Any chance this thing is real

I'm beginning to get used to the snow. Getting some things done.

I ran across this coin in my box. It's always bugged me. I've never been satisfied that it is bogus even though one of the leading experts declared it so - and I have great respect for him.

The answer always seemed somewhat implausible - the coin started life as a true uniface and some one pounded another coin into it - ruining a somewhat valuable coin.

It weight 3.08 gram, so nothing has been ground off and there is no sign of the wheat reverse - at least that I can see.

Thoughts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That mark above lincoln's head on the "reverse" worries me...

 

Wouldn't this be an example of a partial brockage strike?

 

That answer sounds like some of the answers that comes from a error expert that I know. when they can not easily understand something they will say anything. I believe your coin is a true mint error because the obverse side is not damaged at all. It would be near impossible to add that much detail on the reverse without damaging the obv. side. I know some folks say put a piece of leather between the coin and the area the coin is resting on to not damage this side but IMO it would not work for adding this much details.Is all the details on this coin incuse or is some raised?

 

I would go with that it is real but as Non-cents mentioned, the mark above lincoln's head does seem a little out of place. Otherwise though, it does look like a legit error.

 

Maybe a silly question...is the design on the "reverse" raised or incuse?

 

It looks to be raised.

 

The "reverse" image is actually incuse.

 

That is sooooo not true Rascal!

 

I see what I would think is a vice job where someone squeezed a steel cent onto a copper planchet (or maybe a worn copper cent). I'm not really *that* type of error collector, though, so I'd be far from the best person to listen to.

 

I am reasonably confident that this is an authentic error. If the incuse image was pressed into the featureless reverse face of a uniface cent by a normal cent, you'd expect to see the higher-relief parts of Lincoln's bust to be present. But the ear and hair texture are absent. So I suspect that the brockage-maker was weakly struck as the result of having been struck on a split or rolled-thin planchet. The curved groove that marks the termination of the incuse design on the reverse face is puzzling, but at this point I don't think it's a fatal sign. You might want to measure the coin's diameter at several points to see if it's expanded or out-of-round. That would be useful only if it was struck fully within the collar.

I see a curvilinear disturbance in the field to the left of Lincoln's bust, just to the left of his shoulder and just inside the design rim. This could also be an indicator of authenticity.

 

I think it is legit, but US errors sometimes leave me scratching my head lots...

I would think that this coin would be an earlier state partial brockage, as the design is not expanded or distorted too much. The puzzling part is that even if it was a partial brockage, there is no indent - so there had to be something (another blank planchet perhaps?) sitting between the off-centred brockage maker and the anvil die, to obscure any hint of a reverse strike...???

Thanks for sharing...

 

I am thinking you have a capped die with a partial brokerage. I recently, (Last Sunday) seen a Jefferson that was similar to this coin. The mark above the head very well could of been caused by partial collar from the capped die sticking to the die when another planchet failed to enter the striking area. I agree with Mark, it certainly has possibilities.

 

Jim I believe you may have nailed it . this is about what I thought it was when I first saw the coin. I may be wrong but this looks to be struck thru a thin worn die cap that came loose from the obverse die and ended up on the reverse die. notice how the struck thru area is not even close to being as wide in diameter as a full size coin plus part of the word liberty and part of the date is missing .

 

No what I said is sooooo true , you don't even know who in the heck I was commenting on. OldErrorGuy's first post is proof of what I said.

 

It's not a partial brockage. The brockage is perfectly centered and I'm guessing is perfectly aligned with the raised design on the obverse face. The absence of any ghost image bleeding through on the reverse face from the reverse die would indicate that the brockage-maker was reasonably thick.

 

What you are saying makes sense , I'm thinking it's possible that a new planchet could have been resting on the reverse die for a backup for the thinner piece..

 

You said "when they can not easily understand something they will say anything."

This is simply NOT True and I know exactly who you were referring to.

 

Fellers,

Thanks for taking the time to express your thoughtful analyses.

I always thought this was real, but never had the kind of thought put into it that I've seen here.

Thanks again.......

 

Oh my ! now it looks like we may have a mind reader . Was you the one I was referring to ? If you know exactly who I was referring to then please let us all know who it was.