Early U.S. Double strikes - particularly Bust Quarters, what do you think?

1TwoBits

Pictured below are some early U.S. coins. These are often referred to by collectors, dealers, auction lot writers, and auction companies as double struck. Sometimes the double strike leaves only traces of the second strike. while other times there is more detail remaining from the first strike. There was a thread a while back on bust half dollars that have dentil tracks remaining from a double strike and what people thought about them. They also exist on other denominations.

I'd like to hear comments and or theories from others on this topic.

Coin 1 (above), is an 1805 quarter submitted as a double strike. There are many examples on bust coins with these markings that are always referred to as double struck. They are called double struck in auction catalogs, a number of coin books I know of, and dealers and experts also refer to them as such. Russ Logan was also doing research related to these types of double struck coins before he passed, and it is noted in his auction catalog. It seems to me more like double strike remnants than any kind of post mint damage, or other explanation. How could a coin have enough force from just coming into contact with another to produce that deep and crisp of an impression, and retain that detail deep into the coin after major circulation? Also, if a coin came into contact with enough force, wouldn't that leave an incuse impression rather than what we see here (maybe I'm wrong on that)? I think that these markings may come from another coin stuck in the coining chamber after it has been struck. The coin stuck in the chamber imparts these details into the next coin when it is attempted to be struck. When mint employees notice, they fix the problem and then restrike the coin that was attempted to be struck with the coin that was already stuck in the press. So the coin would then be struck twice, and it was a result of the minting process and not post mint damage. The mint did not care about producing errors back then like they do today.

Here is an 1822 B-1 quarter from the Logan sale that mentions Russ is working on research related to the double struck dentil mark tracks:

Here an 1825 B-1 from the Jules Reiver sale with similar dentil tracks on the reverse called double struck in the lot write up (it was not labelled as double struck on the encapsulation insert):

"It would appear that this coin is double struck, with the first strike about forty percent off center as a line of incuse dentils are found from the motto ribbon below the E, crossing the eagle's wing near the top, to the eagle's neck. No evidence of double striking is seen on the obverse."

https://coins.ha.com/itm/bust-quarters/quarters-and-twenty-cents/1825-2-25c-b-1-r5-au58-ngc-die-state-i-wide-overdate-spine-left-from-lowest-arrow-point-pleasing-for-the-antique-sil/a/390-22402.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515

If you look at an off center strike, often the edge of the coin with the dentils goes deep into the coin. For that reason, sometimes that could be all that is left of the first strike after the impression of the second strike is made. Possibly due to the coin stuck in the press being at an angle. Sometimes other details remain, sometimes not (see the 1800 bust dime below). This example just happened to have a couple star remnants still show from the first strike on the obverse, otherwise it would have only been the reverse dentil tracks remaining of the double strike (the rim area seems to sometimes hold a bit of details from first strikes).

https://coins.ha.com/itm/early-dimes/dimes/1800-10c-double-struck-ms63-pcgs-cac/a/1114-1422.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

The 1800 dime also wasn't certified as double struck when is was encapsulated, but it wasn't called damaged either.

Here is another example on an 1818 quarter.

I also have a VF30 1824 quarter with dentil tracks on the reverse that was encapsulated problem free and not called damaged (I also consider it double struck, as did Brian Greer and David Finkelstein, whom I purchased it from).

So what do people think about these? Do you think they are double struck, post mint damage, or something else?

1TwoBits

Insider2

Let me ask a question as I never gave any thought to this until now. I'm quite sure over all these years much more informed folks than I have decided these are "double struck;" BUT....

Let's stick to one image, the first.

Try as I may, I cannot draw the edge dentical design on a die that would produce the curvature of the arc in the direction seen on this coin. It looks backwards.

CaptHenway

@Insider2 said:
Let me ask a question as I never gave any thought to this until now. I'm quite sure over all these years much more informed folks than I have decided these are "double struck;" BUT....

Let's stick to one image, the first.

Try as I may, I cannot draw the edge dentical design on a die that would produce the curvature of the arc in the direction seen on this coin. It looks backwards.

This picture seems to show the OUTER ends of an arc of denticles, the ends of the denticles you never see on a normal coin.

