2015-S Silver Odd Strike Doubled Reverse Kisatchie Quarters Found- New Question for Error Experts -

MsMorrisine

edit: - New Question - Is this a new form of a Double Strike ?

Here's Mine
(taken by hand, and not with the stand)





=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


link to story


The interesting part is that I have a set (1 out of 10 ordered) that has this same type of error.

Mine shows the bottom parts of LOUIS instead. And mine is offset to the lower right instead of the lower left!


And for the "microscope complaint crowd" -- it does not require a lens of any kind to see.

This is their picture.

A picture from me will likely come tomorrow night, as I've got a lot of little things to do. like return the 8 silver sets back to the mint.

Rampage

That's awesome!

oih82w8

Seems like there are some monkey-shines going on at the mint this year.

Neat variety!

guitarwes

Cool. Can't remember the last time I've bought a proof set from the Mint.

DIMEMAN

NOW....that is neat! I wonder why just the "LO"?

ricko

Unique indeed.... makes me wish I had continued my silver mint set run.... Cheers, RickO

CuKevin

Very neat indeed. Thanks for sharing the story.

pf70collector

I like it. but is it worth much? Not like the Duke Ellington though.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
for those that didnt read the details. the LO is incuse!

my mind isnt ready to accept strike doubling at this point, of ANY kind.

ill be interested to see where we go with this, in the future of course.

thanks for posting!

for posterity and for those that didnt figure out the letters, or lack thereof, are on a raised rim (like i didnt duh ), they are.


.

dcarr

<< <i>link to story


The interesting part is that I have a set (1 out of 10 ordered) that has this same type of error.

Mine shows the bottom parts of LOUIS instead. And mine is offset to the lower right instead of the lower left!


And for the "microscope complaint crowd" -- this is not as dramatic as the 55 cent DDO, but it does not require a lens of any kind to see.

This is their picture.

A picture from me will likely come tomorrow night, as I've got a lot of little things to do. like return the 8 silver sets back to the mint.

>>



I believe that artifact is due to a secondary impact with the die. The die itself does not have doubling in it.
The "LO" letters protrude on the die, and the rim is the highest point on the struck coin. So it is very plausible for them to make contact during ejection from the collar.

MsMorrisine

The depth on these seem shallower than true lettering.

I haven't looked closely at mine yet, but the first glance has me thinking they are nearly as deep as the true lettering.


perhaps they are via contact, but I wonder and ask if the motion would not cause a deformation of the letters' shapes or some kind of pre-/post- contact marks while moving over the die....

LanceNewmanOCC

.
by the article stating the extra letters are incuse, i infer the normal letters are not.

and if they are not, then the letters on the die are recessed so they can be raised on the die.

and if they are recessed on the die, they cannot therefor be incuse on subsequent strikes without further striking anomalies occurring.
.

CaptHenway

On the coin the lettering of the state name is incused. This means that it is raised on the die. The extra letters are incused and up on the raised rim of the coin.

I suspect that what happened is that somehow after the coin was struck the raised rim came in contact with the raised lettering on the die and left two incused letters on the rim.

MsMorrisine

<< <i>On the coin the lettering of the state name is incused. This means that it is raised on the die. The extra letters are incused and up on the raised rim of the coin.

I suspect that what happened is that somehow after the coin was struck the raised rim came in contact with the raised lettering on the die and left two incused letters on the rim. >>




I changed the title

The article, captain and dcarr are correct

I guess the coin came in contact with the die again. I'm not sure about it doing so while ejecting.

As far as the article goes, I found one, it's also kisatchie, so it may not be that rare of a strike doubling on this issue. But maybe not. My bet is more of the same are waiting to be found.

UTTM07

Maybe the extra letters were from a misalignment in the laser froster. That would lead to a raised letter on the die from abrading the area around it and a recessed letter on the coin.

MsMorrisine

bump for new question in the top of the OP

MsMorrisine

bump for addition of photos of my coin.


still wondering if it could be considered a slight double strike error vs. a machine doubling error. After all, double struck coins are done by the machine. It is just a matter of how the "extra image" was imparted, I think.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
nice image MsMorrisine

also, ty for clarification about the lettering dcarr & captin noty
.

asheland

That's really cool!

guitarwes

<< <i>bump for addition of photos of my coin.


still wondering if it could be considered a slight double strike error vs. a machine doubling error. After all, double struck coins are done by the machine. It is just a matter of how the "extra image" was imparted, I think. >>



Is there a proper term for "ejection doubling" or is it just that?

CaptHenway

I think that the second one confirms my theory.

That said, I am open to considering a new name for this type of doubling where it shows up separated by quite a distance (relatively speaking) from the original image, unlike plain ol' "Machine doubling." Any suggestions?

MsMorrisine

i think having a good idea how it happens is going to be important for the name.


I will say the obverse is unremarkable.


you think an impact from ejection is really strong enough to do this? And it wouldn't "blur" the image or leave scrapes? If so, ejection doubling might be a good name.

JBN

Took a look at my new silver proof sets.

Part of the O, U and a hint of the S.
[/URL]

CaptHenway

This is not the typical machine doubling. Something is causing the raised rim on the coin to come back in contact with the raised letters of the legend after the strike, and I don't know if it is the die moving sideways or, more likely, the coin moving during ejection.

I haven't heard that the proof presses have changed recently, but I don't know that I would have heard if they had. Perhaps something on that press on that day was not working properly?

Still thinking about what to call these.

messydesk

The secondary image was not made with the coin in the collar. The problem with coming up with a clear name is that the terms strike doubling, machine doubling, and ejection doubling are often used interchangeably, and to complicate matters, double struck and strike doubled are different. I wouldn't say double struck, since it didn't receive blows meant for two different coins. For me, ejection doubling always comes with scrape marks originating at the primary image. I envision it as the coin being ejected before being clear of the die after a single strike, but perhaps that's just all the 1881-S dollars I've seen. The common strike doubling always looks like the die bounced while the coin was in the collar. I'd call this out-of-collar strike doubling, as the secondary contact was incidental like that of traditional strike doubling.

MedalCollector

Mike Diamond is good with the error terminology - I'd wait for him! I wouldn't be surprised if he has already viewed the same type of error and given it a name.

ricko

This becomes more interesting as the discussion continues... I think I will look for one of these... Cheers, RickO

guitarwes

Or out-of-collar contact doubling.
Or out-of-collar die contact doubling.
Or die contact ejection doubling.