lincoln wheat cent 1947s looks like image of lincoln on reverse (error?)

Looks to be a raised image on the reverse any idea what would cause this? Thanks

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It looks like either a lamination seperation or a strike through. Sorry I could not be more helpful someone will come along and explain.

 

Die fatigue. Very common on wheat cents, but yours is stronger than most.

 

+1

 

It's die fatigue alright and they call that condition 'ghosting'.
http://www.littlemistakes.com/WorldErrors/not/not.htm

 

thx everyone very helpfull

 

This is a typical clashed dies coin. The obverse and reverse dies strike each other when no blank is in place. The coins that are fed into the dies after the meeting of the dies will show the "Ghost" look on the back or front or both.

 

Digging up the dead, with a wrong answer at that?

 

I know it is an old thread, but I'd just like to chime in that this is NOT a clashed die. The technical name is progressive indirect design transfer.

 

You are correct in that it is progressive indirect design transfer ( related to deteriorated dies ) and is common in 1946-48 Cents. What I would be interested in , is if any contributing factor besides the condition of the die such as the metal alloy's constituents: for planchets ( as the legend of shell copper being used in some years), metal alloys for the dies as metal availability varied during the war years, striking pressure , etc. It has seemed odd to me that if this was a strict die deterioration phenomena, there would be such in most years, not just the post-WW2 era.

Jim

 

Since no one has given definition to the term "progressive indirect design transfer" it may be time to look at what PCGS has to say about clashed dies in the Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, second edition p.386, March 2004.

"clashed dies
Dies that have been damaged by striking each other without a planchet between them. Typically, this imparts part of the obverse image to the reverse die and vice versa."

I hope this helps calrify what I originally stated.
Richard

 

Your definition of a die clash is correct, but that's not what that is. There is no evidence of a clash on the obverse. Here is a definition for PIDT from error-ref.

 

makes no sense...
Two embossed images on hardened steel die's ''clashing together and transfering an image from one to the other think about it the metal in the recess would have to spring out and protrude out of the die for this to ever happen. someone would have to of put the ''Master die'' (die's that have a raise impression on them that are used to stamp the the design into the ''working die'' which are then used to make the actual coins) on one side of the of the press for some reason and let them clash together and i dont they fit in that press but they are kinda similar i think. Anyhow i think you get what im saying here...
Its more likely that a coin flips in place every so often which might gradually leave an impression on the die
or because of indirect 'diesign transfer

sounds like bad info to me and might need to be changed. It usesd to make sense to me when i first heard about it, now that i think about this quote is complete noncents.
and im probably not the first to concider this a fictional happening of a''die clash'' the only thing that should clash if the die's did clas would be the rim of the die's nothing else should ever touch in the case of a die clash and no design could ever be transfered from one negative die to another negative die without reaching a pressure high enough to create some kind of fission! or fussing together.

Deception! but you only fool yourself thinking this could happen ! as you say

 

Could someone point me to a thread where this has been discussed or give me a more up to date definition of clashed working die's!

so you belive this definition is correct please expain to me how this could happen as they say and as you agree it does.

 

A die clash is when the two dies to strike a coin strike each other when a planchet is not in the chamber, directly transferring the design from the obverse to the reverse and the reverse to the obverse. But this is obviously progressive-indirect design transfer. Note the key word: indirect. The dies themselves never touch, the design is transferred through hundreds of thousands of strikes through planchets. Compare a clash to PIDT and the difference should be obvious.

 

Please define what happens when two negative dies clash in a press and how exactly the image transfers from one negative die to the other negative die with no medium inbetween and both die's that have only recessed/negative impressions on their face. In your own words please cause I dont understand.

This quote is false...

...

 

how does the image transfer?

 

The same way a die with a negative image leaves a raised image on a coin...the dies are solid steel with a lot of force behind them. When they collide, they leave a set of raised images on each other. Thus, when they strike a planchet afterward, they leave the features from both dies.

 

Thats funny