If so, what would have caused the indented line at the outer ends of the denticles? I always assumed (traditional comment about assumptions assumed) that the denticles just ran out to the edge of the field and fell off to oblivion. This looks like there was a narrow ring of the field around the ends of the denticles.

Does anybody have a "normal" off-center strike of this design type to see how the edges of the dies look?

1Bustcollector

Can anyone perform an exact overlay with the obverse dentils? I’m unable to do so at this time.

Insider2

@CaptHenway said:

@Insider2 said:
Let me ask a question as I never gave any thought to this until now. I'm quite sure over all these years much more informed folks than I have decided these are "double struck;" BUT....

Let's stick to one image, the first.

Try as I may, I cannot draw the edge dentical design on a die that would produce the curvature of the arc in the direction seen on this coin. It looks backwards.

This picture seems to show the OUTER ends of an arc of denticles, the ends of the denticles you never see on a normal coin.

If so, what would have caused the indented line at the outer ends of the denticles? I always assumed (traditional comment about assumptions assumed) that the denticles just ran out to the edge of the field and fell off to oblivion. This looks like there was a narrow ring of the field around the ends of the denticles.

Does anybody have a "normal" off-center strike of this design type to see how the edges of the dies look?

Note the direction of the denticals on the struck coin. They point INTO the field. They also point into the field on a die. On the die, they are lower than the field. Now, draw a part of the die at the rim that would strike a coin. I did this with a piece of transparent tissue. Notice the arc is in the opposite direction than on the coin? IMO, NOT double struck.

RogerB

A suggestion. Screw presses were subject to a common problem sometimes called "die bounce." After striking the planchet the screw moved upward, struck the upper range stop, bounced downward and made a second contact with the planchet. The workmen were supposed to prevent this and various mechanical lynch pins were supposed to avoid the problem.

Just a thought.

1Bustcollector

That’s where I’m trying to go....kinda

Insider2

@RogerB said:
A suggestion. Screw presses were subject to a common problem sometimes called "die bounce." After striking the planchet the screw moved upward, struck the upper range stop, bounced downward and made a second contact with the planchet. The workmen were supposed to prevent this and various mechanical lynch pins were supposed to avoid the problem.

Just a thought.

I don't believe that would explain the orientation of the mark into the coin. It is backwards.

bustcollector

This is one mystery wrapped in a riddle. It does not look like double striking (or die bounce) or an obvious type of brockage. Most of the time these things make sense - you can see that it is probably this or that impression or die who done it. These beady images seem to have curvatures way too shallow to be from the same coin size, and they're all (except for maybe the 1800 dime) inver se images of what you'd expect. In addition, the quarters show this imprint as strong (or stronger) in the field than on the devices.

Here's my only thought (and it is not a particularly good one). If nothing in the minting process could logically make these marks, maybe it was done post-striking. Counterstamps. But instead of an "L" it was a pattern that we interpret as dentils because we expect to see dentils but it's just a pattern that looks like dentils.

bigjpst

The arc reminds me of a tool used for leather work.

RogerB

That they seem to cross both relief and field implies post strike damage of some sort.

Test bites from the Mint's pet gerbil?

1Bustcollector

I have some ideas, but it’s really better to get more info here:

1) Can anyone provide the “actual” picture of the 1805 B-2 obverse die? I need to see the outer edge....(yes, there is one).

2) What are the latest/best pictures we have known of the actual press showing the dies, collars or mechanisms (or close to it).

Note: we also need to understand why these so-called dentil tracks happen on both obverse and reverse.

1TwoBits

Interesting comments and suggestions so far, thank you.

It's curious that so many different coins have been discovered with these marks, and I don't think they are seen after the advent of the steam press (I could be wrong). With the number of coins having this peculiarity, it makes me think there has to be an explanation we can find. I'm still thinking it happened at the mint, and can't see it being from counterstamping or someone imparting these marks randomly and putting them back into circulation.

If you look at an off center strike with good details, I can see how the marks could come from a first off center strike. See the picture below, and see if/how you think they could fit in. Notice how the dentils change in appearance around different areas of the strike, as well. Maybe 1BustCollector or someone can try and do an overlay at some point.

1TwoBits

Insider2

I've tried to imagine all sorts of scenarios. Nothing in this thread explains the BACKWARDS ARC!

