Options
Flip Over Double Struck 1809 Half (O-105) - New Discovery - FUN Show UPDATE!!
JadeRareCoin
Posts: 2,768 ✭
With the recent thread regarding another 1809 Half error, we find it very coincidental that we discovered a double struck 1809 this morning. Andrew was attributing 116 Bust Halves that we recently purchased when he discovered the double struck error. Initially Andrew, Danaca and I discussed the coin together for a few minutes. Could it be a clash mark or damage? We quickly came to the realization that the coin is most likely a flip over double strike.
To prove our theory, we imaged the coin and did an overlay (obverse to reverse transparency). This exercise quickly ruled out the possibility of a clash mark, as the reverse detail on the obverse of the coin is clearly not positioned correctly to be a clash, both axially and rotationally. Next we considered the possibility of the marks being damage. To disprove this possibility, we transferred the reverse image in terms of position and rotation to get an approximate overlay position (see images). By adjusting the level of transparency, we could animate the reverse shield design element fading in and out directly over the shield marks on the obverse. On the computer screen, the correlation of the obverse/reverse shield area is dramatic; a solid match.
The next step was to attribute the coin. It is O-105, R.2, the same as the off center piece in this thread. We strongly considered that this could be damage since the opposite area on the reverse seemed more worn than other areas on the reverse. This is actually diagnostic of O-105. Note the off center coin in the other thread and even the Overton plate coin (which is high grade). We also examined the piece under a microscope and found no signs of damage and noted that the detail was consistent with the shield detail on the reverse.
Still some questions remain. Most perplexing is the fact that our specimen does not show much under type of the double strike when compared to the breathtaking Logan piece in the other thread. Our only explanation to that issue is that the Logan O-112 piece was double struck in collar, as opposed to our piece which is a flip over off cent double strike. The off center issue is relevant to the strength of the under type on a double struck coin.
We were recently retained to research, attribute, authenticate and catalog an amazing collection of early U.S. copper coins (thread coming soon). Through that research, we learned that the strength of the remaining first strike varied greatly from coin to coin, even those coins of the same date and variety. We also are of the opinion, based on the sampling of many double struck large cents, that coins double struck in collar for both strikes typically show more detail of both strikes than ones that were double struck out of collar.
And now the images:
1809 O-105 (note the area of lines near the chin area of the obverse)
A close-up view
This pic shows the overlay. Note that the first strike was approximately 20% off center.
The overlay at 0% transparency:
The overlay at 25% transparency:
The overlay at 50% transparency:
Well, there you have it. Although not very dramatic and seemingly minor by comparison to other bust half errors, it is a neat discovery. So what's your opinion? All thoughts and comments are welcome, whether you agree or not.
NOTE - to avoid a flame war, the coin is not for sale.
To prove our theory, we imaged the coin and did an overlay (obverse to reverse transparency). This exercise quickly ruled out the possibility of a clash mark, as the reverse detail on the obverse of the coin is clearly not positioned correctly to be a clash, both axially and rotationally. Next we considered the possibility of the marks being damage. To disprove this possibility, we transferred the reverse image in terms of position and rotation to get an approximate overlay position (see images). By adjusting the level of transparency, we could animate the reverse shield design element fading in and out directly over the shield marks on the obverse. On the computer screen, the correlation of the obverse/reverse shield area is dramatic; a solid match.
The next step was to attribute the coin. It is O-105, R.2, the same as the off center piece in this thread. We strongly considered that this could be damage since the opposite area on the reverse seemed more worn than other areas on the reverse. This is actually diagnostic of O-105. Note the off center coin in the other thread and even the Overton plate coin (which is high grade). We also examined the piece under a microscope and found no signs of damage and noted that the detail was consistent with the shield detail on the reverse.
Still some questions remain. Most perplexing is the fact that our specimen does not show much under type of the double strike when compared to the breathtaking Logan piece in the other thread. Our only explanation to that issue is that the Logan O-112 piece was double struck in collar, as opposed to our piece which is a flip over off cent double strike. The off center issue is relevant to the strength of the under type on a double struck coin.
