Oh My GOSH! Someone REALLY Goofed up!!!

That is one nice looking error!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Congrats on the Baby!

 

'AL', LOVE that coin and that sweet baby as well!!!

All around, it HAS been an exceptional 30 days for you.

Alas, no ancient error coins to share (unless barely discernible double strikes count) and all my moderns are languishing elsewhere.

But, I'll look forward to seeing what everyone else has to post.

 

LOL, don't tell my wife...but slammed home almost 40 puppies in the last month she was gone...

 

very cool coin aleg...and cute grand baby!

i don't have any ancient error coins really, several overstikes...but no real mint flub ups.

i do have this modern russian coin with a clipped (not sure what the term is exactly) planchet.

 

I believe the proper term for clipped is CLIPPIUS MAGNIUS COINIANIUS... no, maybe not. Kidding.

Way cool clipped coin!!!

 

Here's a modest reverse double strike on an ant of Diocletian. You can see two lines of inscription on the reverse. Notice that the obverse exhibits no evidence of a double strike. This is common on Roman double strikes as the emperor's portrait was generally placed on the stationary, or anvil die. The reverse was on the striking die. Thus, if a second strike was necessary, the flan would stay in place on the obverse die, while the reverse die would hit the coin again, frequently not in the same place as the first strike.

 

I saw the double-strike before I read your commentary...NICE!!! Very cool!

 

Here is a brockage error on a Nabataean bronze of Rabbel II. The interesting thing about this coin is that there are two busts, one in relief, one incused. The only way this could have happened is if the striking die was the obverse die, which is unusual in the ancient world. A coin got struck with the bust facing up but didn't eject. A new flan was placed on top of it, and struck with the obverse die, thus, two busts of the emperor, one in relief, the other incused...

 

VERY nice! Lotta work went into making THAT mistake!

 

Nice coin & very nice grandchild. Fantastic actually.

Here is one from my collection:


Roman Republic
L. Scipio Asiagenus
AR Serrate Denarius
106 B.C.
3.68 gms, 18 mm
Obv: Head of Jupiter facing left with the letter A below chin.
Rev: Mirror brockage of obverse.
Grade: EF. Only slight wear on the obverse devices. Perfectly centered & preserved incuse brockage on reverse.
Other: Rome mint coin where the reverse normally depicts Jupiter driving a galloping quadriga. From Eye Appealing Coins October 2013.

 

I have been looking for a brockage! VERY nice example! Well done.

 

Here's a very subtle striking error on a bronze of Antiochus IX. This is a flip-over partial brockage double strike, and takes a bit of explaining.

Notice the incused dots on the reverse. This type only has a dotted border on the obverse, so a coin was struck, then flipped over and didn't completely eject. A flan was placed over it and struck once, picking up the incused version of the obverse border dots. Then the minter got the obstructing coin out of the way, and restruck.

How do we know that? If he had struck the coin only once, Nike's arm wouldn't be extending into the brockage area - it would have been completely blocked by the obstructing coin. Also, the obverse would exhibit areas of weakness from the deflected force, but it's quite strongly struck.

 

Nice. Great coin error...

 

Here is a coin of the Byzantine emperor Justin, 518-527. It is a flip doublestrike, 31-29 mm.



We all know the Byzantines minted some lousy coins, but the blunder on this one stands out. To the left of the left image you can see "CON" from the reverse and beginning at 1:00 you can read NVSPPAV from the obverse. The orientation of the left image has the bust upright--some of the head and shoulders remains. The right image shows most of the rest of the obverse legend "DNIVSTI" twice, once near the rim at 6:00-7:00 and once exiting the flan at 11:00, while the usual large reverse "M" is visible on the bottom half of the right image (officina A) and when you look at it again, you can see the large "M" on the left image (above CON with the bottom at 8:30 and the top at 2:30).

The Justin is a doublestrike, not an overstrike (because it is not struck on a different, earlier, type underneath). Overstrikes are common in the anonymous Byzantine series and under Heraclius and later. This coin must be about the most extreme mint blunder from the earlier period of Justin.

Amazingly complicated. How did it even escape the mint?

 

I wonder if the mint worker escaped from the Mint after his shoddy work!
Excellent capture! Thank you for posting this wonderful example!

 

This Decentius appears to have been whacked twice with some rotation of perhaps 15 degrees seen on the reverse lettering due to the double-whack.

DECENTIUS as Caesar
AE2 (Actually 24 mm from strike)
351-363 AD
24 mm Copper
Obv: DN DECENTIVS FORT CAES
Bare headed simple draped bust
facing right.
Rev: VICT DD NN HVG ET CAES
Two victories standing facing
each other holding between them
a shield (VOT - V - MVL - X) in
the shield, FSAR in exergue.
Grade: aVF with strong effects of
double strike on both the obverse
& reverse legends.
Other: Arelate mint. Similar to Sear #4036. RIC VIII 165. Sited as “scarce” on acsearch.

 

Wow, very nice...looks like the lettering is "stretched" and convoluted.

I also agree with @John Anthony in his earlier post. Albeit, Ancients were hand struck, and a "normal" amount of acceptance for hand operations; it is still amazing there are not MANY more "ancient coin errors".

My personal musings: The Ancient world pounded out MILLIONS and MILLIONS of coinage (billions?) over a span of approx 2000 years? Not too many coin errors really stand out. However, today's machined coinage has whole industries within the Numismatic field devoted to classifying, discussing, and hawking error varieties. Have we truly carried relative technology further than the ancients within the modern world?

 

Some of you know I really like the weird ones. One of you traded me this piece of ugliness which I still value far above its cash value. It is a flipover doublestrike of Magnentius BUT the first strike was also a brockage so the coin shows three reverses (one incuse) and one obverse. I strongly suspect the number of people who would like this as much as I could be counted on the thumbs of one hand (at most) but I do love those educational weirdos.

I cant take a satisfactory photo of it. 'In hand' you have to wiggle it to see all the details to best advantage. Every so often I shoot it again and get something different but not better.

 

I'm only marginally interested in collecting ancient striking errors, and I won't pay a premium for them, although I do understand that really dramatic brockage errors like Collect89's coin are highly desirable and worth the extra outlay.

I really can't wrap my head around modern die variety collecting. Seriously, I can't believe anyone cares that a die was double struck by a hub or that a mint mark got repunched. But I honestly don't mean to disparage anyone's collecting preferences - each to his own, and live and let live, yadda yadda. I just don't understand all the excitement about some tiny shadow of a doubled die strike.