IMO, the marks on these coins did not occur at the Mint and they are not due to anything hitting the die. I would love to be proven wrong as then the mystery of these coins would be solved.

1Bustcollector

Insider2,

Don’t give up so easily. This thread is in its infancy. In the end it may not be able to explain what is happening but you gotta be a little patience for now. Cool?

Nysoto

There are only two scenarios of 1794-1836 US coins that can be definitively proven as double strikes (excluding machine doubling and tripling which are not double struck, and various brockages).

The most common double strike is a coin that has not been ejected, is rotated in varying degrees, and struck again, leaving clear remnants of the first strike on BOTH obverse and reverse. The best examples of these from the 1794-1836 period are in the Steve Tompkins book Early United States Half Dollars 1794-1807, several examples pictured.

The second scenario are uniface struck coins that have been struck a second time, showing double strike evidence on only the obverse or reverse side. This happens when two planchets are mistakenly fed into the screw press, and only one side of each coin receives an impression from the die. The uniface coins are spotted, and sent through the press again, showing evidence of rotation and double striking on only one side. The Tompkins book has examples pictured, and is also explained in an article by Ken Hill, 12/1998 JRJ.

The short dentil tracks of 3-5 dentils can be explained by a coin being ejected and hitting an obv or rev die at an angle. The center dentil is always the deepest, explained by the curvature of the die. I am not sure who came up with this theory first.

The longer dentil tracks as shown on the 1805 and 1822 quarters on this thread, as mentioned, do not match the arc of the coin. This can be explained by a rolling of the coin on a die edge at an angle, which would leave a wider arc, as shown on these coins.

The "backwards arc" is easily explained because the impression is made by a die, and not a coin. If a person examines early surviving dies from the US Mint , (1806 .50, 1803 $10, 1805/4 .50, 1805 .25, 1820 $10, all obverse dies), the dentil tracks with the deep edge line can be explained by a struck coin rolling on a die edge at an angle, the coins are relatively soft and the dies are hard, leaving the dentil impressions and die edge line.

edit - a third type of double strike, and this is explained in_ Bust Half Fever_ by Edgar Souders. The first strike is well off center, and the coin is spotted and sent through the press again. This explains long dentil tracks that match the arc of the periphery of the coin. However, the 1805 and 1822 quarters on this post do not match the arc, so they could not have been double struck in that manner. Souders does mention the angle strike/ejection earlier in his book, but is doubtful of this theory.

Insider2

Thanks for the explanation for a double strike. Now getting to the point of the thread...

@Nysoto said: "The short dentil tracks of 3-5 dentils can be explained by a coin being ejected and hitting an obv or rev die at an angle. The center dentil is always the deepest, explained by the curvature of the die. I am not sure who came up with this theory first."

"The longer dentil tracks as shown on the 1805 and 1822 quarters on this thread, as mentioned, do not match the arc of the coin. This can be explained by a rolling of the coin on a die edge at an angle, which would leave a wider arc, as shown on these coins."

"The "backwards arc" is easily explained because the impression is made by a die, and not a coin. If a person examines early surviving dies from the US Mint , (1806 .50, 1803 $10, 1805/4 .50, 1805 .25, 1820 $10, all obverse dies), the dentil tracks with the deep edge line can be explained by a struck coin rolling on a die edge at an angle, the coins are relatively soft and the dies are hard, leaving the dentil impressions and die edge line."

I disagree. First, IMHO, there is no way a struck silver coin is going to bounce up or touch a die in any way to produce a mark that deep into a steel die.

Secondly. Draw a round circle on a sheet of paper. Draw some denticals on the inside of one part of the circle.
Now turn the sheet over and look at it above your head. That is the incuse die. Next, on another sheet of paper, draw a small section of the rim with denticals that a coin struck from that die would look like. Place the "die" sheet over the "coin" sheet. Now, look at the OP's coin. Yikes! No Match! The points of the denticals are in the wrong direction.

northcoin

Just pulled up this old posting of mine from 2003. Some of the comments above have been very helpful. No longer have the coin, but have continued to remain curious about its history and striking as a double die.

"Had a chance to acquire one of the 1808 2 1/2 dollar capped bust left one year type coins. It is a double die as well so could be a pop 1. Someday hope to learn a little more history about the particular coin as I believe it was auctioned in the distant past."

