First:
For the past few days I have been doing research on the minting of US Proof coins from 1950-1963. I spent hours trolling the Internet and the Library of Congress. The two major areas were the number of times a 1962 Proof Franklin was struck and what coin presses were used to strike the Proof. Unfortunately, the results, thus far, are very ambiguous. Most literature agrees that “Modern” proof coins are struck at least twice. However, the word “Modern” is a moving target. Depending on the source, “Modern” can begin anywhere from 1936 to 1970. Almost all resources agree that beginning in 1970, all proofs were struck at least twice. Even in the Mint reports and press releases, depending on the date of publication, the “Modern” proof era begins in either 1950 or 1970. Equally as vague is the use of either hydraulic or mechanical presses to stamp proof coins for this period. The only thing that can be said for sure is that it was likely that the Philadelphia Mint had access to both types of presses in the 1950’s.
At the Library of Congress, The Annual Report of the Director of the Mint for the years 1950-1963 is available online through the following link: https://lccn.loc.gov/09034686. Click on this link and then click on the link next to the words: “Electronic copy from HathiTrust”. I have been combing the reports, which are accounting and production records, to extract purchase information for coin press equipment but so far, no luck.
The takeaway from all this is that the generation of the ghost image needs to be explained independently of multiple strikes or type of physical coin press. I know this will be a point of contention since it is an arbitrary limitation. Despite what I may personally believe, there is no citable evidence (yet) that Proof coins were struck more than once. However, before crying “absurd”, let me emphasize an observation that others have interjected but not pursued. Substitute the word “impression” for the word “strike”. This is a paradigm shift in explaining the anomaly. The ghost phenomenon is no longer constrained by “how many” or “which” press machine. The reality is that ghosts exist (pun intended). All the clues on how and when it appears are on that coin. It is clear that there are multiple “impressions” of the obverse die on the surface of the coin. “Impressions” do not necessarily imply “strikes”. It is possible to get multiple impressions from a single “strike”. To date, based on his personal experience and observation, @dcarr has given the best explanation for the anomaly. However, I think it bears further analysis for a conclusive explanation. If the application of pressure from the physical contact of a non-hub doubled die onto the planchet surface occurred only once, what scenarios could produce multiple images on the surface of a coin?
Okay, based on the information and knowledge of all the participants is this post, I went back to the drawing board, so to speak, and “rethunk” it. In truth, I have the luxury to refer back to the coin in my possession. Other posters must depend on my images to support their perspective. The reality is that I am unintentionally biasing the discussion by only supplying images that support my opinion. I made a list of minting variables that can possibly interact to result in the ghost phenomenon. I sincerely tried to include ever poster’s insight, observation, and opinion. I then used research or other poster’s expertise to include, extrapolate, or discard these variables. Next, I photographed all the areas of the coin that are pertinent to the opinions and minting variables and some images that were extraneous but possibly germane. For the sake of brevity (too late ), I did not include copies of any images previously provided. In addition, it took herculean effort to resist “marking-up” the images with arrows, shape, etc. that might prove to be distracting. Below are the images:
Detail of the "Y" right bar. (Ok, one markup. I couldn' help myself
Bottom of "G"
Bottom of "S"
if you click on the previous posts image of the full obverse and reverse, the image becomes full size.
Depending on the point of reference (right/left up/down), notice that on the letters on the upper legend "LIBERTY" The direction of the doubling is always down/up but progressively begins to shift laterally to the right too. Consequently, the doubling becomes progressively wider on the left side of the letters. Conversely, the doubling in the Motto is modestly down/up but the shifts is lateral to the left.
Also, what is that ghost circle on the "I" in Liberty??? Is this a clue of just an extraneous artifact?
A curiosity that supports the ghost as the First impression is the intrusion of the ghost image into the lower coin rim on the detail of the Motto "G" and "S". Under no conceivable scenario could the correct alignment of the die/planchet place an obverse impression on the rim of a coin. This suggests the ghost image was caused by a misalignment (dah!). Possibly the Die was not properly set in the hammer or the planchet that was not fully seated into the collar. I think either of these variables could cause multiple impressions from a single strike.
The gouged wedges in the top of the "Y" and bar of the "2" suggest violent movement during the application of pressure to the hammer die. Could either the misaligned die or planchet have "snapped" back into alignment as the pressure was increased? The declination/inclination of the die/planchet from the horizontal plane would determine the direction and extent of the doubling. Could the initial pressure from the press create the misaligned ghost image but after the "snap" realignment, the proper die registration completed the relief? Thus two impressions from one strike. Would this explain the ghost image?
Based on all these images, do you have any further thoughts on what caused the multiple "impressions" on this coins?
