I can't say with absolute assurance that what is present on the obverse and reverse was produced by the same die but I see nothing to indicate they were produced by different dies. A pounding or squeeze job requires two coins and the odds of both coins being produced by the same working die is very low.
Great illustration Justafarmer! Thanks for producing this. It looks like you may be a tad bit more than just a farmer! Nice evidence.
Thanks but nothing difficult really. Imported the image into a CAD system. Established an angular construct (the white dotted lines you see) along the outside edge of the "1" in the date. Then used the parallel and perpendicular line drawing tools to produce the grids.
Isn't that groove an impression from the rim? It looks to me that there were two separate impressions. The partial motto you see is from the same impression as the partial rim. The motto is out of alignment and rotated with respect to the bust. This could only occur if the brockage maker were double struck? And one strike was out of the collar.
I don't think that is a rim that goes with the reverse profile hit, everything is pretty well centered, that thing is from something else.
The partial motto doesen't fit with the bust on the reverse either. Look at where WE is on the obverse, then look at where it's at on the reverse impression. That's why I said there are two different impressions. The bust and the partial date and LIBERTY are one impression and the rim impression and the partial motto are a second impression.
Mike like I said back in post #14 this looks like the brockage maker may have been a worn die cap that came loose from the obv. die and somehow landed on the rev. die. it may have been a floating die cap that was moving out of position between strikes. the ridge in the face may have been a bend in the die cap where it was starting to wear thin. I'm about like you , this is the only thing I can think of right now. it is definately a mint error IMO , just a little hard to exactly figure it out.
Before you can say this is definitely a mint error you still have to explain the double impressions the brockage maker received before it became a die cap. By the way this die cap would have been on the reverse die, not on the obverse die.
hey don't worry I'm betting Mike will figure it out. yes we all know it was on the reverse die when the op's coin was struck , like I said earlier I believe the brockage maker may have been a loose obv. die cap that was moving out of place between strikes then somehow flipped over and landed on the rev. die. this is just my guess so don't take it to heart until it is finally solved.
You can send the coin to me at no charge for a closer look. Maybe I can figure out what's going on at that point.
This kind of reminds me of a 2000 cent with a first-strike or early-stage counterbrockage of the obverse design on the obverse face. In that coin, the first digit of the date overlaps the front of Lincoln's coat. I have not figured that one out, either.
so many freak things can happen at the mint that some of them are hard to figure out. I think I may have figured out what made the sunken in area in front of Lincoln's face. It looks like the collar may have sheared part of the edge off the brockage maker off and was laying on it when the op's coin was struck. just something to think about if you examine the coin.
The triangle connecting points on LIBERTY, DATE and Bust (The red triangle) appear similar on both impressions while the triangle connecting points on LIBERTY, Date and WE (the black triangle) are NOT similar. So the positioning of WE relative to the Date and LIBERTY on the reverse is not the same as on the obverse. The positioning of the Bust relative to the Date and Liberty on the reverse appears to be the same as on the obverse.