Nysoto

No Match! The points of the denticals are in the wrong direction.

The working die is the reverse or mirror image of the coin, and appears backwards. On actual working dies, the dentil "points" can be on both ends, but not always.

I disagree. First, IMHO, there is no way a struck silver coin is going to bounce up or touch a die in any way to produce a mark that deep into a steel die.

The hard die makes an impression in a soft coin, not the other way around. On edge, the die is sharp and can easily impress a small amount of the edge design into a coin, the lbs/area ratio is very small.

Insider2

@Nysoto Please don't give up on me as I'm here to learn!!!

Have you tried what I suggested? Draw a round circle on a sheet of paper. Draw some denticals on the inside of one part of the circle. Now turn the sheet over and look at it above your head. That is the incuse die. Next, on another sheet of paper, draw a small section of the rim with denticals that a coin struck from that die would look like. Place the "die" sheet over the "coin" sheet. Now, look at the OP's coin. Yikes! No Match! The points of the denticals are in the wrong direction.

1Bustcollector

I am in line with Nysoto so far. My easy explanation is this...which needs work but here it is:

So, could the edge of the (obverse/reverse) die first hit/strike the planchet “while hanging over the edge of the collar” (I think it may be possible for a planchet to begin its process to be slid into the chamber and something mechanical (feeder finger?) hangs up and is now “out of collar” and positioned on the surface of the table, somewhat off center, hanging over the edge of the hole, and the Workman start to strike....but see there is a malfunction, the die kisses the planchet at an angle - the planchet rolls (not the arc of the die) on impact , the Workman sees this, retracts the swinging levers (these weighted bells at the end don’t just “stop” in position (They will spring/swing back into the opposite direction causing the downward movement).

The workmen see what happened and manually put the planchet back into the hole/ chamber to get restruck?

What dentil tracks that are left over is remnants of a typical weak strike.

Now, as insider2 says: the dentils are backwards. But, is it possible the angle upon impact “curves” the dentils when it’s slicing downward?? Are those dentil ends really curved matching exactly the opposite/backwards end and this is an illusion?

These are my initial thoughts and I reserve the right to change them -

or once I see the actual die.

1Bustcollector

Concerning insider2s concern on the backward dentil points:

Well, try as I may with my limited experiment, I can’t seem to match the backward dentil points - as insider2 loudly expresses. I had thought it could be possible to try and duplicate this on clay, but I cannot at this time.

Insider2 has a “dentil point” situation that needs to be properly explained. He is correct.

It’s very early people, good work! let’s keep trying.

Nysoto

Have you tried what I suggested? Draw a round circle on a sheet of paper. Draw some denticals on the inside of one part of the circle. Now turn the sheet over and look at it above your head. That is the incuse die. Next, on another sheet of paper, draw a small section of the rim with denticals that a coin struck from that die would look like. Place the "die" sheet over the "coin" sheet. Now, look at the OP's coin. Yikes! No Match! The points of the denticals are in the wrong direction.

Insider - I am here to learn also. Lots of discoveries, including new die marriages, have been made on this forum.

I tried what you described, and used different types of dentils - there are at least three.

Dannreuther describes "cigar" dentils, I believe these are the most common, they are engraved with a curved graver, and they can be started from the edge of the die, which would give an inside rounded "point', they can also be started slightly inside the edge of the die, so that both ends of the dentil would have nearly identical points - which I believe is on the 1805, thus, there is no wrong direction because both ends are the same shape.

There are few identical denticles. Some have more of a dimple shape, these are less common, such as 1807 O109 which I have 5 examples - a very wild die that I believe is experimental along with two others of the year. The small eagle reverse half dollars also have unusual dentils. I believe most were engraved, and some may have been struck with a dentil punch - although I believe very few.

There is a lot going on with the strike that is not known. Contemporary evidence describe a feeding mechanism, centering device, ejecting device, and return device for the swing arms. None survive, so we don't know exactly the engineering of these. The one surviving US Mint screw press that was thought to be a coin press was recently proved to be a revenue stamp press made by Adam Eckfeldt, by researcher Craig Sholley - with a little help from my sig line book.

Also, see the edit to my first post.

scubafuel

I don't think anyone's quite nailed it yet, but I think this image should help a lot.

