Two different error coins from same die

I'm just sitting here getting bored so I decided to show some of you good folks a photo of something I think is very unusal ...

Here we have two totally different error or variety coins that were made by the same die and has been confirmed by me and another knowlegable error coin person.

The clashed die coin is nicknamed the PEEING BISON by me and the clashed die marks were noticed by the mint workers really soon after the dies were clashed and the clash marks were ground off.

This created this detached leg bison coin that I nicknamed the ULTRA DET. LEG BISON.
If you find one of the ultra det. leg coins it can easily be identified from the lesser types by the trail marks behind the E in e pluribus unum. it looks like E has been slid across the coin.

This det. leg coin has a wider seperation and more missing design that any other det. leg bison that has been reporte d so far.

These two coins were identified as being from the same die by two identical die gouges on Jefferson's nose. Enjoy the photos ......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Your photos are of the reverse. Isn't Jefferson on the obverse?

 

Jefferson is an Indian?

 

I thought Jefferson was the name of the bison!

I think what Hobo is getting at is that you can't determine if both reverse errors were on the same die because it could have been replaced in order to repair the reverse die. The only assumption you can really make is that the obverse die (with the gouge) was probably paired with two defective reverse dies.

Chris

 

You are right Jefferson is on the obverse of these two coins. I forgot to mention earlier that these are the 2005 P 5 cent coins.The reason I'm showing the reverse of these two coins is to show what the clashed die coin die ended up looking like after the mint workers ground off the clash marks.I'm adding a photo of the obverse side of the clashed die coin here so you can see part of the bison on Jefferson's nose. the black arrow is pointing to the two die markers for these two coins.

 

Oh yeah, duh. Sorry, I forgot about the newer Bison nickels. :headbang:

 

Rascal, you can't use an obverse marker to prove the reverse die was the same for both errors. Besides, if you look carefully at the reverse of the polished leg, there is no evidence of polishing where the clashes were. I think these are two different reverse dies that were paired with the same obverse die.

Chris

 

I agree with you 100% about what you say and you seem to be a knowlegable coin person. I'm 100% sure that what I said about both types of these error coins did come from the same matched set of dies for different reasons. What first clued me into investigating this was the fact that both of these type errors are always found together in the same mint roll. another clue is the bison clash marks above Jefferson's nose of the peeing bison indicates that this obverse die was also a clashed die before the heavy polishing .surely the mint workers would not polish the obverse die and still replace the reverse die with another defective die. In the photos you just can not see the polishing marks where the clash marks were ground off the det. leg coin. It shows a beautiful heavily ground and polished perfect level surface on the coin even right where the design is missing on the bison's chest, belly and hind leg. it was so heavily ground and polished that the E in e pluribus unum has a trail ot the E from the grinding and looks like someone slid the E across the coin..I'm almost sure if I look close enough that I can find a die marker left on the coins on the reverse side if we want really get technical. does anyone else know of two types of error coins that can be proven to have come from the same die.

 

+1

 

Rascal, you're making a statement in the absolute which you can't possibly prove. You do realize that coining operations use several presses at the same time, and all of these coins are intermixed into large bins which are then transported to the distributor who is responsible for bagging and wrapping them, don't you? How many rolls have you examined? 500? 1000? More? How many machines do you think were involved in the production of the coins for those rolls?

I'm not disputing that the obverse clashed as well, but in order to minimize down time, it is much quicker for the mint worker to just replace the reverse die to keep the coining operations on schedule. Still, this has nothing to do with proving that the same reverse die is responsible for both of the coins you've shown us.

They didn't replace the reverse die with a defective one. They replaced it with one that had, itself been repolished so that part of the bison's upper leg is missing. Maybe you should study some of the Morgan VAM's. There were millions of coins produced from clashed dies, and there were equally as many that were produced from repolished dies. Heck, you don't even have to go that far back in time. Another good example of what polishing can do to the surfaces of coins can be easily seen on the States Quarters business strikes beginning in 2005. When the Mint began using the satin finish on the Uncirculated Mint Sets, they hadn't forseen that these specially prepared dies would deteriorate as quickly as they did. Not wanting to waste the dies because they still had some useful production life, they repolished and used them for the business strikes because it didn't matter as much what the circulated coins looked like. A quarter is a quarter!

