my first die clash 1969-D

I tried acetone but nothing melted so I am confident that it is 100% copper. Here are a few more pics. The coin is slightly larger than normal due to the MAD spreading to the East. The railroad rim is present on the reverse, and obverse in the same position.
I also see something at the top of bay 11 in the memorial of the reverse. It looks like another number from the 18, or 81.
The clash marks only go part of the way into the face. They do not go all the way down into what would be a depression for the face in the die. The more I think about it the more impossible it seems. I have the coin though and I don't know how it could be faked or why someone would fake it and put it in circulation (I know that is irrelevant)..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@tomfiggy your new pictures looks to me like the 1981 is actually on top of the memorial and the 1 is over the C and A. See what I highlighted. Or is this just an illusion? Either way, this is truly a keeper!

 

That is not a clash. When dies clash, just like a coin, the metal tries to flow into the recessed areas of the opposite die. That would leave raised areas on the die(s). The next coin punched with the clashed die would leave incuse device imprints. Look at the 1981 on the reverse. It sits on top of the memorial. If it were a clash the 1 and 9 would not show up. The 1 and 9 would have ended up in a recess area of the reverse die.

That is pmd of someone's making. And they ain't good at making dies. Its backwards. I would assume they eventually corrected their mistake and made the die orientation correct. Practice makes perfect.

http://www.maddieclashes.com/the-top-twenty-five-die-clashes/

 

This is an obvious vise job. Despite tomfiggy's protestations, the extra design elements are clearly incuse. Raised devices on the 1969-D cent resisted compression to a greater degree that the surrounding field. That's a common effect.

 

@mikediamond
Thanks Mike,
To be fecetious, with the expert.
If the devices are raised on the coin, and it was actually re-struck. Could it look like this or, would we see more of the devices from the 81 cent?

 

A double denomination error would features raised devices from both strikes. Here the secondary elements are all incuse.

 

Nothing is incuse. I have a thread about it at the Lincoln Cent Forum. site and was trying to figure out how to contact you.
http://www.lincolncentforum.com/forum/showthread.php?39039-1969-D-radical-die-clash
There are better pics there. I want to submit this coin to you for attribution. I have it and I can see up close that nothing on the coin is incuse.

 

There are only a few circumstances that will generate raised, mirror-image design elements. None of those circumstances are present here. It is therefore impossible that you're looking at raised accessory elements. Nevertheless, if you want to send it to me, just send me a private message.

 

@tomfiggy .. When you send it please get back to us with the results!
This is a very interesting piece

 

I'm going to send it in. Of course I will get back to everyone when I find out more.
Thank you all.
Tom

 

Some of the pics may look like the accessory device is incuse. It all looks raised to me. The press this person used did not have enough pressure to eliminate the original devices. Plus when they made the die they added too much relief. Much of the original devices were left intact because they fell into a recess area of the die. Also the die was misaligned. You can see that clearly by the double rim. They probably had no real good way to collar the coin.

This coin was just a practice run. Although using the opposite die face to restrike the coin is odd. It would make more sense to use the correct die face on the same side of coin. i.e., obverse die face to obverse coin side restrike. They were probably using old coins to practice on before using the intended blanks/planchets. I think its a cool coin also. It would find a home in my collection if I had found it. But, still PMD.

After thought. I wonder if they were trying to make an error coin rather than a whole bunch of cents? The die is still wrong. They could make a whole bunch of error coins with one die. I have never bought any error coins. This more than confirms why I should never buy one.

 

Thanks guys! I'm learning a lot here.

 

One last thing for all those want to be die makers. Duh, use playdoh first to see if your design will work. Silly putty works well also.

 

The strangest thing about this coin is that the added features are a mirror image and in relief. I will see what the experts say.

 

So that's your reasoning for not buying error coins? That's why it's important to understand the minting process and how errors can truly occur. But just because there are fakes out there doesn't mean that they should not be purchased.. I mean the real deals not the fakes

 

Fake or not this is easily the most fantastic, impossible coin I have ever found. Even if it's a fake I will definitely keep it. The odds of this even existing let alone finding it in a mint roll are incredible.

 

Glad to hear you are keeping it out of circulation. It's too bad the guy who had fun making it will never get to know how much you enjoyed his "fanciful creation."

 

I won't forget the sense of awe and wonder I had when this sucker popped out of the roll. It's not every day you find one like this.

 

That's exactly what the guy who made this would say.....