1814 Classic Head Cent, doubled obverse.

The photos are not the best. I didn't edit them other then cropping. While the focus is "bad" the date looks like that. The first 8 literally looks like a conjoined twin infinity symbol. I like this coin and wish he was willing to sell it to me. Since he's become a friend, I won't push it but will remind him he teased me with it.

Thanks,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

From what I see it is Machine doubling and it is an extreme case. If it was double struck I would expect to see doubling on the reverse as well and I don't see that. (It could there and I can't see it due to the image quality but I don't think so.)

A DDO is NOT possible due to how the dies were made. They were not hubbed with all features at the same time as they are today, The central bust was hubbed in using a screw press, and then each star, letter, and date digit was punched in individually by hand. They would not have doubled the central image and then punched in each individual feature and then repunched them again offset like that. Especially all in the same direction and amount.

 

Thanks Conder. I think I follow what your saying. Should I advise the owner that while it is interesting, there is no added value? Appreciate your experience.

 

You know you made me watch the movie......

 

For the extreme strength of the MD I would think it should have some premium value but not a large premium maybe 5 to 10%

 

Appreciate it. I'll let him know. If he does send it in, I'll get pics of that as well to share. Thanks to all who have offered input.

 

Hello CT. I borrowed the coin to take better photos with my scope camera. Here they are. I did adjust the lighting on a few to show the detail better, but no color editing, just different lighting. Some close ups of the date and stars and better shots of the reverse with what can be seen of the rim devices. Thanks for looking and the input. If there is a feeling it may be counterfeit, I'll advise the owner of same.

 

Reverse devices. I coin weighs 10.22g

 

Mike, it still looks to me like this was due to the strike. It was struck twice. That's why the broad coverage on the doubling.

 

@Mike Thornton is it ok with you if I copy and post these pictures in a Fb group I'm in that has a lot of EAC members who are pretty knowledgeable in this area?

 

Yes. Let me know when you do. Thanks. I don't do Fb, so if you can let me know what they think, I'd appreciate it.

 

Thanks

 

I still doubt it is double struck because I still see no evidence of a second strike on the reverse. If it was double struck without coming out of the reverse die, then that would indicate a significant movement of the Obverse die between strikes

 

Wouldn't this be a extra strike in the collar ?

 

No collar in 1814, or at least no close collar. Which makes it even more unlikely the coin would remain perfectly seated in the rev die between strikes.

 

How exactly were these struck at that time, @Conder101, could you take us through the process?

 

It's double-struck. Definite error coin. Nice pickup!

 

From the better photos, it might even be a triple-strike. Still a great error and pickup-.

 

I would tend to agree with "halfcent1793" the coin is at least double struck. Possibly triple struck but that would need in hand examination. There appears to be rotation from strikes and the first strike was flattened by the second strike which is now the strong strike. Is the rotation accurate? Was the coin altered over 200 years ago? I don't observe shelving similar to machine doubling. There is a little confusion as to why the reverse does not look like rotation and a double strike but the error is possible. Was the double strike caused by a loose die which moved enough to make the double strike? Or the triple strike? It would be interesting to measure the spread and rotation on the strikes to determine what happened. Did something, die or coin, rotate from the center? It's an interesting coin no matter what the outcome or consensus is. I look forward to experts giving their insight.

 

But do you see what @Conder101 is saying? If it was struck twice, it was struck, then turned a little, then struck again. If it turned between strikes why isn’t the reverse doubled too?

I’m thinking now the obverse die must have been the hammer die and it’s that die that turned between the strikes and not the coin, the coin remained still throughout the strikes