We were recently retained to research, attribute, authenticate and catalog an amazing collection of early U.S. copper coins (thread coming soon). Through that research, we learned that the strength of the remaining first strike varied greatly from coin to coin, even those coins of the same date and variety. We also are of the opinion, based on the sampling of many double struck large cents, that coins double struck in collar for both strikes typically show more detail of both strikes than ones that were double struck out of collar.
And now the images:
1809 O-105 (note the area of lines near the chin area of the obverse)
A close-up view
This pic shows the overlay. Note that the first strike was approximately 20% off center.
The overlay at 0% transparency:
The overlay at 25% transparency:
The overlay at 50% transparency:
Well, there you have it. Although not very dramatic and seemingly minor by comparison to other bust half errors, it is a neat discovery. So what's your opinion? All thoughts and comments are welcome, whether you agree or not.
NOTE - to avoid a flame war, the coin is not for sale.
www.jaderarecoin.com - Updated 6/8/06. Many new coins added!
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
0
Comments
San Diego, CA
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I would have figured it was a clashed die.
An excellent and informative thread about a seriously interesting coin. Kudo's to Andrew for spotting it and to you for a well thought out and written story. It's got me thinking now what other 1809's out there have fascinating quirks to them. Since the two from this week are both O-105's and most likely produced not far apart from each other the possible explanations abound. Perhaps the mint was training a new employee? Perhaps the mint employees had celebrated some occurance a bit too energetically and were suffering the aftermath? Perhaps an employee was very ill and couldn't concentrate? What ever the reason it appears there was a quality control problem in 1809 and more specifically at the time the O-105 variety was being struck.
Rich
<< <i>I'm not sold 100%. You make a compelling case, and I love that computer voodoo. Will you have the coin at FUN? I'd sure like to look at it and let Sheridan and Henry see it. >>
slumlord, the funny part of the story is that Andy cherrypicked the coin from you at the last ILNA show.
Yes, the coin will be at FUN and you are welcome to show it around. You will just have to leave an an 1817/4 half as collateral.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
<< <i>Any letters visible on the off center strike? if so, are they inverted? >>
Nope. We were hoping to find more detail on either side of the coin, but all we have to go by is the area of parallel lines by the chin. Are you suggesting a reverse brokage that was then re-struck? Hmmm. That might explain for the weakness in that area, but the lines appear to be raised.
How interesting. I would've taken those to be adjustment marks.
Perhaps on an earlier coin, but not very likely on an 1809 half.
An excellent and informative thread about a seriously interesting coin. Kudo's to Andrew for spotting it and to you for a well thought out and written story. It's got me thinking now what other 1809's out there have fascinating quirks to them. Since the two from this week are both O-105's and most likely produced not far apart from each other the possible explanations abound. Perhaps the mint was training a new employee? Perhaps the mint employees had celebrated some occurance a bit too energetically and were suffering the aftermath? Perhaps an employee was very ill and couldn't concentrate? What ever the reason it appears there was a quality control problem in 1809 and more specifically at the time the O-105 variety was being struck.
Rich, I actually thought the same thing and wrote a paragraph regarding the same, but decided to not post it. Working on the error large cent project had me contemplating why some varieties are commonly found with errors (relatively speaking), whereas other varieties within the same date are never found with mint errors. Some interesting thoughts as to why:
1) a drunken employee
2) faulting minting equipment (feeding/ejection mechanisms)
3) a press set-up used to strike coins on planchets that are rejected earlier strikes
4) [insert your thought here]
Thanks to everyone for your input. If you don't agree, do you have any ideas as to what is going on with this coin?
I will post some early large cent errors in a different thread soon.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
My thought is that is something impressed into the coin.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I don't see any particular reason why it couldn't be a flip-over double strike. If possible, I'd like to take a look at it at FUN and see what I think of it in the round.
