1999 1c Double Struck in Collar Need Help

I acquired today for my personal collection this 1999 Lincoln cent Double Struck Rotated In Collar mint error.

Examining the date within the vest and doing an overlay with the digits 1999 it appeared the last digit 9 wasn't matching exactly with the overlay. (See middle photo)

Going another step further, I decided to conduct an overlay with the digits 1998 taken at the exact same magnification and superimposing. Is it possible that the last digit is an 8? (See bottom photo)

Can this happen?

Billy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Man thats pretty cool ether way

 

Sure looks like the 8 to me. Does the reverse show the same rotation? Is it possible a previously struck 1998 cent was in with the planchets and this is an overstrike

 

Yes, the reverse shows the same rotation. Here's a few more photos of the coin.

Billy

 

That is a cool error, I've not seen many in these later years.
It is too faint for me to see, but it does look like the 8 lines up a bit better.

 

Due to the ever so slight conical topography of the die, there would have been an inward shift toward the center which would increase with distance from the center and would show up on any raised area that was struck in contrast to the fields. I say double struck 1999/1999. Too bad it wasn't a WAM to boot! Great coin Billy! Thanks for sharing.

 

So, to make sure I understand you correctly, then it would be a planchet entered the coining chamber, was then struck with a 1999 obverse working die, then for whatever reason failed to eject and rotated a little in the collar and then was struck again with the 1999 obverse working die, making it a 1999/1999. Is that what you are saying?

Billy

 

That would be my interpretation. I think the discrepancy in the alignment of the overlays is due to the the fact that one overlay is of the date being struck on flat fields vs. the other strike being on the raised surface AND overlapping onto the field. Again, keeping in mind that the surface of the die is not one dimensional.

Am I completely wrong?

Jody

 

In your first reply you state, "I say double struck 1999/1999." Ok, fair enough. However, if you make a statement then you need to provide the scenario of how that happened.

I then provided a scenario of how that 1999/1999 could happen and asked you, "is that what you are saying?" so as to make sure I understood you correctly.

To my scenario, you replied, "That would be my interpretation."

Now we are getting somewhere.

Then for that scenario to be correct in that it is a 1999/1999 double struck with rotation in the collar, then that 1999 working die striking the coin twice would have to have the same die markers on each strike.

But, that is impossible. Because they DO NOT have the same die markers! Therefore, that proves they are two totally different working dies!

I shot photos of die markers and will upload them in the morning and show you.

Billy

 

Billy,

I look forward to seeing those. I have no idea how you are establishing markers for two seperate dies based upon a single coin.

Jody

 

I'm confused. Are you saying TWO DIFFERENT dies from DIFFERENT YEARS struck the same planchet? That simply did not happen.

Jody
​

 

Oh Mike Noodle!!! Calling Mike Noodle!!

 

I think it did. It's not out of the question. Struck coins get dropped back into the hopper on accident from time to time. Sometimes many years later. I personally have owned a coin that was struck 2 times with 2 different dates. I have also seen coins that are several years off between strikes as well. It's most likely tho that the strikes will be just one year off.

 

It will be really interesting to see how this plays out. I guess it is possible that it was (lightly struck?) by a 1998 die, then got lost in the machinery. Subsequently, an employee might have found it and threw it into the batch to be struck in 1999.

It's pretty cool, Billy!

Chris

 

Great find. It is indeed a 1999 cent struck over a 1998 cent. It's possible this occurred at the end of the year, when a 1998 cent remained behind in a hopper, tote bin, or conveyor. Since planchets are supplied by outside contractors, it's also possible for a 1998 cent to somehow end up in the shipping container.

 

Well you learn something new every day. I thought it was an impossibility, but it's not the first time I've had to eat my words! It's a great find either way, but that is an amazing find being a 1999 struck over a 1998.

 

You have to remember that during th last month or two of the year the mint is striking both the current years coins and the coming years coins at the same time. If a struck coin gets into a bin of blank planchets.....

 

Billy,

Did you find that roll searching?

 

Thanks Mike for replying and providing your expertise.

I acquired this coin from a well-known and highly respected major mint error dealer. However, the dealer did not mention anything about the other date being visible on the coin and described the coin only as a 1999 Lincoln cent "Double-Struck In Collar with Rotation" mint error.

When I received the coin I was able to examine in more detail and I quickly noticed that it also exhibited the underlying date and that it didn't appear to match up properly to the last digit 9. Additionally, I noticed that the die markers on the second strike did not match to the die markers on the first strike. This makes sense since the two strikes are from two different dies with each die being a different date. I posted photos of the coin here and you know the rest of the story.

I believe it would be fair to say that probably the value of this coin has significantly increased.

Billy

 

Definitely! Good score!