On another forum, this is the best reply to this missing crossbar. The reply is from someone who knows his stuff to
" I have a Question, Is it POSABLE the Die was not made correctly and that part of the E was missing and not seeing the mistake until many had been struck before it was noticed and changed out? Its pretty clean looking for a grease filled
Die Strike. Looks Proof like in the era of the missing part of the E...[/img]
If the die was not created correctly, all the devices would be affected, not just one. But grease in a dies single devices happen. The grease prevents the device to strike up. That is what happened on your coin. The coins are only struck once on business strike coins. Twice on a proof coin. But the dies are not changed until 3K coins are struck with them. (6K strikes for each of the 3K coins) So Grease Fill is the only thing I can think of that would alter your coin."
Did this person view the pictures? Might the less pronounced (or slim nature) thickness of the lettering be evidence of a weakly hubbed die, which was weak enough that the crossbar was not created in the die?
I looked through the 61 Proof nickels and some business strikes on CoinFacts, and the crossbar of the E is always in lower relief than the upright, so this seems to be an issue in the master die. Perhaps there was a hub break while creating the master die, causing the crossbar to not be impressed into the master as many times as the rest of the lettering. While there weren't any LIBCRTY coins in the CF pics, there was this one which shows more polishing than normal and a weak crossbar.
A little more polishing, and the crossbar is gone, leaving a weak, but complete upright, which seems to be what the OP coin shows. 1960 and 62 both have a fully formed crossbar on the E, so the problem was fixed when transferring the design to the 1962 master die. A grease fill would move to lower ground on the and impact the upright more, and not leave such a clean edge on the right side of the upright of the E.
@davewesen said: @messydesk I have a 1960 that is similar to what you describe, so it does cross years.
The structure of the E is different in 1961, though. Your picture tells me that perhaps rather than a hub break during manufacture of the master die, the upright of the E was strengthened because in 1960 it was seen as vulnerable to polishing, creating the "step" between the upright and crossbar. The lower relief crossbar could now be cleanly polished off the die without effacing the upright.
Comments
On another forum, this is the best reply to this missing crossbar. The reply is from someone who knows his stuff to
" I have a Question, Is it POSABLE the Die was not made correctly and that part of the E was missing and not seeing the mistake until many had been struck before it was noticed and changed out? Its pretty clean looking for a grease filled
Die Strike. Looks Proof like in the era of the missing part of the E...[/img]
If the die was not created correctly, all the devices would be affected, not just one. But grease in a dies single devices happen. The grease prevents the device to strike up. That is what happened on your coin. The coins are only struck once on business strike coins. Twice on a proof coin. But the dies are not changed until 3K coins are struck with them. (6K strikes for each of the 3K coins) So Grease Fill is the only thing I can think of that would alter your coin."
SweetC81,
Did this person view the pictures? Might the less pronounced (or slim nature) thickness of the lettering be evidence of a weakly hubbed die, which was weak enough that the crossbar was not created in the die?
I am still learning So I am not personally sure what is going on here.
Me too on this kind of stuff! Thanks for helping with the conversation on this one!
I looked through the 61 Proof nickels and some business strikes on CoinFacts, and the crossbar of the E is always in lower relief than the upright, so this seems to be an issue in the master die. Perhaps there was a hub break while creating the master die, causing the crossbar to not be impressed into the master as many times as the rest of the lettering. While there weren't any LIBCRTY coins in the CF pics, there was this one which shows more polishing than normal and a weak crossbar.
A little more polishing, and the crossbar is gone, leaving a weak, but complete upright, which seems to be what the OP coin shows. 1960 and 62 both have a fully formed crossbar on the E, so the problem was fixed when transferring the design to the 1962 master die. A grease fill would move to lower ground on the and impact the upright more, and not leave such a clean edge on the right side of the upright of the E.
Pretty cool.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
@messydesk I have a 1960 that is similar to what you describe, so it does cross years. But also in 1961 it seems to be a lower mintage item.
The structure of the E is different in 1961, though. Your picture tells me that perhaps rather than a hub break during manufacture of the master die, the upright of the E was strengthened because in 1960 it was seen as vulnerable to polishing, creating the "step" between the upright and crossbar. The lower relief crossbar could now be cleanly polished off the die without effacing the upright.
Here's a 1960 where the upright of the E is weak.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Whatever caused it, this is a cool variety!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Apparently first described in Coin World October 10, 1961 page 33.
Wow! Thanks for this post. I forgot I have one of these mint sets too.