1955 Quindrupled lincoln cent

I agree with Abe. We really need to see a close up of the entire obverse to determine. I also agree, and I say this knowing I could be wrong, that it looks like lens shake to me or another form of digital manipulation. A nice closeup of the obverse would help a lot and shouldn't be difficult to take.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ok, in 1955, they used a hub to add the design to a die, then used a punch to add the mintmark. Doubling occurs when the hub leaves 2 separate impressions in the die. you can also have a repunched mintmark when the die is double punched with the mintmark. But since they are added to the die in separate steps, there's very little chance that they'd be doubled the same amount and direction. as for there being no machine doubling on the reverse, MD occurs after the planchet is struck when the hammer die, always the obverse die, shifts slightly and leaves a stairstep like edge on the design features or when the struck coin sticks to the hammer die and then shifts, leaving the MD on the reverse design.

 

Thanks for the info on the horseshoe holder. I am trying to contact the casino and find out when they offered the promotion. The coin is a proof with "S" mint mark removed and even that seems to be doubled. The "D" mint mark is a repunched mint mark. The first pic's were actually scanned at 2400 DPSI and come out pretty clear. The distortaion or hand shake effect is actually the coin's error. I know it looks like I was shaking all over the place. I will take a picture of it and post it, but I have yet to see a picture come in as clear as 2400 DPSI and when it's blown up, the pic comes out nice and clear.

 

Thanks Chris, and I know that, but I also know that there are plenty of coins that were minted in either San Francisco or Philly and ended up with a different mint on it because during certain years, all dies were done in Philly and then shipped to the branch mint facilities for completion. So the point I was trying to make, is if the coin was originally produced(die) in Philly, but haves a Denver mint mark. Then the coin must have had an error to have it recycled or re-done by the Denver mint, and even then, Denver would have not been able to re-die or repunch the mint mark, which was done quite often. Again why they call it an error. I realize that a lot of differnet opinions are out there because their has never been an error like this discovered. Everyone thinks it might be a shakey hand error, but the coin was scanned with out me holding it. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the input I can get, because I have never seen anything like this either and the only thing close to it is a quadrupled nickel and that doesn't even show the quadtrupling to the point this coin does. It has been real interesting reading everyone's replies, please don't stop because of my defending this coin as beening the most interesting lincoln cent I've seen, even if it turns out to be MD. I hope to take a pic with a camera for those folks who don't understand the power of scanning at 2400 DPSI. No, it was not me shaking when the scan was done. Don't get me wrong, if I saw it for the first time. I might think the same thing. I always try to inform as many people that I can, that they should be using a scanner with 2400 DPSI because it brings so much to the fore front. Especially when you can check the whole coin image out or want to focus your attention on certain areas of the coin. Again, thank's for all the input from everyone and if anyone has seen this type of error before, I would really love to hear from you.

 

I'm not sure what scanner you have, but If that's what you consider clear, then I'd look into getting a new one. And what about the vertical line between the G and O of god in the middle picture?

 

Don't get too defense Billyray. The line between in and god occurs when you blow the coin up more than ten times, which is how many times I thought would help for everyone to see the error. If you want, I will only blow it up five or six times to get rid of the line for you, if it's preventing you from focusing on the error of the coin. And since you focused on the spot between the in and god did you see the "S" mint mark that was there?


Stay friendly, I really do value everyone's opinion. I just I'm just fed up with so many people who claim to be experts but wave off what they don't understand as MD. Not to say I'm putting you in this catagory, because as I mentioned. If I saw this coin's pic on the internet, I would have said MD too!

Thanks for your input and please don't get upset with me defending this coin as the most interesting lincoln cent error, even if it's MD or Quintrupling. I would still love to hear from someone who has seen this type of error before.

 

um mike, newbie (me) to newbie. best not to argue so much, you're burning your bridge(s). Just post a good closeup picture. It'll make everyone happy and the real experts will be able to see what the coin really is. Believe me, they will tell you what you've got. Trust me.

 

Focus on the one in the date. In the 1st pic the so-called MD is just as wide as the 1 itself. We should be able to see that plain as day in its encasement. Please, we beg of you for a close up shot of the obverse...

 

Hi Panda, and thanks for the info on the horseshoe holder that you passed on from Ikandiggit. I hope I don't get everyone upset by blowing holes in their reasoning. I will be keeping everyone updated. I also suggest everyone re-checking their 1955 proof for the same effect.

Thanks

Mike

 

I didn't mean to be rude, I apologize. Here is what a scan from 2400dpsi on my scanner looks like. I just cropped it, but didn't resize it in any way. It's of a nickel I had handy.

 

That's ok, I saw that line when I recropped it. I should have re-scanned it but was just lazy. Sorry about the line down the middle. That must have been throwing everyone off. I was just excited to share with everyone what I saw. I posted some new shots of the whole obverse and reverse today, but I'm kind of new to this site and not sure if I did it right. I am going to do it again right now in the advanced section of this page.

 

From http://www.earlyvegas.com/downtown.html

 

Feel free to email me the picture and I can host it somewhere that won't force you to shrink the size. I sent you a private message with my email.

 

Mike,

Can you crop in on that image of the coin in the holder? Just tight enough that we can see the entire obverse of the coin but not anything else.

 

I didn't get the private message or the e-mail. Feel free to e-mail mne direct at faith.silva@yahoo.com and I will send you some pictures you can blow up and chack out.

Thanks for the warm invite and the way you asked for better pictures before you posted your opinion. I like that in a person. I finally was able to do some cropping to get an obverse image for you. Sorry about having to do it one side at a time, but the size limit prevents me from sending a bigger or better picture.

 

This is the best I can do with the coin in the holder. I had to crop one side at a time. I hope you like the images. It real is quite a coin, even if it turns out to be MD or some weird cool new kind of error.

 

How about a pic of the whole obverse then fix it so we can zoom in. Those are the same pics at the begging of this thread...

 

Yeah, I think you'll need to send that one in to get an official word on it for sure!

 

Mike,

San Francisco didn't start producing proof coins until 1968. Prior to that, all proof coins were produced in Philadelphia.

Chris

 

After looking at all the images, may I add my thoughts? First off, it's not a proof. I don't see anything that would make me think that.

When these lucky holders are made the coin gets a bit smashed. this creates some interesting looks.

I think the scanner is creating what we are seeing in the images.
Scan the coin at 300 or 600. That's plenty for any coin.