Once upon a time, I collected overstrikes -- all countries, all eras -- and was always amazed by what areas and how much of an undertype (or host) design could be obliterated by the overstrike (or parasite). It was a good decade-long learning experience to use later in identifying undertypes or double strikes. On this piece, the fact that the only undertype is on the highest point of the design, the cheek, makes sense considering that this area was the deepest incuse area of the die.
Looks like a neat thing. Hopefully I'll get a chance to play with it in real life!
I still don't buy your theory and will point out some questions that remain for me. These questions may simply be in my head because I am not that familiar with error coinage or they may be because you have not given me enough details as to what you think went on in the striking of this piece.
First, and this is trivial, you did not disprove damage to the coin with your overlay technique. You may only infer that the marks are consistent with your theory with the simple analysis provided, but that alone cannot preclude damage in the area. In fact, I do believe that this is either a strike-through piece, possibly wood fragment, or post-Mint damage, from wood or tool impact.
Another possibly trivial matter is your statement-
<< <i>We strongly considered that this could be damage since the opposite area on the reverse seemed more worn than other areas on the reverse. >>
Indicates to me that this coin is struck with dies arrange with medal alignment, otherwise the reverse wear pattern does not match the position of the image on the obverse, as you were concerned it may. Is it medal alignment or coinage alignment? If coinage alignment then the area of concern would be below the eagle's left wing and not at the top of the eagle's right wing. The diagnostic weak wing for this die variety is the top of the eagle's right wing. Please note that I do not follow the Overton paradigm of naming the eagle's wings as the viewer sees them; rather, I name the eagle's wings as the eagle would.
More important to me, what sequence of events are you proposing happened to this coin? Was it first struck off-center and then flipped over and struck normally or was it first struck normally and then flipped over and struck off-center? I believe you may end up with two different looking coins based upon the scenario chosen.
Your overlay shows a decent match between the crossbars of the shield and the jaw of Ms Liberty. However, they don't look like crossbars to me. The crossbars would be raised, would be thick and would have fairly thick crevices between them. Your image shows knifelike crevices between the apparently raised lines. The only way I can account for this in your scenario is to assume that the off-center strike was the first strike and then the coin was flipped over and a normal strike occurred. If that is the case, then the second strike obliterated all of the first striking except for this tiny detail. That is puzzling, especially when one considers that part of this detail is in the open obverse field and part of it is on a high point, the jaw of Ms. Liberty. Why would this one area, at the intersection on the die of the raised, flat obverse field and the where the die becomes markedly incuse for the portrait, allow a partial pattern to survive? Also, why would it allow the design to survive in this area at apparently the same depth of detail? I don't see any answer to that in your post.
In my opinion, you have come up with a fanciful explanation for something that likely has a more mundane explanation.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Die alignment of the coin is irrelevant. These early dies had no stop or detent whereby the set screw would keep the dies in a fixed position, at least on the obverse. There are no known reverse dies so no one can say for sure on that end. Both dies, or at least the obverse, likely rotated freely, and coins exhibiting rotated dies are extremely common on early CBHs. Also, if this IS a flip over d/s, and I'm not yet convinced myself, the coin was centered differently for one strike, thereby obscuring the matter even further.
SL
Playing with the field, I can offer one seed of hope for the poster's arguement...where's another coin with the same clash if this is indeed a clash?
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
As a side note, if it appears that I am trying to be a Richard Cranium on this thread please realize that I am not. It is likely the scientist in me that is coming out since the thread hinges entirely on a single, inconclusive bit of evidence while the conclusions of the original poster are mighty large to rely completely on such data.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
sorry, Andy forgot to log out and I posted under his handle.
More important to me, what sequence of events are you proposing happened to this coin? Was it first struck off-center and then flipped over and struck normally or was it first struck normally and then flipped over and struck off-center?
I am saying that the coin was probably struck off center, then struck in the open collar correctly, thereby obliterating much of the first strike. Whether it is a true flip over double strike, or a rejected off center coin was used as a new planchet is a mystery to me and I have no explanation to that specific point.