It is not possible to get multiple impressions (with the first impression flattened to that extent) from a single strike.
You have not indicated if the reverse shows any signs of doubling. I am presuming that it does not.
What I do notice in your most recent pictures is that there appears there may be some irregular planchet issues along the rim below "GOD TRUST". A slightly defective planchet causing an unusual void between it and the collar in one area, and metal flow towards that area, coupled with a laterally-deflecting and/or slightly loose upper die fixture and multiple striking, fits into my scenario.
Can you provide a very accurate weight on the coin ? An irregular planchet might be off in weight by a small amount.
A picture of the edge reeding in that area, and 180 degrees from that area, may help also.
Here is a picture of a proof-like "1909-o" Morgan that I over-struck.
You can see the mashed-out outlines of the original host coin at the top of the wreath on the right side and also below the Eagle's beak (for example):
BTW, IMO it does not matter to me if the proofs were struck TWICE on a hydraulic press or a wine press. Until this iquestion is resolved (to my satisfaction) I'm going with the two strike method of manufactore that was passed down fifty years ago to my boss while the guys making the coins were still alive to explain what some knowledgeable folks alive today say is just "misinformation."
I see the ghost on your repunch. Ok, you are saying the ghost is created by two "Strikes" with a possible planchet defect causing extended lateral metal flow possibly coupled with a slightly loose hammer die. I am feeling a little uneasy with your words "it is not possible". How can you know that? From the time the die contacts the face of the planchet over 100,000 pounds of force is being applied to roughly a 30.5mm disc a few mm’s thick. That disc is confined to a space no bigger than 1000nm of the planchet. Anything can happen and does. If the snapback occurred during the first few moments of the squeeze the first impression would exist. After the snapback, there would be sufficient pressure remaining before the die reached the apex to impress the second image and flatten the first impression. Dismissing the possible deviation of the horizontal plane (die or planchet) without any explanation is too easy. Please explain.
Anyway, the weight of the coin is exactly 12.50 grams. My equipment can only weigh to the tenth of a gram. I am not set up to photograph edges so that will have to wait for tomorrow. A cursory examination of the reeded edge under a 5x ring light magnifier shows no deviation in either the formation, depth, or width of the reeds.
Anybody have one of the printed sheets that came inside the 1955-1964 flat packs? Does it say anything about the striking?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I refuse to accept the idea that the Mint has done anything the same way since 1817 or 1828 or 1858 or whenever. Times change, and with them equipment, personnel and techniques.
I do know that when I was with Collectors Clearinghouse (1974-78); ANACS (1978-84) and behind various coin shop counters (1984-2010) I saw so many Proof coins from 1968 to somewhere in the late 1970's with slight shifts between two strikings that I used to tell people that this was common and not worth a premium. I also saw that one 1967 SMS half with a curly hair (get your minds out of the gutters) struck into it twice with movement between the strikes, so that the random curly pattern appeared twice.
I KNOW that these coins were struck twice. When the phenomenon ended I cannot say. My best guess is in the late 70's.
I do not recall seeing many, if any, 1950-1964 Proofs with the same close double striking. Different time, different place, different equipment (unless Philly shipped their Proof presses west) and different personnel (ditto).
Somebody start a data base listing when close double striking is known, and when it is not. Let's not just say "They always did this!" or "They always did that."
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I see the ghost on your repunch. Ok, you are saying the ghost is created by two "Strikes" with a possible planchet defect causing extended lateral metal flow possibly coupled with a slightly loose hammer die. I am feeling a little uneasy with your words "it is not possible". How can you know that? From the time the die contacts the face of the planchet over 100,000 pounds of force is being applied to roughly a 30.5mm disc a few mm’s thick. That disc is confined to a space no bigger than 1000nm of the planchet. Anything can happen and does. If the snapback occurred during the first few moments of the squeeze the first impression would exist. After the snapback, there would be sufficient pressure remaining before the die reached the apex to impress the second image and flatten the first impression. Dismissing the possible deviation of the horizontal plane (die or planchet) without any explanation is too easy. Please explain.
Anyway, the weight of the coin is exactly 12.50 grams. My equipment can only weigh to the tenth of a gram. I am not set up to photograph edges so that will have to wait for tomorrow. A cursory examination of the reeded edge under a 5x ring light magnifier shows no deviation in either the formation, depth, or width of the reeds.
Below are some shots of the reverse:
If the coin and die were to somehow slip laterally (relative to each other) while they were in contact, there would be lateral slide marks on the coin. Traditional "machine doubling" has this effect. Your coin does not have any lateral slide marks. The die came down in one place and then came down again in a slightly different place.