No, your coin with the separated leg, in all probability, did not come from the same die. You would have seen evidence of the heavy polishing that would have been needed to remove the multiple clashes.

The mark you see from the "E" appears to be a faint "trail die". You can read about them here.

http://www.traildies.com/id122.html

I'm sure it probably has happened, but I can't cite any specific examples at the moment. The point is that to prove different errors on two separate coins came from the same die there would have to be a distinguishing marker on that same side. You can't use an obverse clash or gouge to prove two different errors came from the same reverse die.

Better luck next time, Rascal!

Chris

 

Well said Chris. Rascal, there are many varieties an many paired dies but like Chris said, all the coin minted at the end combine from all active dies and trying to identify or be 100% positive a specific variety like these came from the same is impossible IMO. Now, the mint makes more dies, more machines printing and so makes it that much more difficult.

I don't know how knowledgeable you are or what you specialize more in but more research and questions is always good.

 

We've all been there. Live and learn.

 

He he. Good one!

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. I thought it went without saying but obviously that was not the case.

Again, that is what I was tried to point out. In the future I guess I should spell it all out no matter how obvious.

 

Darn man what have you been drinking. I just got thru telling everyone that there is evidence of extreme grinding and polishing on the reverse of the Detached leg coin. How the heck do you think the bison's details disappeared ... here's what you just got thru saying

{{{ you said no your coin in all probability,did not come from the same die.you would have seen evidence of the heavy polishing that would have been needed to remove the multiple clashes. }}}

just because this does not show in my photo it sure as heck is there. I'm a 30 plus year collector of error coins and I know all of the error experts and like I told everyone earlier what I said has already been proven to be true by one of the experts .

You all are right when you say that it would be about impossible for someone to find two different types of error coins from the same dies . This is just what may make these coins hard to get later on and they are sure as heck not easy to find right now. I only know of two other folks besides me that has a tiny group of the peeing bison clashed die coins.

 

Well, if that's the way you feel, then submit them both for grading to either NGC or PCGS for Mint Error service and let us know the results.

I would never have guessed that you have been collecting errors for 30 years. The name you have chosen for your error leaves a lot to be desired, and your insult failed to strike home. Perhaps you have noticed that very few people have commented about your coins. Think about it!

Goodbye!

Chris

 

rascal,

Are you a member of CONECA?

 

Chris for your information NGC and PCGS do not have a very good error expert on their staff , Yes they can identify common type error coins and anyone that knows their errors can do that. What they do is if they can not identify something they send the coin to a expert for a opinion. Sorry if I insulted you and I didn't intend to. You are the one that made yourself look bad by not believing what I was trying tell everyone . Go back and read post #10 that you authored. Like I told you and everyone else these coins have already been confirmed by me and another well known error coin person as the obverse die for both types of these awesome error coins as being from the same die. first we only found two identical die markers and now another really good die marker for this die has been identified making a total of three die markers for the obverse die.Hey what's wrong with my nicknames ? There is nothing wrong with a nickname.

 

Hobo I am not a member of CONECA but I do know Mike Diamond and some more of the staff members and have had some dealings with them and they always treat me right. If the CONECA folks can not identify a error coin they have a huge group of experts to get the right opinion from.

 

Perhaps some of these error experts you speak of are posting on this thread!

Some of what you are saying is a little confusing. For instance finding both errors in the same rolls, as already explained, would not correlate to what dies they were struck from. These processes being completely independent of each other. If you get a chance I would like to see photos of the obverse with the three identified die markers. It is certainly possible you are correct and I would be interested to see what die stages of the obverse do each reverse error correlate to.

 

I'd love to see any die markers on the rev. of the nickels if any remain. So far I'm not convinced, but like the "experts", I could always be wrong. I would like to know why your referring to these coins as errors...