PCGS Certifies First 2-Headed US Coin -- EVER!
EXOJUNKIE
Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭✭✭
Very cool. Although not sure how it merits a numeric grade....
coinweek.com/coins/error-coins/mint-error-news-pcgs-certifies-unique-two-headed-nickel/
I'm addicted to exonumia ... it is numismatic crack!
ANA LM
USAF Retired — 34 years of active military service! 🇺🇸
ANA LM
USAF Retired — 34 years of active military service! 🇺🇸
0
Comments
Sorry, I'm not in the believer camp...it's not possible unless it was done intentionally, and if it was done intentionally then in my mind it's not really a rarity.
I do not believe this was two different obverse dies like the label infers. Looks to me like the coin was struck once, then somehow got flipped and struck again with another planchet stuck under the reverse side. But I am by no means an error expert.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
I will only observe that the coin has reverse rotation and that the "missing area" in front of Jefferson's face is in the same location and "strength."
awaiting the already noticed and explained explanation.
Interesting.
I believe the first 2-headed coin was this one (J-229a):
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Well, the Coinweek article does state that the OP coin is the "only known U.S. regular-issue coin of ANY denomination that was struck with two obverse dies (two-headed)," but Fred then stated that it is the "only known U.S. two-headed coin."
So, I guess I should have been more clear in my OP.
Good catch.
ANA LM
USAF Retired — 34 years of active military service! 🇺🇸
So PCGS is going with the opinion that this was caused by someone replacing the reverse die with a second obverse die and striking the coin?
That seems...odd considering both faces look like they were struck with the same die.
I think your suggestion, or something like it, makes much more sense considering the damage the "reverse" has.
What die characteristics are you using to suggest that it was the same die on both sides? I can't see anything that jumps out at me from my small phone screen.
And if it had been struck once then restruck with another coin underneath, I doubt that it it would still be so weakly struck. The extra thickness of an additional planchet in the striking chamber would have likely caused a very string strike, and nearly obliterated the details of one side of the coin.
It's likely a product of "midnight minting", but I don't see anything right off the bat to question the current error type diagnosis.
This voin was struck with two different Obv.
Dies -
It was NOT struck once, flipped over, and struck again
with the same Obv. die.
Another that probaly walked out of the mint in someones pocket.
Do dies not have some method of ensuring they are properly aligned to the coin in relation to the opposing die? How would a coin where both faces were struck simultaneously have one that was offset by 45 degrees rather than 180? I don't know much about coin minting but it seems there has to be some kind of positive engagement of a die into its holder to get a perfect 180 degree offset strike 100% of the time.
How was an obverse die fitted into the reverse die chuck of a quad Schuler horizontal press? Obverse and reverse dies have different diameters and alignment pin positions.
If both dies were somehow correctly mounted, then detail should have been nearly complete on both sides of the piece.
The 1859 two-headed cents are legitimate and documented experimental products. They were intentionally made when the Philadelphia Mint was trying to see if one die position gave a better impression to the design than the other position. (I.e., upper die position vs lower die position.)
1904 & 1905 Lewis & Clark G$1 commemorative issues have 2 portraits, they are 2-headed to me.
You can purchase 2 headed Barber Halves on eBay:
ebay.com/itm/1892-1893-Two-Face-Barber-Half-Dollar-Toned-Two-Headed-Novelty-Trick-Coin-1-/201943121920?hash=item2f04bf8000:g:AwIAAOSwuxFYvg5F
thus the "awaiting already noticed and explained explanation"
I know you saw it, and I know the similarities were written off for a reason -- I suppose it is you saw it up close and personal and can tell it is 2 dies -- but I still wonder why there is that odd patch in front of jefferson on both sides and that is with die rotation, too.
It is a puzzler for me.
The dies weren't set up like a normal
obv. and rev. die would be - so that's
why it's rotated. Not an unusual situation
at all.
The odd 'patch' could be because the dies
were not set perfectly horizontally, like
a normal coin would be, or the piece was
not struck with the proper striking pressure.
Is it even possible to seat a die flat without it being properly aligned?
I have a hard time believing you would get such consistent depth on every part of the coin if the die wasn't flat.
If the flat part where the face should be is void of detail because the die wasn't flat then the opposing side should have a deeper impression due to the uneven application of pressure.
Unanswered questions about this:
Is it possible to fit an obverse die where the reverse die should go in the machine used to mint this coin (PCGS apparently thinks so)?
Is it possible to seat a misaligned die (as the "reverse" die here has been) flat in the holder?
What caused the damage to the reverse between two and three o'clock, did it occur during minting or afterwards?
If both sides of the coin were struck simultaneously why do they share the same "flat spot" despite those spots not being directly or 180 degrees opposite each other?
