1889 Indian Head Cent Double struck

Its the same coin just different pixel quality and different lighting. I am using a Galaxy S10 edge for the photos. I have taken photos in both natural and indoor lighting

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So sorry everyone. I am obviously wrong and have pie in my face. I jumped on this one much too quickly. I do know what a clip is and words came out of me that did not match what I was seeing. I have no idea why I spaced out like that.

 

Initial photos were scaled down due to the directions in the loading photo forum. These new photos are not scaled down and at a full 1140x1520

 

That is an interesting coin to study. I'd like to see some edge (side) photos of the error and coin. The die that was used for the error appears to be the same die used for the main coin. Checking the denticles, they align correctly. Is the error recessed from the main coin? If it is, it would be better protected from wear. Does the error taper from the rim to the center? Was the collar in place when the cent was double struck? If it was in place, did the dies move? Looking the picture over and counting denticles, it appears in alignment obverse and reverse. How much thinner is the error compared to the main coin? Depending on what the dies did and the collar, I would expect the error to be taper thick (at the rim) to thinner )as the copper spreads into the center of the coin). Do you have an electronic micrometer? I would hope that counterfeiters are not getting this good to get everything precise. Enjoy coin collecting.

 

Excellent observations.

 

Thank you Bob. Excellent post. I will be adding the photos you requested in moments. I will answer your questions in order.

1) The error is recessed from the coin on both the obverse and reverse. It is deeper and more prominent on the obverse then it is on the reverse.
I would say 2x deeper on the obverse of the coin.(2 to 1) compared to the reverse.

2) Yes the error is tapered. It is thickest closest to the coin and gets thinner going out. The tip or front part of the error is approximately half the thickness of the coin itself.

3) There appears to be very little to no die rotation. I will post pictures of this separately and mark them as such, to try and capture any die rotation.

4) I ordered 2 scales and rush delivered one of them. (The suspense is killing me ) One scale measures .001 Grams the other .01 Grams

I look forward to solving this enigma with you and the rest of the wonderful and knowledgeable CT community.
Photo's to follow
Thank you Bob and everyone else who is helping out. I appreciate it greatly and having much fun.

 

OK ok, We have enough photos. LOL
This is not about whether or not it is multi struck, that is evident.
It is about whether or not the dies were authentic dies and done at the mint. The mushiness on the reverse, zero detail on the obverse.
These dies do not look like mint dies......
Still waiting on the weight though.

 

I agree with manny9655, why would anyone have circulated this anomaly, and why does the clip look "newer" than the regular strike? Post-mint shenanigans?

 

Allright everybody.. I got one of the scales in the mail today and it s not the one I rush delivered Anyways I'm sure it will do. This one didn't come with the calibration weights but I weighed a 2018 Michigan Quarter for a calibration test and it was spot on. What do you all think of the weight of the Indian? It teetered between 3.05 and 3.04 a couple times and settled at 3.04 grams.

I have tasted disappointments bitterness several times in my time here (9 days) and am sitting down so let me have it. Is this to light?

 

Its within tolerance for a normal example but with that little of another one I would expect it to weigh more,no?it might be the scale.

 

Wear period makes me think this may be a fake. In my opinion if anyone seen this it would've immediately been put away. Even if it escaped the hands of hundreds of even thousands of people that have no idea what they have found somebody would've put it away. Too many missing details for me.

 

I'm going with fake.