Yes, I have seen the striations on the “shelf” spread of MD coins many times and learned to use it as a marker to distinguish MD from a true Doubled Dies. However, intrinsic to the forces that generated this coin, “…So the relief from the first strike tends to be mashed out more where the fields of the second die strike land…” Would this also be true for multiple impressions of a misalignment/realignment? The striations were formed but they were “mashed out” by the second impression.
Look at the “slippage” on the bar of the “2”. It forms a right angle wedge to the horizontal plane. The perspective would be a “<” if you were really tiny and standing on the surface of the coin. (The angle of the “<” is just figurative and is not that dramatic on the coin.) The shelving area of the “slide” above the wedge shows no striation but the “<” implies downward direction movement. During the “Snap”, as the back edge of the upper bar incusion boundary gripped and slid, it gouged the wedge into the bar of the “2”. The pressure and force of the second impression mashed out the striations that would have been formed by the “slid” just as it would do in a multi-strike scenario. The wedging is muted since the lifting of the die would have “rounded” the sharp edge.
@Intueor said:
Yes, I have seen the striations on the “shelf” spread of MD coins many times and learned to use it as a marker to distinguish MD from a true Doubled Dies. However, intrinsic to the forces that generated this coin, “…So the relief from the first strike tends to be mashed out more where the fields of the second die strike land…” Would this also be true for multiple impressions of a misalignment/realignment? The striations were formed but they were “mashed out” by the second impression.
Look at the “slippage” on the bar of the “2”. It forms a right angle wedge to the horizontal plane. The perspective would be a “<” if you were really tiny and standing on the surface of the coin. (The angle of the “<” is just figurative and is not that dramatic on the coin.) The shelving area of the “slide” above the wedge shows no striation but the “<” implies downward direction movement. During the “Snap”, as the back edge of the upper bar incusion boundary gripped and slid, it gouged the wedge into the bar of the “2”. The pressure and force of the second impression mashed out the striations that would have been formed by the “slid” just as it would do in a multi-strike scenario. The wedging is muted since the lifting of the die would have “rounded” the sharp edge.
That kind of notching is not from lateral sliding or slipping. It is from two separate strikes that are not perfectly aligned. I over-strike a lot of coins and I see that exact result all the time. I will look and see if I have an example to photograph.
Ooops! I am wrong again! @dcarr Do not waste your time answering the above. I have examined all my Proof Franklins and have found the followng:
Several other examples of "Ghosting":, some with doubling some with no doubling in the device Images.
Images that suggest strong evidence the 1950-1963 proof Franklins were struck at least twice.
My naivety might show here, but I have to ask. You can razz me later.
Do the shapes and sizes of these artifacts remain "constant" as either the coin or light source move around? I THINK I have seen this effect while incorrectly cherry-picking proof DDO/DDRs online via photos. Many times when I receive suspected doubled coins, they end up being "normal". My thinking is what I saw in these potential doubled coins was more a product of lighting and reflection into the field than true doubling.
Applying those lessons here, could the coin's devices be casting little shadows into a highly mirrored and reflective surface and producing this effect?
We are going to be posting about this until the end of time UNLESS we stop writing about the shift of metal on the relief. IMHO, that has nothing to do with the outline of a letter (ghost) that is flattened-out because it was produces as the dies pulled away from the SECOND STRIKE.
Next the tiny circle. I just saw one last week on Franklin Proof. The do not come off w/acetone and seem to be something that gets on the coin at the mint. They appear to be a tiny drop of something clear. I don't image them anymore but I will be on the lookout now for both a "Ghost Proof" and one with the "drop." On occasion the drop contains a bubble (crystalized spit? LOL)
Now when is image one I belief that was on the field of the first strike and it also became "ghosted" after the second. If true, how's that for another "twist."
@wooglout
I am embarrassed to admit the amount of money I have wasted making the same misinterpretation of online images. Your query is by no means naïve. On the contrary, it is based on experience and, as such, a valid input. I have a passion for Franklin varieties and many times, I see what I want to see, not what is there. In the end, I do obtain some nice additional pieces for my collection. There just not what I had hoped. However, in this case, I assure you that I have meticulously vetted each photographic image to eliminate reflection, lighting, and lens artifacts. I actually shoot the images with to physically different lighting setups, and cameras to double check. Thanks.