Insider2 and 1Bustcollector, look what happens on an off center strike on an early coin, in this case a bust half. Check out ~2 o'clock. The dentils seem to reverse! Cool effect of metal flow, or maybe the result of an area of the die edge impacting the planchet's field instead of the rim. I'm not sure.

But the result is "backwards" dentil points, as helpfully shown by the remnants of a previous strike on the same coin.

scubafuel

Also, look how deep the fissures are between the "backwards dentil points". If you the coiner took an off center coin and struck it again to obliterate your first mistake, those fissures might be the only thing left...

1Bustcollector

Nope. Actually, I believe I may have been originally correct. What I am forgetting (still waiting for pic) is that the lathe operator probably cut an outside step on the outer ring of the die??? So, I cut some grooves into a vitamin cap and wrapped the outside to mimic the step in the die. Here are the “crude pics” of 1) an impression of the die at a strike angle
2) after the clay (planchet) is flattened/rolled/struck

It does appear to leave an outer ring with backwards dentils?? No/yes??

lkeigwin

It's my understanding that most of these double strikes were the result of loose obverse dies. And the radius of the incused segments will always exceed that of the die according to how vertically the die edge struck the coin. The more vertical, the straighter the arc (or the larger the radius).

I found the below 1807 double strike on ebay not long ago, sold as PMD. It now resides with the owner of the famous Henry Hilgard collection of error bust half dollars.

.
.
.
Speaking of Henry and double strikes, here are two of his.

He said this of the first, "1824 O-115. Double Struck, with a dramatic set of dentil tracks through Miss Liberty's bust on the obverse. Since there is no evidence of a second die hit on the reverse, a blank planchet must have been present when the dentil-track strike on the obverse occurred. Remarkable because of the bend that the off center strike caused."

.
.
.
The second is a very fun 1824 O.115 PCGS VF25 triple struck.

Lance.

hchcoin

Awesome stuff everyone.

Nysoto

Thanks Scubafuel, Ikegwein, and 1Bustcollector for images and modeling, which indicate the dentil impressions were made by dies at the Mint. Ikegwein's explanation describes the radius measurement being derived from the angle of the die relative to the planchet. This makes sense. Also, the arcs that match the coin would be off-center, but struck first with the dies and planchet parallel.

So the question remains - which is out of parallel for the first strike or contact, the die or the planchet?

It has been theorized by Chris Pilliod and others that the reverse die was the hammer die, at least on Draped Bust halves. Craig Sholley has stated that dies are secured in die cups, making a loose die at an angle seem more improbable to me.

I think 1Bustcollector's idea may be closer, that the planchet was at an angle when contacted by the die, possibly rolling on the edge of the die to produce the straighter dentil tracks. With the feeder fingers, open collars (?) reeded collars on quarters (and $10's) and smaller, ejectors, return mechanisms - there is a lot to go wrong that would cause a planchet to be at an angle.

1Bustcollector

If this truly ends up as a possible explanation (yes, it’s extremely early - I’d love to hear from some experts) maybe we on the forum can come up with a name for this occurrence???

1Bustcollector

P.S. Lances 1824 has more flat dentil tips on certain areas. This may be because of less of an angle when it hit the die.

lkeigwin

Hilgard had a wonderful collection of errors. I've shown before his totally bizarre double-struck, 90° rotated 1809. It's not relevant to this discussion about denticle segments so I won't post it here unless someone urges me to.

Here's a fascinating 1814 O.108a bust half with reverse segments and Hilgard's description: "Flip over double strike with row of segments from a die strike on the reverse. At edge on obverse (between the 4 of 1814 and the 13th star) can be seen tail feathers and leaves from the first strike with the reverse die. PLATE COIN in Overton's 3rd edition on page 627 (page 708 in 4th edition), where it is listed under the category "Incused or Raised Segments on Obverse or Reverse Fields".

Here's a close up of the obverse edge with impressed tail feathers and leaves from the reverse...

...and if you're struggling to see this here is a crop of the actual reverse around 7:30 near the upper leaves.

Lance.

CaptHenway

@scubafuel said:
I don't think anyone's quite nailed it yet, but I think this image should help a lot.

