Let me see if I understand this. Whatever it is, it appeared on the strip, the strip was rolled, the planchet was punched, and the die struck. That's how this happened?
Look upper-left of Lincoln's ear. I know it's a lousy scan, but I don't have my camera back yet. You can make it out though. That pimple's just a speck of dust on the scanner glass (sorry about that).
Very good. I just never heard of that kind of error, metal being lifted from another coin. Laminations are in my limited error vocabulary, not that. But it's metal, alright. Here's a comparison scan of that area to a regular 1994 cent. Again, I hate these scans, but they're the best I can do at present. BTW, what do you think about those lines above and below the metal? They're "raised," and they look like they go with this error.
If it is a piece of metal from another coin it was struck onto this coin. It matches perfectly. But since the split goes through the entire bust, I'm guessing just a lamination with a bit more than normal hanging off. Michael
If they are raised then they are die cracks. If this is the error I hypostasized, then they are unrelated. Then you have a DOUBLE error coin. And that is my opinion is just dang cool.
I didn't mean that it was a dropped letter type error where a piece of a struck coin attached itself. I meant a piece of scrap metal (shaving from a blank ei.) was struck into the coin, becoming part of it.
You know what? This is unfair to you guys. Let me get my camera back and we'll revisit this one. I think with your knowledge, you might come together, if you could only see some decent photos. For now, let's just say, my bad, lousy scans...but you're both in the ballpark.
No not really. What I meant by your being in the ballpark is your explanations both fit with what this thing looks like. I thought it was a lamination error because I was connecting the metal with the lines at either end and just figuring the lines don't look "incused" because they're smoothed out from wear. Not as sure about that now as I was...
I sould wait for the better pictures but wha it looks like to me is a die crack that has branched and cme back to itself and the "island' of die metal it created has shifted. Possibly sunk slightly, so that that part of the head isslightly raised above that of the surrounding coin. If it was at the rim it would be called a retained cud. Thislooks like an internal "retaind cud".
Conder101 is correct. You've got a die crack that is straddled by a retained interior die break. The latter occurs when and island of metal breaks free and sinks into the surrounding die face.
Wow, that's fascinating, thanks! Let me see if I can't put this in my own words. You're saying the raised lines north and south of the "island" are suggestive of a die break throughout. Thus, you're connecting the island with a part of that die break, and the only way to be consistent, there, is to conclude the metal in that area came loose as a result of the die break and lodged in the die surface. Then, when the planchet was struck with the die, that impression in that area of the die was naturally imparted to the coin. If I have that right, it would suggest repeated instances, until the die was replaced...or, at least, repeated errors in that area, as the die, from the hammering, continued to break, or "mature." Is that anywhere close, at least, to what you're saying? Again, you'll have to beg my pardon, as I'm not accustomed to this level of diagnostic proficiency. But I find this totally cool, and I just want to make sure I'm understanding it right.
<<Wow, that's fascinating, thanks! Let me see if I can't put this in my own words. You're saying the raised lines north and south of the "island" are suggestive of a die break throughout.>> No. A die crack. <<Thus, you're connecting the island with a part of that die break, and the only way to be consistent, there, is to conclude the metal in that area came loose as a result of the die break and lodged in the die surface.>> The die crack essentially splits and then rejoins itself, defining an island of metal. That island sank down into the die face. <<Then, when the planchet was struck with the die, that impression in that area of the die was naturally imparted to the coin.>> Any recessed area of the die would create a raised island on the coin. <<If I have that right, it would suggest repeated instances, until the die was replaced...or, at least, repeated errors in that area, as the die, from the hammering, continued to break, or "mature." Is that anywhere close, at least, to what you're saying?> Yes, this is a repetitive die error. In other words, there would have been more than one cent struck from this die, identical to yours. <<Again, you'll have to beg my pardon, as I'm not accustomed to this level of diagnostic proficiency. But I find this totally cool, and I just want to make sure I'm understanding it right.>>
Excellent Mike, thanks. And in the future Ill try not to use "breaks" and "cracks" interchangeably (...just a bad habit I picked up). But I think I understand this now.