I have spent the last few hours microscopically examining ever Proof Franklin half dollar in my collection (100+ lost count!). Eleven pieces, all with some degree of cameo from light to DCAM, showed signs of a varying degree of ghost images only on the Obverse (?) In the initial phase, I pulled out all the ghost image slabs and put them aside for detailed inspection. During the first phase, I “thought” I saw a few ghost pieces that had no doubling but this turned out to be false. Next, during the second phase, I examined every piece under a 40x Stereomicroscope. The result was every “Ghost” Franklin Proof I examined in the second phase showed varying degrees of doubling. However, none was as dramatic as the 1962 Proof OP. The JEPG’s below were shot through PCGS slabs, which impart a slight level of glare. They have been photo edited ONLY to reduce the glare. Some images are below:
1959 Proof65 CAM PCGS001a.jpg
1959 Proof65 CAM PCGS001b.jpg
1960 Proof68 DCAM PCGS002a.jpg
1960 Proof68 DCAM PCGS002b.jpg
1960 Proof68 DCAM PCGS002c.jpg
While I was searching through my slabbed Proofs, I can across a variety I found years ago that I had completely forgotten. I had a note on the slab the said: “Check for DDO or Strike Doubling”. If the images below are Strike Doubling, then this is supporting evidence that 50’ era Proofs were struck at least twice. There is no ghost on this coin as it only illustrates possible evidence of Proofs being struck twice.
**1952 Proof66 PCGS StrikeDoubling003a
**
1952 Proof66 PCGS StrikeDoubling003b
1952 Proof66 PCGS StrikeDoubling003c
This is my takeaway at this point in the post:
Again, @dcarr’s explanation fits 90%+ of the technical factors that created the ghost image. My only reservation is the misalignment of the die registration on the First Strike. How could it be so off center? However, without dcarr's experience, expertise, and phenomenal patients, along with the invaluable input of all the other posters, I would still be totally in the dark wondering if ghosts are real.
There is evidence to support 1950-1963 Proof Franklin Half Dollars were struck more than once. I am going to FOIL the US Mint in Philadelphia in the hope of resolving this issue.
The analysis implies that ghost images only appear the obverse of a coin (thus far only Proof) that shows some degree of Strike Doubling. If you see a ghost ion a proof coin, put it in the “Later box”.
I'M SO JEALOUS! Now that we are discussing these coins I CANNT FIND EVEN ONE!!!
BTW, you are making me think and I don't recall seeing this type of "Ghost" doubling on a reverse. The other thing is most of it occurs on Franklin Proofs. I believe I am correct on both suppositions.
While cleaning up my computer of the excess images associated with this post, I came across two “spooky” artifacts in the image of the “Y” from the 1960 Proof68 DCAM PCGS002c in my previous post. Do you think PCGS would label it “Discovery Piece 1960 Proof 68 DCAM Franklin 50¢ Edgar Casey Ghosts”? Oh my, the Ghosts are real. Ok @dcarr explain this one
While cleaning up my computer of the excess images associated with this post, I came across two “spooky” artifacts in the image of the “Y” from the 1960 Proof68 DCAM PCGS002c in my previous post. Do you think PCGS would label it “Discovery Piece 1960 Proof 68 DCAM Franklin 50¢ Edgar Casey Ghosts”? Oh my, the Ghosts are real. Ok @dcarr explain this one
There could be a minor amount of hub doubling in the die itself.
Here is why the "ghosting" only appears on the obverse:
After the coin is struck the first time, it is locked in the collar and can not move laterally.
The coin is still resting on the lower die and so that locks the lower die in place as well.
Neither the coin nor the lower die can move in relation to each other.
Once retracted after the first strike, the upper die can relocate and the next time it comes down it might be in a slightly different position.
@Intueor said:
Again, @dcarr’s explanation fits 90%+ of the technical factors that created the ghost image. My only reservation is the misalignment of the die registration on the First Strike. How could it be so off center?
>
It is not as far off as you might think.
Imagine if you took an ordinary coin and stamped over it with totally flat dies. The lettering and other devices would be flat. But you would still see all the outlines of the original design. However, the lettering outlines would look significantly FATTER than they were before. This is because of the way the metal is pushed around (it spreads out as it is being pushed down).
Fat outlines make it look like there is more of a mis-registration between the strikes than there actually was.
Yes. I saw that in the image of your post of your proof-like "1909-o" Morgan Re-Strike and was curious. It also is consistent with the other ghost Proof images I posted. That is it, 100%. You did it As far as I am concerned, you have solved the mystery of the ghost story. From here on I will refer to it as "@dcarr's Ghosts".
Thank you!
PS. The "Spooky " post was a poor attempt at levity. I thought the artifacts in the blue circles looked like tiny apparitions. Guess not.
@Intueor said:
Yes. I saw that in the image of your post of your proof-like "1909-o" Morgan Re-Strike and was curious. It also is consistent with the other ghost Proof images I posted. That is it, 100%. You did it As far as I am concerned, you have solved the mystery of the ghost story. From here on I will refer to it as "@dcarr's Ghosts".