Insider2 and 1Bustcollector, look what happens on an off center strike on an early coin, in this case a bust half. Check out ~2 o'clock. The dentils seem to reverse! Cool effect of metal flow, or maybe the result of an area of the die edge impacting the planchet's field instead of the rim. I'm not sure.

But the result is "backwards" dentil points, as helpfully shown by the remnants of a previous strike on the same coin.

This coin shows exactly what I was talking about on the 1805 above. The outer ends of the denticles have distinctive shapes that would leave the pattern seen on the 1805 quarter.

1Bustcollector

Beautiful coins! Yes, @scubafuel and @CaptHenway, shows excellent definition. So much easier to identify! Wish there were as many quarter errors as halves....

1Bustcollector

This is merely an informal possible linking to what many here and others have explained throughout the years concerning screw presses and their mechanical operation.

Unfortunately, I do not have personal “hands on” knowledge with screw presses (Ive tried contacting Ron Landis and others with no return responses and I know this field I could really enjoy given time) But, I do have a decent amount of machine shop knowledge, have worked in the CNC (Computer Numeric Control) field in Aerospace/D.O.D. Retained secret clearance various facilities, all with a strong mechanical/electrical/instrumentation background that will get me somewhere in the ballpark here:

Check out thus video. I believe it was made by the ANA Money Museum/Ed Rochette/Doug Mudd and others(?) correct me if I am wrong...

At around 1:18-1:25 (Doug Mudd is actually striking a coin on a “conventional” early press) you can actually see the weighted bar “spring back” or “bounce back” or “return moving in the opposite direction downward” once the press hits home (hard stop) on the upward stroke, all because there are no “lynch pin stops” or “dog levers” or whatever they may be called after he swings/strikes the planchet. It actually wants to return in the opposite direction and will eventually strike or “kiss” “tap” with much less force another planchet. Part of the reason this happens is due to the extreme thread-pitch of the screw (we called these leadscrews and in the modern days we made ball bearing “ball screws” but that’s another story). It naturally wants to just fall/screw downward - with upward weight on top.

There are many other ways on say a newer version screw press (semi automated) where mechanical things also can happen. Rotating machinery with fast acting cams, lobes, counterweights, springs, extreme quick pressures and all that. I think it was Roger B. Mentioning bounce. Yes, all this is possible but unfortunately, I really cannot explain in detail because I never actually ran a screw press. Maybe one day I might have a chance to spend some time with other knowledgeable individuals where I can put my experience to work on these fabulous mechanical time pieces!

https://youtu.be/eIpHfW6jCCQ

And here is our U.S. counterpart “The Royal Canidian Mint” on how they perform the stages of the minting process...which is a little different in some ways. There are a selection of automated machinery throughout - many of the typical robotic styles of what I used to repair in the U.S. in my days. An enjoyable video!

https://youtu.be/3YX9egbUNX4

Insider2

I note the absence of several usual suspects from this thread. I'm still not convinced of the cause but their opinion and explanation of the process in addition to the posters above may sway me. Sorry, to be so pig-headed but I can be educated very easily with proof. I'll study this thread over the week as I seem to be the odd man out.

1Bustcollector

I know this sounds very harsh but, Ya think.

There’s much more than meets the eye on this thread. Time to move forward....

Personally, its been years where I’ve heard this subject needs to be “properly written” about from the “properly knowledgeable” people. Well?

Nothing wrong with regular people on a forum giving opinions, talking, researching, bringing in ideas, changing ideas, editing, making errors....learning as we go?

In life it’s easy to knock someone’s dominos down, it’s a lot harder and always more embarrassing to set them up. You gotta start somewhere. I prefer to set dominos up and rearrange to get better.

Come on insider2, give us your theory opposing these ideas....it’s just a forum.

Insider2

I already did. Now I'm going to shut-up and study the responses. And as I have posted, many of you are giving good answers to think about. Additionally, as I wrote, there are several folks who are strangely silent and have not posted in this thread. That is not to say any one posting is not correct or not their equal.

This is not a right or wrong personal thing for me. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm just a 6 or 7 around here. Apparently the Bust half collectors have made a good case for this defect long ago and I'm just ignorant.