Your overlay shows a decent match between the crossbars of the shield and the jaw of Ms Liberty. However, they don't look like crossbars to me. The crossbars would be raised, would be thick and would have fairly thick crevices between them. Your image shows knifelike crevices between the apparently raised lines. The only way I can account for this in your scenario is to assume that the off-center strike was the first strike and then the coin was flipped over and a normal strike occurred. If that is the case, then the second strike obliterated all of the first striking except for this tiny detail. That is puzzling, especially when one considers that part of this detail is in the open obverse field and part of it is on a high point, the jaw of Ms. Liberty. Why would this one area, at the intersection on the die of the raised, flat obverse field and the where the die becomes markedly incuse for the portrait, allow a partial pattern to survive? Also, why would it allow the design to survive in this area at apparently the same depth of detail? I don't see any answer to that in your post.
The best way to answer your points above is to refer you to this thread, specifically the 1796 cent (flip over double strike). It's not the best example, but I have others in the safe that have similar characteristics to the 1809 half. I have handled many double struck coins that show minimal remnants of the first strike.
Regarding the possibility of the marks being clash marks, I can say "impossible" with confidence. Clash marks are caused when the obverse and reverse dies come together, under great force, without a plachet in the coining chamber. The shield lines on the obverse are way out of line with corresponding shield design on the reverse. Sure, the clash marks, in theory, could be at a different rotation than a standard coin flip orientation, but the dies rotated in a manner that never changed their concentric relationship. In other words, the obv/rev dies always had approximately the same axis. The rare exception of misaligned dies does not count as the misalignment would be too great. Furthermore, if they were clash marks, where are other O-105 examples with the same marks?
This leads me to conclude that this coin is either 1) a f/o dbl struck coin, or 2) a coin with obverse damage. I did say in the initial post that "Still some questions remain", but I should have titled the thread "Possible Flip Over Double Struck 1809 Half".
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
If you have coins that support your contention better than this one then you may do well to image them as the 1796 cent doesn't help.
How about this 1797?
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
To me it looks like the rev is rotated 1/4 and it could possibly be a die clash from that rotation??
Either that or do I see a punch mark with the initials EB
This image gives a better visual than the images on page one:
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
To me it looks like the rev is rotated 1/4 and it could possibly be a die clash from that rotation??
Elwood, take a look at the following image. Note that the coins are not concentric. Can't be a clash mark.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
On the other hand, I don't see why this coin could not be a flip over double struck coin.
My gut says its probably the former, but nothing has been proven yet to me.
Very informative post to be sure.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
to have picked up on this.
Free Trial
<< <i> Why would this one area, at the intersection on the die of the raised, flat obverse field and the where the die becomes markedly incuse for the portrait, allow a partial pattern to survive? >>
Here is a possiblity. The die faces are slightly convex so they come together in the centers first. Now these were struck by manually operated screw presses. If it was noticed that the planchet was off-center they may have tried to stop the swing of the press and the first offcenter strike was only lightly impressed. Mainly just by the central area of the dies ie: the shield. In that case there wouldn't be much other detail the be wiped out by the second on center strike, the planchet would have remained round, and the edge in the off-center portion would not be crushed.
While a clash with rotated, greatly misalligned dies could possibly happen (I believe there is either an 1812 or 1814 variety that comes with a set of greatly misalligned clashmarks) the thing that tells me this is not a clash mark is the fact that it appears running from the field up into Libertys cheek. The top edge of the shield chief is clearly visible runs to the center of her cheek. Now clash marks are almost always restricted to the fields and rarely appear down in the recessed areas of the die and almost NEVER in the deep recesses such as the cheek would be. If te dies had clashed so hard as to create a clash mark that ran from the field to the deep recess of the cheek with no discontinuity, it would have SEVERELY damaged both dies. There would probably have been a bad dent, gouge, or even a chunk spalled out of one or both of them.