Thank you!
Ok. Or maybe a more technical term: Phantom Stampin'
PS. The "Spooky " post was a poor attempt at levity. I thought the artifacts in the blue circles looked like tiny apparitions. Guess not.
@Intueor said:
Again, @dcarr’s explanation fits 90%+ of the technical factors that created the ghost image. My only reservation is the misalignment of the die registration on the First Strike. How could it be so off center?
>
It is not as far off as you might think.
Imagine if you took an ordinary coin and stamped over it with totally flat dies. The lettering and other devices would be flat. But you would still see all the outlines of the original design. However, the lettering outlines would look significantly FATTER than they were before. This is because of the way the metal is pushed around (it spreads out as it is being pushed down).
Fat outlines make it look like there is more of a mis-registration between the strikes than there actually was.
Excellent point. I believe that the correct technical term for this spreading out phenomenon is "smooshing."
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
An error expert (anonymity promised) was knowledgeable and kind enough to examine the thread and offer an opinion. Apparently, this type of anomaly is well documented and is referred to as “Flat Field Doubling” (FFD). Early on in this thread, @cmerlo1 correctly identified the phenomena but I was too focused to follow through with researching his explanation. Please accept my apology cmerlo1. The correct explanation provided by @dcarr was a detailed systematic progression that actually describes the mechanical processes that create the FFD and is a testimony to his knowledge and skill. As for the two strike scenario, most sources support @insider2, dcarr, and others, this anomaly on a Proof, is caused by multiple strikes.
If you Google “Flat Field Doubling” there are several sites that have a wealth of information on FFD. A good link:
Comments
First:
For the past few days I have been doing research on the minting of US Proof coins from 1950-1963. I spent hours trolling the Internet and the Library of Congress. The two major areas were the number of times a 1962 Proof Franklin was struck and what coin presses were used to strike the Proof. Unfortunately, the results, thus far, are very ambiguous. Most literature agrees that “Modern” proof coins are struck at least twice. However, the word “Modern” is a moving target. Depending on the source, “Modern” can begin anywhere from 1936 to 1970. Almost all resources agree that beginning in 1970, all proofs were struck at least twice. Even in the Mint reports and press releases, depending on the date of publication, the “Modern” proof era begins in either 1950 or 1970. Equally as vague is the use of either hydraulic or mechanical presses to stamp proof coins for this period. The only thing that can be said for sure is that it was likely that the Philadelphia Mint had access to both types of presses in the 1950’s.
At the Library of Congress, The Annual Report of the Director of the Mint for the years 1950-1963 is available online through the following link: https://lccn.loc.gov/09034686. Click on this link and then click on the link next to the words: “Electronic copy from HathiTrust”. I have been combing the reports, which are accounting and production records, to extract purchase information for coin press equipment but so far, no luck.
The takeaway from all this is that the generation of the ghost image needs to be explained independently of multiple strikes or type of physical coin press. I know this will be a point of contention since it is an arbitrary limitation. Despite what I may personally believe, there is no citable evidence (yet) that Proof coins were struck more than once. However, before crying “absurd”, let me emphasize an observation that others have interjected but not pursued. Substitute the word “impression” for the word “strike”. This is a paradigm shift in explaining the anomaly. The ghost phenomenon is no longer constrained by “how many” or “which” press machine. The reality is that ghosts exist (pun intended). All the clues on how and when it appears are on that coin. It is clear that there are multiple “impressions” of the obverse die on the surface of the coin. “Impressions” do not necessarily imply “strikes”. It is possible to get multiple impressions from a single “strike”. To date, based on his personal experience and observation, @dcarr has given the best explanation for the anomaly. However, I think it bears further analysis for a conclusive explanation. If the application of pressure from the physical contact of a non-hub doubled die onto the planchet surface occurred only once, what scenarios could produce multiple images on the surface of a coin?
Okay, based on the information and knowledge of all the participants is this post, I went back to the drawing board, so to speak, and “rethunk” it. In truth, I have the luxury to refer back to the coin in my possession. Other posters must depend on my images to support their perspective. The reality is that I am unintentionally biasing the discussion by only supplying images that support my opinion. I made a list of minting variables that can possibly interact to result in the ghost phenomenon. I sincerely tried to include ever poster’s insight, observation, and opinion. I then used research or other poster’s expertise to include, extrapolate, or discard these variables. Next, I photographed all the areas of the coin that are pertinent to the opinions and minting variables and some images that were extraneous but possibly germane. For the sake of brevity (too late
), I did not include copies of any images previously provided. In addition, it took herculean effort to resist “marking-up” the images with arrows, shape, etc. that might prove to be distracting. Below are the images:
Detail of the "Y" right bar. (Ok, one markup. I couldn' help myself
Bottom of "G"
Bottom of "S"
if you click on the previous posts image of the full obverse and reverse, the image becomes full size.