So here is the thing: In the great big world of Numismatics, I never did give a flying X about this kind of PMD. The only reason I have become interested NOW is I cannot explain it to satisfy myself and some future student may ask me, "What caused this." Right now, I don't know for sure. Therefore, I have now become EXTREMELY interested in what caused this effect.

In the meantime, I have a question for the experts: Coins with clash marks from denticals are not confined to these coins. Please take a look at 1880 1c FS#101, and 1883 1c FS#401. I recall a 2c also (1864?). I understand and agree with what caused these oddities. However, THE DIFFERENCE WITH THESE COINS AND THE ONES POSTED IN THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD BE OBVIOUS. I'll be back and if the opinions expressed in this thread finally makes sense to me, I'll be the first to thank all of you for the education!! That's one reason I'm a member here. The other is to make sure no one ever gets as many "disagrees" as I have racked up.

LoveMyLiberty

Lance hit it again !

Double struck with rotation
Double struck over off Center obverse brockage
Double struck flipover
Tab double struck
Double struck over misaligned dies

I hardly know what these are, but there are some very
nice discussions & many examples of these in
"The Davy Collection of Half Cent Errors" Auction Catalog
of Sept. 19th, 2010 held in Beverly Hills included in Part III
of the Dan Holmes Collection.
Also there are a few images & descriptions of these errors
in the Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States Half Cents
1793-1857.
Both very good reading.

Insider2

@LoveMyLiberty said:
Lance hit it again !

Double struck with rotation
Double struck over off Center obverse brockage
Double struck flipover
Tab double struck
Double struck over misaligned dies

I hardly know what these are, but there are some very
nice discussions & many examples of these in
"The Davy Collection of Half Cent Errors" Auction Catalog
of Sept. 19th, 2010 held in Beverly Hills included in Part III
of the Dan Holmes Collection.
Also there are a few images & descriptions of these errors
in the Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States Half Cents
1793-1857.
Both very good reading.

Again, there is a difference! On EVERY double struck 1/2 c in Breen's book, the strikes are RAISED on the coin. They do not CUT INTO the coin. Additionally, the design on the second strike is NOT Backwards.

1Bustcollector

@insider2,

“Again, there is a difference! On EVERY double struck 1/2 c in Breen's book, the strikes are RAISED on the coin. They do not CUT INTO the coin. Additionally, the design on the second strike is NOT Backwards.”

I don’t have Breens book handy,

That is interesting, can you post a couple pics?

Insider2

Sorry, no. I don't have a way to post them. When a die hits a coin it produces a raised design (don't bring up Indian gold). There is some raised design on the OP's coin, however, the mark does not match a part of the die that would have hit it at an angle. Besides, I wouldn't lie to you would I? Go on the Internet and look up double struck half cents.

1Bustcollector

I’ll see what I can do later on tomorrow and go through some pics.

CaptHenway

On the typical double struck coin, the first strike is more or less flattened down by the second strike. The effect can vary considerably depending on whether a particular raised element from the first strike fell under the field of the die on the second strike (in which case it will be more or less obliterated) or whether it falls into a recess in the die, in which case it will be somewhat protected and preserved.

On the 1805 quarter above, I believe that the first strike was the off center one, and the rim from that first strike was partly preserved when it fell under the deep recess of the head during the second strike. The outermost ends of the denticles survived, which is why they curve the way that they do.

TD

1Bustcollector

I agree CaptHenway.

hchcoin

This is one of my all time favorite threads. Great stuff.

1Bustcollector

Oops! I actually missed that last sentence CaptHenWay. Very interesting! I think you might be on to something extra exciting here. I need to think some more....boy, I like that. Great observation.

hchcoin

This thread actually inspired me to get out my book, "The U.S. Mint and Coinage" by Taxay. I haven't opened it in years.

CaptHenway

@hchcoin said:
This thread actually inspired me to get out my book, "The U.S. Mint and Coinage" by Taxay. I haven't opened it in years.

One of my favorite books!

LoveMyLiberty

1 Two Bits, would it be possible for you to put up
an image of the rev. of the 1805 25c.
I think there may be an interesting feature there.

1Bustcollector

LoveMyLiberty,

Until 1TwoBits responds...from our book.

Note: Be aware! Your viewing false rotations! The obverse and reverse are rotated straight only for viewing purposes in our book. You will have to ask 1TwoBits to give you the exact rotational overlay....