Found this one that appears to be a spitting eagle, but the marks are further right, as though it were maybe a rotated die clash? There are also two lines beneath the eagles beak. I see other evidence of clashing on the reverse that supports this. A little hard to see bc of die polishing but definetely something there.
I can see the line further in that you are talking about and my only answer is that there are 2 lines making the shape of his throat that can show up in a clash. Looks like this coin got both lines but was polished out well, as I do see evidence of a clash in the other areas. I suggest keeping this coin until you come across a better example and then setting it loose back into circulation.
I was seeing the same thing. But does it qualify as a spitting eagle? It must not be worth anything if Id send it into circulation
I don't see any spit. About that lower line...Why would it be parallel to the line above it and the same length ? Just curious.
There is a lot of damage on this coin making it difficult to decipher lines from scratches. I would not qualify it as a spitting eagle though there is a clash present. I have found many clashes that don't have the "spit". I don't see it having any value over face due to it's condition. It is a learning piece imo.
Not sure which line you are referring to exactly. The vertical lines at the beak or the diaganol lines at the arrow tips? In the top photo there looks to be a faint remnant of the spit(where it should be) either polished out or it could be circulation markings. At the arrow tips it looks to me like there is a scratch or mark that happens to be parallel to and above the true clash line.
Slip, I apologize. I've gotten two different posts about lines mixed up. When I click on an alert I receive, it takes me to the message that alerted, not the beginning of that particular thread, and so my question about a lower line was/is actually meant for a different thread. My question about a line on this thread was about the line behind the Eagle's head, which Sorencoins stated was a scratch. Again, my apologies.
