The reverse of this coin looks to be machine doubling to me on the words Half Dollar, but what could have caused the marks on HAL ? Dave
This was on CT a few years ago: Incuse Vs. Relief anomalies Discussion in 'Error Coins' started by non_cents, May 8, 2013. Watch Thread non_centsThe Frisco Kid Hi folks. :smile Here's another tutorial that will hopefully help people in determining what they have. Today we will be learning about incuse (negative) anomalies vs anomalies in relief (raised). Key words: -Incuse: a negative image, an element that is sunken in. Opposite of relief. -Relief: An image or design that is raised on the coin. Opposite of incuse. Some errors that you find on a coin will be in relief, and some will be incuse. An example of an error with an incuse anomaly would be a struck through foreign object. This occurs when a foreign piece of material is present in between the planchet and the dies during the striking of the coin. When the dies strike the planchet, the foreign material "clogs" the die and prevents a full strike of the design in a localized area (sometimes can be throughout the whole coin in the case of extreme grease-filled dies). Instead of having a raised part of the design, coins with a struck-through error will show an incuse anomaly. The following is an example of a struck-through foreign object on the reverse of a wheat cent. Notice that it is incuse on the coin and prevented the design from being struck in that area. Now here is a coin that is NOT a struck-through error. Rather, it is damage. Although it is incuse on the coin, the sharp edges of the gouge along with the displaced metal means that it DID NOT occur during striking, and was damaged after being minted. On post-1982 cents, if the damage is deep enough, you will be able to see the silver-colored zinc core. Seeing the zinc is another indicator of a cent damaged after strike. The following error is a lamination error, which is caused by impurities in the planchet alloy. The anomaly is incuse. The main difference you can see is that the design elements are still present in the area of the lamination. This is because it is a planchet error and not a striking error. Now that we have covered incuse anomalies, let's take a look at a couple raised ones. First, we will look at die gouges. This is where things may be confusing. Die gouges occur on the die when a tool or other object scrapes part of the face of the die. This creates an incuse anomaly on the die. When a planchet is struck, this area becomes raised. This is because the metal from the planchet is forced into the negative image on the face of the die, meaning that the elements on the coin will be raised. To simplify the statement: if a negative image is present on the die, it will result in a positive image on the coin. Here is an example of some odd die gouges present on a coin below Lincoln. They are raised, because they were incuse on the die. Notice that they do not overlap with the design, as die gouges are usually localized on the flat parts of the dies instead of on the incuse elements. The last anomaly we will look at is a plating bubble (also known as a plating blister). Note that these are only known to occur on cents composed of a zinc core with a copper plating, as only post-1982 cents (as well as the zinc composition 1982 cents) have a copper plating. These anomalies are caused by contaminants located in the plating, and released gasses within the plating caused by heat during the strike expand the copper plating upward. These "errors" are very common and rarely command a premium. Here is an example of a plating blister on the reverse of a "Zincoln" (zinc-core lincoln memorial cent). Large plating blisters will pop and deflate if poked with a toothpick. That just about wraps up this tutorial. I hope it helped some people out. Feel free to ask any additional questions.:thumb: Keep up the hunt! Simon
Looks like a coin rolling machine could have done it. Or the rim of another coin at an angle. Damage continues across the field and into the U.
Hello, i know that this may be an off topic, but how in the world do you take pictures so close, but yet still so clear?
I just use a Kodak digital camera with a good edit program on my computer and also have a Plugable 2.0 microscope for the real close ups. Everybody has their own preference so hopefully other people will chime in to give you more info. http://www.amazon.com/Plugable-Microscope-Flexible-Observation-Magnification/dp/B00XNYXQHE
I used a Canon (Cannon) Powershot SD1200 IS point and shoot for years with moderate success. The real secret to photographing coins is proper lighting, macro setting, proper white balance, and placing the camera on a tripod to eliminate camera shake. Most of the pictures I took with this camera were hand held but I did on occasion employ a small tripod. Those were the more successful , fulfilling (in my mind) shots. My current accomplice is a Nikon DSLR, which I am very happy with. I can fiddle with the setting on the camera to better achieve what I'm trying to convey.
Hi Ken. I will have to let you know Monday. I put the coin back in the vault and the time lock is closed over the weekend. Dave
I don't know about documented DDR's of this issue, but in the photo's the serifs on the Ls and R in Dollar look like they may be split. Are they?
Well Ken, I can't tell with these tired old eyes, but it appears to be raised although I can't feel a bump or a dip . Maybe you guys can tell from these close up pictures. Dave