Depending on the point of reference (right/left up/down), notice that on the letters on the upper legend "LIBERTY" The direction of the doubling is always down/up but progressively begins to shift laterally to the right too. Consequently, the doubling becomes progressively wider on the left side of the letters. Conversely, the doubling in the Motto is modestly down/up but the shifts is lateral to the left.
Also, what is that ghost circle on the "I" in Liberty??? Is this a clue of just an extraneous artifact?
A curiosity that supports the ghost as the First impression is the intrusion of the ghost image into the lower coin rim on the detail of the Motto "G" and "S". Under no conceivable scenario could the correct alignment of the die/planchet place an obverse impression on the rim of a coin. This suggests the ghost image was caused by a misalignment (dah!). Possibly the Die was not properly set in the hammer or the planchet that was not fully seated into the collar. I think either of these variables could cause multiple impressions from a single strike.
The gouged wedges in the top of the "Y" and bar of the "2" suggest violent movement during the application of pressure to the hammer die. Could either the misaligned die or planchet have "snapped" back into alignment as the pressure was increased? The declination/inclination of the die/planchet from the horizontal plane would determine the direction and extent of the doubling. Could the initial pressure from the press create the misaligned ghost image but after the "snap" realignment, the proper die registration completed the relief? Thus two impressions from one strike. Would this explain the ghost image?
Based on all these images, do you have any further thoughts on what caused the multiple "impressions" on this coins?
It is not possible to get multiple impressions (with the first impression flattened to that extent) from a single strike.
You have not indicated if the reverse shows any signs of doubling. I am presuming that it does not.
What I do notice in your most recent pictures is that there appears there may be some irregular planchet issues along the rim below "GOD TRUST". A slightly defective planchet causing an unusual void between it and the collar in one area, and metal flow towards that area, coupled with a laterally-deflecting and/or slightly loose upper die fixture and multiple striking, fits into my scenario.
Can you provide a very accurate weight on the coin ? An irregular planchet might be off in weight by a small amount.
A picture of the edge reeding in that area, and 180 degrees from that area, may help also.
Here is a picture of a proof-like "1909-o" Morgan that I over-struck.
You can see the mashed-out outlines of the original host coin at the top of the wreath on the right side and also below the Eagle's beak (for example):
BTW, IMO it does not matter to me if the proofs were struck TWICE on a hydraulic press or a wine press. Until this iquestion is resolved (to my satisfaction) I'm going with the two strike method of manufactore that was passed down fifty years ago to my boss while the guys making the coins were still alive to explain what some knowledgeable folks alive today say is just "misinformation."
@dcarr
I see the ghost on your repunch. Ok, you are saying the ghost is created by two "Strikes" with a possible planchet defect causing extended lateral metal flow possibly coupled with a slightly loose hammer die. I am feeling a little uneasy with your words "it is not possible". How can you know that? From the time the die contacts the face of the planchet over 100,000 pounds of force is being applied to roughly a 30.5mm disc a few mm’s thick. That disc is confined to a space no bigger than 1000nm of the planchet. Anything can happen and does. If the snapback occurred during the first few moments of the squeeze the first impression would exist. After the snapback, there would be sufficient pressure remaining before the die reached the apex to impress the second image and flatten the first impression. Dismissing the possible deviation of the horizontal plane (die or planchet) without any explanation is too easy. Please explain.
Anyway, the weight of the coin is exactly 12.50 grams. My equipment can only weigh to the tenth of a gram. I am not set up to photograph edges so that will have to wait for tomorrow. A cursory examination of the reeded edge under a 5x ring light magnifier shows no deviation in either the formation, depth, or width of the reeds.
Below are some shots of the reverse:
Anybody have one of the printed sheets that came inside the 1955-1964 flat packs? Does it say anything about the striking?
I refuse to accept the idea that the Mint has done anything the same way since 1817 or 1828 or 1858 or whenever. Times change, and with them equipment, personnel and techniques.
I do know that when I was with Collectors Clearinghouse (1974-78); ANACS (1978-84) and behind various coin shop counters (1984-2010) I saw so many Proof coins from 1968 to somewhere in the late 1970's with slight shifts between two strikings that I used to tell people that this was common and not worth a premium. I also saw that one 1967 SMS half with a curly hair (get your minds out of the gutters) struck into it twice with movement between the strikes, so that the random curly pattern appeared twice.
I KNOW that these coins were struck twice. When the phenomenon ended I cannot say. My best guess is in the late 70's.
