In photographing and verifying the variety of my Early Date Large Cent collection, I've just found 4 out of the last 6 low grade examples to have evidence of undertype or multiple strikes. These are in the 1800 and 1801 time frame to go along with a 1798 I found earlier. Could some Large Cent specialists tell me if this is typical? I've been collecting a long time, but I haven't studied a lot of coins in detail to know how common this is. I just read on another thread that Talbot and Lee tokens were cut down and used for Half Cents so I suppose the mint would have been reticent to discard poor strikes rather than repress the planchets.
Hello, I have been looking through the only source I have concerning undertyping, and that is Breen's Encyclopedia of Half Cents. I understand your looking for large cents, but do hope some of my limits research will be of some small help. What my research, from a limited source, tells me is this. These were not common, and where mainly due to tokens being used as coinage. However in the same note, it does appear that not only where tokens used but planchets from different manufactures. The manufacture does seem to have significance in regards to undertyping. Not sure if this is correct but does appear that planchets from Talbot, Allum, and Lee tokens were highly subject to undertyping. Additionally Breen mentions several times low quality control at the mint, when these coins were produced. Just so you know i have not read the book cover to cover, so this could be mentioned in other area's as well. Below is a page list of what i found on said pages. i do hope some of this is useful. If not i thoroughly enjoyed researching this, as this is my first day back in the hobby after over a year long absence. 1795 Pg 140 Breen explains that over struck coins where not counted, due to not given an edge at the mint. They are always over weight, and some have token trace designs. 1795 Pg 156 Talbot Allum, and lee planchets. Almost always show traces of undertyping, mostly ships rigging. 1797 pg 183 Widest Date and Border, Widest Half. Breen states Plainest near date, in reference to undertying. Additionally later mentions "catalogs in the past have tended to pay little to no attention to undertypes" 1797 Pg 186 in regards to ths year Breen stats" Impossible to determine where planchets came from due to wear". Later he states "Collectors more concerned with Grade and undertyping". 1800 Pg 199 Briefly states 4 known undertypes 1802-0 Pg 204 In regards to this year Breen states "Undertypes rarely visible, and to date unattributable". 1803 Pg 211 Breen mentions in regards to undertyping " None found to date" 1804 Pg 254-255 Breen mentions " Twoo known with double profile, one with undertyping.."Another mention on Pg 255 states " Don Frederick has reprted one with Double Profile and the border of a cent under struck" Pg 467 Chapter titled Whoops. I read this as i was hoping to find a definition or how rare undertyping was. All i found was Breen mentioning How to grade different half cent errors, and the different scales that have been considered. Nothing really of importance sadly. Pg 481Breen here gives a examples of what understuck coins are, though i am sure you know this already. Breen states " Understuck [eg. off center, brockage, or double struck tokens]. Pg 482 Breen again mentions low quality control as to reason for understuck coins. That is all can I find. I do hope it is of some assistance in answering your question. Do know i am not an expert, and hope i have not misquoted Breen in any way. Regards, Stan
I know I have heard of a very few reports of undertypes, but darn few confirmed examples. In most cases they are just double struck coins, more rarely it is a coin struck over another variety.
Most of what I'm seeing is likely to be undertype of the same die as the Final strike or a double or multiple strike, though some of the lettering appears undersized. Does the term undertype have specific meaning which excludes strikes from the same dies used to make the final Strike? Is there a distinction in terms made when the Final Strike obscures prior strikes as opposed to the traditional double strike where the final strike is off center leaving some surfaces unobscured by the final strike?
Personally I would think undertype would have a different meaning. An undertype would (or should) mean traces of the design of a coin created by dies other than those used to create the final coin. That would eliminate any kind of double striking by the same pair of dies, but it would permit a coin of the same type but a different die variety to still be considered as leaving an undetype. A double strike is then just a special case in the creation of an undertype that has its own designation. Similar to how in doubled dies the rotated hub dubbling is given its own class even though it is really just a special case of pivoted hub dubbling where the pivot point is at the center of the die.
Hello, I would have to agree with conder on this, as i was unable to find out an exact answer but that was the closest explanation I have seen. Regards, Stan
Marshall the commonly used term for what you are talking about is over-strike. That is when a coin or token of a different country, or perhaps just an earlier date from the same country, is used as the planchet for a new coin. The new coin is struck, but sometimes varying degrees of the design elements of the old coin can still be seen on the new coin. The practice of over-striking older coins was quite common in many European and South American countries. It went on for centuries. But as a general rule it didn't happen much anywhere past the early 1800's. There are exceptions of course. But by then it became more common to just counter-mark the older coins instead of restriking them with new dies. As I mentioned in the other thread, it was only done in the early years of the US Mint when the mint could not get planchets or metal to make planchets. I used the date 1800 in the other thread, but as Coinman points out it happened as late as 1804. But it never happened again after that, not at the US Mint anyway. I can see where some might use the term under-type instead of over-strike or over-struck, but I must admit your use of the word is the first time I have ever run across it.
I'm at the very beginning stages running down this "type" of situation so I can easily misuse terms as I attempt to grasp what's happening. Perhaps I am incorrect in differentiating the overstrike as the final strike and undertype as the prior strikes. I think the vast majority of what i'm seeing is what you call rotating hub doubling [edit - this is not what I meant since there is no hub involved in the rotation of the finished dies - I meant rotated non matching striking] since it appears as a series of strikes rotating with just minor movement away from centered. Thanks for the information. I'm also seeing this on my Charlotte Quarter Eagles. Of course, I could be having Rorschach visions.
There are many things you could be seeing. But an over-strike, or underlying type as you call it, is not one of them. So post pictures of your coins and we'll help you determine what it is that you are seeing.
Overstrike is the term for the coin or what has been done. Undertype refers to the image traces of the first striking. An Overstrike may or may not have a visible undertype. Understrike might be a better term but I have never seen it.
It sounds good to me and it won't leave me confusing people. That is, if I'm still seeing things after counseling...
