wondering about this cent. notic the scribed line around the device. any clues?

cleaned unc detail.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Is that what it was graded? I'd say "strike doubling". You mean around the image of Lincoln's profile?

 

yes. its hard to see but its around the entire profile wit the exception of the bottom.
yes graded just posted its pic because i could see it nicely if downloaded and blown up. not so much loading it here.

 

I've seen this on other cents of this era, specifically 1942 when I was researching a PCGS "high relief" claim. If you zoom in really close on that second image, the "scribe line" is a lot of tiny micro blobs with some tiny breaks at transitions in the design (tip of nose, eyebrow for example). My theory is that they inscribed around the border on the hub to make the portrait "pop."

 

I have a 1937 P exactly like yours.

 

Here are two more of the same year and mint. So, probably the same master dies even if the actual dies were almost certainly different.

The extra line along the front of his coat is readily apparent.

I think that this may also be an intentional relief to allow the metal to flow up into the bust area with a bit of relief to the edge of the void. I think this is also the reason behind the Longacre doubling on Indian cents. A machinist could offer better rationale for managing metal flow and die wear.

 

So? Does this mean Strike doubling or just the pattern of the design?
Also, is Santa real??

 

I suspect you may not be 100% serious, for some reason. (Santa?)

But, if there were strike doubling, we would see it everywhere, such as the date. But the date is clean.

So, I strongly suspect this is an intentional decision. Not a “design decision”, which would affect the imagery, but rather a “production decision” where the machine-shop part of coin production had a hand in making the final dies workable.

Too bad I can only speculate. I would love to know the definitive answer.

 

Yeah, okay thanks. Remember one thing about me. I'm full of what my wife calls "dry humor". I'm always up for a joke. Some people are too serious in today's world. We need more laughter in any situation.

 

Alas, my poor wife has had to suffer my wit (or half-wit) for 53 years. I really feel for whats-her-name.

 

After all that time how could you forget your wife’s name? Lol

 

Note that my mood is SARCASTIC

 

This would make an interesting research project and article for someone. Jumping through the PCGS gallery it appears that "something" started happening around 1935. Then I don't see it in 1936, see it again in 1937, don't see it in 1938, see it again in 1939... but I'm just scanning through PCGS RD in high grade.

Here are 4 examples of 1935. This is not die deterioration or machine doubling. In my humble opinion, this is deliberate engraving around the bust. Within the limits of visual comparison, the engraving on all of them is the same. The blobby texture to me indicates engraving that jumped or vibrated as the line was drawn.



Now what's really interesting is that D and S examples show the same engraving. D on the left, S on the right. To me this indicates that it was either done to the dated master hub for the year, or a working hub that was then used to produce a lot of working dies for all three mints.



To your point, I'm not sure how to differentiate between a design decision and a production decision. Bottom line is that the same thing as the OP coin is found in years other than 1937.

Edit: OK, the problem with my theory is that the engraving appears to be raised. If it was done on the hub, it would be incuse. Engraving around the lip of the incuse portrait on a master die would be tricky but I suppose it could be done. Other ideas?

 

From what I’ve read strike doubling could be isolated on a letter or two or a large section of the coin. I don’t think I’ve seen any PCGS, NGC or CACG slab that has this type doubling listed on the insert. I have an 1833 large cent with a double profile that isn’t designated anywhere as any type of doubling error. If that’s the case with the 1833 it’s not surprising it isn’t noted on one with more subtle doubling.

 

thanks for the informative replies. now thinking how common is this or was this. also how long would the die last in this state before ware rubbed it away.
on my example under a scope i can see the tool mark seems rotor like, and where the tool progress was interrupted and continued. the tool seems to have contacted the field enough to create the outside line. 99.9 % of material removed seems to be on abe himself.

 

I have been seeing a lot of woodworking videos lately. They usually run a router around the edge of a tabletop to round it over to a 1/8” radius. This has a similar feel.

It could be an intentional step-down at the edge of the cavity that forms the bust. Perhaps it’s from deburring the edge of the cavity, or to lessen the sharpness of the edge to improve metal flow, or possibly as a preventative measure to keep a burr from forming when the design is transferred to the working dies.

A machinist might take one look and say “Oh yeah, we do that whenever we …”.

 

Good thoughts. Or not to improve metal flow, but to alleviate cracking of the dies at the sharp edge of the design. I also considered that it might be an artifact from the Janvier Reduction Lathe when transferring the design from the galvano to the master hub, but then we'd see it on every coin in every year that the master hub was used. It's curious that it seems to skip years but the PCGS gallery is random and I didn't examine that many examples.

 

I’m glad you mentioned the lathe. If you look closely under the bust you can see lines that look suspiciously like a lathe cut them. Could this be relevant?

 

Let me guess for PCGS, "questionable color"....nope just detailed for cleaning, the reverse is a bit sus.

The "outline" around the portrait is die deterioration doubling, very common to Lincoln cents. It is definitely not engraved or part of the die design.

 

Here's one of the most extreme examples I've found: