Genuine 2nd Strike or Struck with Fake Dies?

Hmmm....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@paddyman98

 

That's weird. I wonder why Monticello wouldn't be on the reverse strike...

 

Oh wow ! I don't know how they would even categorize this .
Calling @paddyman98 like Kentucky said .

 

Interesting it doesnt have much perimeter detail in that area to give an ok to.
I think that I see part of the memorial and E in EPU.
ANACS called this one
Double struck 90% off center.

 

Above my pay grade for sure, but I'll watch this thread with interest.

 

Amazing coins guys !!!

 

The line of damage on the reverse is too straight of a line and void of any details.
I would suspect it for that reason. I'm not sure of what the reverse was struck against.

 

Second strike on the reverse is uniface

 

I am pretty sure the 2nd strike didn't happen at the Mint

 

Never mind a fake die, I wonder if you could make a restrike like that from a canceled die? I mean, the restruck part spans less than a quarter of the coin's circumference...

 

I agree

 

Have you asked Fred or Mike?
I think it's legit. But that's just my opinion

Just sharing something from my collection

 

Mike D. thinks the 2nd strike was done post-Mint as well

 

Is the reverse restrike featureless on your 1986P as well, @paddyman98? Or is that just typical behavior of restrikes?

All new ground to me... fascinating.

 

@CygnusCC
Here is the Reverse.


And another example from my collection.

 

So it seems like it's common to have no (added) reverse details on a restrike. Interesting. Thanks @paddyman98!

 

That's because there was a planchet in the cylinder ( collar ) ready to strike a coin .

 

That first D/S nickel has a second strike from fake dies.

A uniface reverse strike has a completely different look to it -
this one is 100% flat - fake.

The 2nd 'strike' was probably from a partially torched 68-S Nickel
die.

 

I am certainly no expert or even close to it, but I do know it doesn't have full steps. Is that helpful? LOL