You Make the Call: Real Error or Altered Coin?

You are going to need a sharp eye for this one. Back up your answers, please.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The understrikes were off-center on the obverse with no effect on the reverse nor the shape of the planchet. If it was genuine, then that would have meant that the obverse die had deflected 25° or so and then rotated 45° and then snapped back into place in between strikes. There are multiple dates visible, so the die would have to had to have been very wobbly.

This seems highly improbable, and the understrikes look very unnatural. I say altered. Probably some glue was on the obverse and has broken away and rotated. At least the date area looks like glue

 

I can definitively say there is no adhesive on this coin, if that helps any...

 

I have another theory, but first, what’s the weight?

 

I say: Altered. Too much going on in the date area, and hardly anything else on the rest of the obverse. Plus the reverse is normal.

 

As typecoin mentioned, there's way too much going on with the obverse and absolutely nothing on the reverse. I say this one is faked.

 

Curious thing to note: the second T of TRUST seems very weakly struck

 

3.09 grams

 

I'm thinking altered. Done with a fake/false die. Forgot the correct term.

 

I think altered coin. The reverse doesn’t show any signs of a second strike and the obverse off center strike didn’t effect the rim. Probably a genuine coin overstruck with a counterfeit die.

 

I'd have to agree with all the above no reverse anything must be PM? Cool looking though. Maybe Paddyman and the NYC fab four can clarify?

 

Fake - Looks like genuine first strike and then one or more fake second strikes delivered by a counterfeit obverse die.

 

Answer given at 5 pm eastern time...

 

That goes against my potential theory that a struck planchet fragment was struck into the coin.

However, looking at the shadows, the “understrike” appears to be struck into the coin. Since it isn’t reversed, it isn’t a vise job. This would also explain why there are no anomalies on the reverse.

I’m not entirely sure of the mechanism that caused the secondary images to appear as they did.

 

I know what it is, but will not spoil your contest.

 

Do you know it because you saw it somewhere else, or you just know errors really well?

 

Hi Joe. Tom D. here.

 

CaptHenway is Tom Delorey. There are few people alive who know more about coins.

 

@physics-fan3.14 i believe you asked me to run this series of posts yet i havent seen you comment on them

 

I don't think I've posted on all of them, but I have commented on several. I was post #6 on this thread, for example. I'm learning a lot, either way.