on from the photo, but those three basic error types appear to be at play on the coin. My best guess would be:
1. A coin is struck, stays on the anvil dies, and another planchet is fed on top of it, struck into it, creating an obverse die cap with a mirror brockage on it's reverse.
2.At some point the die cap rotates on the hammer die.
3.The die cap is perhaps struck into several planchets before, during a striking-cycle, a planchet fails to be fed into the press, resulting in the die cap's "clashing" with the anvil die, creating the raised memorial design on the bottom central-area of the die cap.
4.Another planchet is then fed into the press, but doesn't land directly between the dies, and is struck off-center. This off-center strike "sticks" to the obverse die cap, and when yet another planchet (this coin) is fed into the strike chamber, there is the perfectly aligned partial brockage.
<< <i> I say this because the top of the Memorial crosses both brockages and is perfectly aligned >>
That was my thought also.
<< <i>This is more or less what Capt. Henway suggested. So I do agree with your reconstruction of events, although the clashing of the cap and the striking of the intrusive off-center coin may have occurred simultaneously. I say this because the top of the Memorial crosses both brockages and is perfectly aligned. -- Mike Diamond >>
That was what I suggested in my amendment.