Round 2: Altered, Counterfeit, or Genuine Error?

Ok, coin nerds. Go! (And explain why if you want any street cred.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is that famous faked rotated die double struck, no?

 

Altered(?) The date is wrong. No mintmark and the "1" shows machine doubling.
~ Chris

 

Sweet!.. It's totally made of Chocolate!

Kidding.. Altered?

No wait!.. Double Struck within collar!

 

The degree of rotation from obverse to reverse is different.

Is it an offering from the forty thieves?

 

What is 40 thieves?

 

Wouldn't that require two different obverse dies since the second strike appears to have machine doubling on the "1" which isn't visible on the first strike? ~ Chris

 

Or could that simply be the way the 1 flattened upon strike.

 

I never noticed that before until now. Thanks, Chris! Now stop making fun of your age as your eyes work perfectly fine.

 

What is that, magic dust?
The “error” only appears where the coin has been touched by the contaminant on the surface.

 

This is a very famous (and very deceptive) counterfeit

 

The rotated strikes appear to be at different degrees on obv. and rev.

 

It isn't anywhere near as good as the "Disappearing D"! What happened to the mintmark? ~ Chris

 

You could make the argument that the ‘D’ didn’t make it to the doubling, but it’d be irrelevant because the dies don’t match. Look at the ‘9’ and the ‘6’ closely.

 

Hint: look at the angle of rotation between strikes on the obverse and reverse

 

Granted, there are a lot of things wrong with the images, but it should not be considered doubling. It's more like a rotated planchet, and doubling has nothing to do with it. Still, there is no way that the mintmark should not be even slightly visible even if it had been a weak strike. NOTE: I'm not implying that a weak strike occurred, but that would be the only way the mintmark would completely disappear other than a grease-filled die (which takes time to accumulate). ~ Chris

 

My analysis comes out to a genuine 1960-D cent with a fake second strike. I note how the field rolls up to the rim unlike many counterfeit coins which don't have the dish appearance. The fake strike, 1960 was not struck in a collar. There are other diagnostics that indicate a fake second strike. Secondary date strike distance from the rim, no mint mark etc.. It also looks like a wood block coin. Taking two pieces of hardwood and laying a cent in between them, then smacking with a sledge hammer. This made a crude hard wood die. Then putting another coin in the wood depression of the first coin, trying to line up the two hardwood blocks and smacking the blocks with a sledge hammer. Final result is a man made altered coin to look like a double struck in collar. When I was in shop class 55 years ago, this was a fun thing for others to do. I'm sure the shop vice did better than the sledge hammer.

 

The term I use to describe Alibaba on another coin chat site where the use of the name is prohibited. I'll continue to refer to them as forty thieves even on sites that allow the name.

 

My first impression was that the 1960 D was a small date and the second strike was a large 1960, but my eyes have been giving me fits lately. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. LOL

 

First thing I noticed.