If the flat spots are caused by a die that wasn't properly seated why doesn't the area across from it have a deeper impression due to the uneven pressure being applied?
I totally agree.
I know there are questions about this THN;
just trying to come up with a possibility or two.
I wasn't there when it was struck,
so I can't answer those questions.
I can say with certainty that the piece
was struck at the Philadelphia Mint,
in 2001. That, and the fact that Dies
apparently can fit, or can be made to fit,
either the hammer or stationary die side
I have thousands of dies, and dozens of
collars in my office, and none of them have
'wings' or 'tips' sticking out of the shaft.
Some of the newer dies do have a flattened
area at the base of the die, apparently there
to help align the die in the proper position.
Calling @mikediamond, @SullivanNumismatics! Their opinions, if not already written about somewhere will be valuable to the conversation
a MS 65 is a stretch for such a weakly struck coin that most of the detail is missing
I can say with certainty that the piece
was struck at the Philadelphia Mint,
in 2001.
Why was a coin dated 2000 struck in 2001? This alone is suspicious, although a common practice in the early years of the mint, I'm assuming the practice ceased a long time ago.
Whoops! Good Morning' everyone.
I meant to say 'struck at the Philadelphia
Mint in 2000'.......
My mistake - good thing I don't tweet !
Ah Ok - thanks for the clarification, Fred!
I agree with what Fred Weinberg has said, and having examined the coin, I also agree it is struck with 2 different dies.
The coin is probably weakly struck, but also it may simply be that (2) obverse dies are not designed to be struck together, resulting in poor metal flow and a weak strike. Most mules show weakness in some area of another, which could be due to the mismatched dies resulting in poor metal flow.
The die rotation is common on mules, and likely it is caused by one of the dies having been "worked on" in some way to make it fit into the press. That in turn results in them not having a proper orientation in the press (i.e. rotated.)
It is the only "non pattern" two headed mule that exists to my knowledge.
One other thing. Many patterns on the market today, and many of the most valuable U.S. coins had help inside the mints. This would include coins such as the restrike 1804 dollars, 1913 nickels, and others that I don't recall off hand.
So having "help" inside the mint does not make a coin "good or bad." What's important is did it happen in the mint, and for the mules and all the just mentioned coins, the answer is yes, the mint made them.
I am surprised that this piece slabbed with the deep cut on the edge.
Seems to me this would have been a trail strike to check alignments, etc. and should have been destroyed, yet we find another anomaly getting into collectors hands. Sour grapes.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Sure looks dinged up for a 65.
I wonder if that> @PQueue said:
Maybe one of them was a horses ass.
interesting coin
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipMx0x0MY9_dYEwK5mIFUuhp4mScp9LT-jakrKwE
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipPWUndcm4VDbAj7kXDQjtWkPCaT3qb5Bhr9sxrk
There are any number of brockage error coins that have two heads. One of them is merely incused.
I'm still getting hung up on how both sides end up with the same flat area if struck at the same time considering the location of those spots in relation to each other.
To me, if you can't explain how that happened I don't see how you can conclude this was struck with two dies.
This unique Two Headed Nickel was the cover story of Issue 40 of Mint Error News Magazine.
Mint Error News Magazine Issue 40
Mike Byers
Publisher and Editor
Mint Error News Magazine
Consider:
To make this would likely have required more than an accident. Further, if such accidents were possible, then it would be reasonable for them to have occurred multiple times among the many thousands of die set-up and replacement occurring each year at US Mints. Is it not strange that this would be the only example -- ever.
How did they decide which way they would put it into the holder?
Fan of the Oxford Comma
CCAC Representative of the General Public
2021 Young Numismatist of the Year
They just flipped it, and Heads won.
Every denomination has certain areas that don't strike up well when weakly struck. Take a look at nearly any other weakly struck Jefferson nickel, the areas of weakness will pretty much match up with the areas of weakness that we see on this mule. Of course, differences between years do occur depending on minor design and depth changes, the strength of the planchet's proto-rim, as well as the shape of the die face (die faces aren't flat),
In this case, I think the design on the opposing side of the coin had little to do with the strength of the details that showed up on the other side of the coin
Interesting thread for sure,
My YouTube Channel
Really interesting coin - and thread. I would really like to understand how this coin can be graded MS65.... looking at the pictures, it just does not seem reasonable. @FredWeinberg ...could you explain this? Thank you... Cheers, RickO
Stop by and say hi to Mike Byers table # 1039 at the Long Beach Expo.
The Unique Two Headed Nickel will be displayed!
Just throwing my personal observations out to see if they make sense to anyone.........I'm baffled.
Pete