On the other hand a double strike usually shows in the devices of the second strike (Liberty's cheek) but are flattened and distorted in the fields. (broad stripes with thin knifelike crevases between them)
<< <i>Elwood, take a look at the following image. Note that the coins are not concentric. Can't be a clash mark. >>
Not being concentric does not rule out clash marks (there are other coins that show non concentic clash marks), but I think my argument above does.)
<< <i>I don't see why this coin could not be post mint damage. Simply by putting another half dollar on top of it and whacking it, then wear occuring later to remove the evidence. >>
Damage of that type tends to mainly show on the devices and not so much in the fields. If it does show on both, it is usually discontinous disappearing from the fields before they reach the devices. (The raised device protects the field close to it from being damaged by the other coin.) If the damage DOES reach all the way to the devices, the devices on the subject coin would be severely damaged (crushed down close to field level) but the evidence on the cheek of this coin is weak even though the lines are continous.
It really looks like a flip over double strike with the first strike being weakly impressed. (central areas of the die only.)
My first thought on seeing the pictures was adjustment marks, but as there appear to be the faint vertical stripes of the shield running out into the field to the left of the stronger marks I am inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. WOuld love to see it, but won't be at FUN.
Tom D.
<< <i>If it were struck off center on the first strike, then it should not be round, since these were struck with an open collar. I am not sure if the Mint was in the habit of using spoiled planchets for silver coins. The edge will tell you more than the overlays will since the edge was applied prior to striking.
My thought is that is something impressed into the coin. >>
Since the lines are sunk into the face, the easiest answer is post-striking damage. Not from another Half Dollar either. All we see are lines that by chance match the lines on the shield. It could be caused by many things.
I am not sure, but a true double-struck coin from this era would likely show much more detail of the initial strike. Anyone have an image of any other double-struck Bustie?
Actually, the reason the strike appears to be so bad is because the dies had buckled and were quite concave. Late state examples of O.105 in high grade, if placed face down on a smooth surface, will rock an extraordinary amount.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
1) Near star 4, about at 10-11 o'clock, there appears to be a talon of the eagle. I asked Dennis about this and he just felt it might be debris, but needed to go back to look at it. With my picture, things line up very close to a talon.
2) With Photoshop, I can change the opacity of the reverse image and see it change. When doing this, I can see the eagle's eye a little bit. Things just tend to line up with the image of the reverse.
I have attached a jpg image, but have the psd file to share with anyone who wants to play with Photoshop.
<< <i>Actually, the reason the strike appears to be so bad is because the dies had buckled and were quite concave. Late state examples of O.105 in high grade, if placed face down on a smooth surface, will rock an extraordinary amount. >>
This doesn't really appear to be a late die state coin to me. So the dies could still be convex at this point.
<< <i>Actually, the reason the strike appears to be so bad is because the dies had buckled and were quite concave. Late state examples of O.105 in high grade, if placed face down on a smooth surface, will rock an extraordinary amount. >>
SL's comment reminds me of 1807 O.109 , where the obverse is very convex due to the obverse die sinking, and will rock back and forth over the high point on a flat surface. Also, look at the flat and weak chin on the 1809 O.105 Overton plate coin, which could allow another coin to be impressed into both the chin and the field.
Dennis, if the obverse of the coin is as convex as SL explained, then I believe it could have been damage, as the other parts of the coin would not necessarily touch the coin, or only lightly, then worn down. Also, from the image, the top line of the shield looks impressed into the coin, and not raised from striking. In the case of damage, the coin responsible for the impression may have also had a slightly convex reverse, with the high point in the shield area. If the obverse is not that convex, then double strike could be a possibility, though an odd one.
It will be interesting to hear what the experts have to say.
<< <i>1) a drunken employee >>
This is probably the cause of many mint errors!
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Thanks everyone for your input regarding this coin. We are still not 100% certain if this is damage or a genuine error. Several specialists want to see it at FUN and we will be sure to let you know the consensus opinion of the experts. I will make a post while at the convention.
Thanks, Dennis
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
UPDATE: we showed the coin to several specialists at the show and the consensus opinion is that the coin is..............a flip over double strike. Genuine. There was not one opinion to the contrary.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!