I do not recall seeing many, if any, 1950-1964 Proofs with the same close double striking. Different time, different place, different equipment (unless Philly shipped their Proof presses west) and different personnel (ditto).
Somebody start a data base listing when close double striking is known, and when it is not. Let's not just say "They always did this!" or "They always did that."
If the coin and die were to somehow slip laterally (relative to each other) while they were in contact, there would be lateral slide marks on the coin. Traditional "machine doubling" has this effect. Your coin does not have any lateral slide marks. The die came down in one place and then came down again in a slightly different place.
Yes, I have seen the striations on the “shelf” spread of MD coins many times and learned to use it as a marker to distinguish MD from a true Doubled Dies. However, intrinsic to the forces that generated this coin, “…So the relief from the first strike tends to be mashed out more where the fields of the second die strike land…” Would this also be true for multiple impressions of a misalignment/realignment? The striations were formed but they were “mashed out” by the second impression.
Look at the “slippage” on the bar of the “2”. It forms a right angle wedge to the horizontal plane. The perspective would be a “<” if you were really tiny and standing on the surface of the coin. (The angle of the “<” is just figurative and is not that dramatic on the coin.) The shelving area of the “slide” above the wedge shows no striation but the “<” implies downward direction movement. During the “Snap”, as the back edge of the upper bar incusion boundary gripped and slid, it gouged the wedge into the bar of the “2”. The pressure and force of the second impression mashed out the striations that would have been formed by the “slid” just as it would do in a multi-strike scenario. The wedging is muted since the lifting of the die would have “rounded” the sharp edge.
That kind of notching is not from lateral sliding or slipping. It is from two separate strikes that are not perfectly aligned. I over-strike a lot of coins and I see that exact result all the time. I will look and see if I have an example to photograph.
Ooops! I am wrong again! @dcarr Do not waste your time answering the above. I have examined all my Proof Franklins and have found the followng:
Several other examples of "Ghosting":, some with doubling some with no doubling in the device Images.
Images that suggest strong evidence the 1950-1963 proof Franklins were struck at least twice.
It will take me a while to post the images.
My naivety might show here, but I have to ask. You can razz me later.
Do the shapes and sizes of these artifacts remain "constant" as either the coin or light source move around? I THINK I have seen this effect while incorrectly cherry-picking proof DDO/DDRs online via photos. Many times when I receive suspected doubled coins, they end up being "normal". My thinking is what I saw in these potential doubled coins was more a product of lighting and reflection into the field than true doubling.
Applying those lessons here, could the coin's devices be casting little shadows into a highly mirrored and reflective surface and producing this effect?
We are going to be posting about this until the end of time UNLESS we stop writing about the shift of metal on the relief. IMHO, that has nothing to do with the outline of a letter (ghost) that is flattened-out because it was produces as the dies pulled away from the SECOND STRIKE.
Next the tiny circle. I just saw one last week on Franklin Proof. The do not come off w/acetone and seem to be something that gets on the coin at the mint. They appear to be a tiny drop of something clear. I don't image them anymore but I will be on the lookout now for both a "Ghost Proof" and one with the "drop." On occasion the drop contains a bubble (crystalized spit? LOL)
Now when is image one I belief that was on the field of the first strike and it also became "ghosted" after the second. If true, how's that for another "twist."
@wooglout
I am embarrassed to admit the amount of money I have wasted making the same misinterpretation of online images. Your query is by no means naïve. On the contrary, it is based on experience and, as such, a valid input. I have a passion for Franklin varieties and many times, I see what I want to see, not what is there. In the end, I do obtain some nice additional pieces for my collection. There just not what I had hoped. However, in this case, I assure you that I have meticulously vetted each photographic image to eliminate reflection, lighting, and lens artifacts. I actually shoot the images with to physically different lighting setups, and cameras to double check. Thanks.
I have spent the last few hours microscopically examining ever Proof Franklin half dollar in my collection (100+ lost count!). Eleven pieces, all with some degree of cameo from light to DCAM, showed signs of a varying degree of ghost images only on the Obverse (?) In the initial phase, I pulled out all the ghost image slabs and put them aside for detailed inspection. During the first phase, I “thought” I saw a few ghost pieces that had no doubling but this turned out to be false. Next, during the second phase, I examined every piece under a 40x Stereomicroscope. The result was every “Ghost” Franklin Proof I examined in the second phase showed varying degrees of doubling. However, none was as dramatic as the 1962 Proof OP. The JEPG’s below were shot through PCGS slabs, which impart a slight level of glare. They have been photo edited ONLY to reduce the glare. Some images are below:
1959 Proof65 CAM PCGS001a.jpg
1959 Proof65 CAM PCGS001b.jpg
1960 Proof68 DCAM PCGS002a.jpg
1960 Proof68 DCAM PCGS002b.jpg
1960 Proof68 DCAM PCGS002c.jpg
While I was searching through my slabbed Proofs, I can across a variety I found years ago that I had completely forgotten. I had a note on the slab the said: “Check for DDO or Strike Doubling”. If the images below are Strike Doubling, then this is supporting evidence that 50’ era Proofs were struck at least twice. There is no ghost on this coin as it only illustrates possible evidence of Proofs being struck twice.
**1952 Proof66 PCGS StrikeDoubling003a
**
1952 Proof66 PCGS StrikeDoubling003b
1952 Proof66 PCGS StrikeDoubling003c
This is my takeaway at this point in the post:
Again, @dcarr’s explanation fits 90%+ of the technical factors that created the ghost image. My only reservation is the misalignment of the die registration on the First Strike. How could it be so off center? However, without dcarr's experience, expertise, and phenomenal patients, along with the invaluable input of all the other posters, I would still be totally in the dark wondering if ghosts are real.
There is evidence to support 1950-1963 Proof Franklin Half Dollars were struck more than once. I am going to FOIL the US Mint in Philadelphia in the hope of resolving this issue.
The analysis implies that ghost images only appear the obverse of a coin (thus far only Proof) that shows some degree of Strike Doubling. If you see a ghost ion a proof coin, put it in the “Later box”.
I'M SO JEALOUS! Now that we are discussing these coins I CANNT FIND EVEN ONE!!!
BTW, you are making me think and I don't recall seeing this type of "Ghost" doubling on a reverse. The other thing is most of it occurs on Franklin Proofs. I believe I am correct on both suppositions.
Great Thread!
Epilog:
While cleaning up my computer of the excess images associated with this post, I came across two “spooky” artifacts in the image of the “Y” from the 1960 Proof68 DCAM PCGS002c in my previous post. Do you think PCGS would label it “Discovery Piece 1960 Proof 68 DCAM Franklin 50¢ Edgar Casey Ghosts”? Oh my, the Ghosts are real. Ok @dcarr explain this one
There could be a minor amount of hub doubling in the die itself.
Here is why the "ghosting" only appears on the obverse:
After the coin is struck the first time, it is locked in the collar and can not move laterally.
The coin is still resting on the lower die and so that locks the lower die in place as well.
Neither the coin nor the lower die can move in relation to each other.
Once retracted after the first strike, the upper die can relocate and the next time it comes down it might be in a slightly different position.
>
It is not as far off as you might think.
Imagine if you took an ordinary coin and stamped over it with totally flat dies. The lettering and other devices would be flat. But you would still see all the outlines of the original design. However, the lettering outlines would look significantly FATTER than they were before. This is because of the way the metal is pushed around (it spreads out as it is being pushed down).
Fat outlines make it look like there is more of a mis-registration between the strikes than there actually was.
Yes. I saw that in the image of your post of your proof-like "1909-o" Morgan Re-Strike and was curious. It also is consistent with the other ghost Proof images I posted. That is it, 100%. You did it
As far as I am concerned, you have solved the mystery of the ghost story. From here on I will refer to it as "@dcarr's Ghosts".
Thank you!
PS. The "Spooky " post was a poor attempt at levity. I thought the artifacts in the blue circles looked like tiny apparitions. Guess not.
Ok. Or maybe a more technical term:
Phantom Stampin'
Ahh...
Well, it does now:
Excellent point. I believe that the correct technical term for this spreading out phenomenon is "smooshing."
So, let's be clear...Are proofs struck twice?
At least some of them are, absolutely, including the 1962 Franklin half dollar pictured here.
If anyone is still interested……
An error expert (anonymity promised) was knowledgeable and kind enough to examine the thread and offer an opinion. Apparently, this type of anomaly is well documented and is referred to as “Flat Field Doubling” (FFD). Early on in this thread, @cmerlo1 correctly identified the phenomena but I was too focused to follow through with researching his explanation. Please accept my apology cmerlo1. The correct explanation provided by @dcarr was a detailed systematic progression that actually describes the mechanical processes that create the FFD and is a testimony to his knowledge and skill. As for the two strike scenario, most sources support @insider2, dcarr, and others, this anomaly on a Proof, is caused by multiple strikes.
If you Google “Flat Field Doubling” there are several sites that have a wealth of information on FFD. A good link:
http://www.error-ref.com/?s=ffd
Well, that is it. Confirmed and Solved. Thank you all for your input and our host for this forum. (Sorry if I taxed your servers with the images.)
An excellent printed source is attached below and is for educational purposes.
Excellent posts!
Collector, occasional seller