1814 Classic Head Cent, doubled obverse.

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't there an obverse and reverse die in the press? Isn't the planchet struck more then once? If so, could the obverse die be loose, as described earlier but the reverse die be tight? Sorry if I have the terms incorrect, I'm no expert but I am a student eager to learn. Thanks in advance. Just realizing you described what I'm asking, so your point is, if the obverse die was loose and caused this effect, technically it isn't "double struck" but a different condition/term. Is this correct?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That’s why I asked if he knew about the process in 1814. But either way it comes out a striking deformity, as opposed to a genuine die error, meaning, the die that did this was normal and stuck countless others that didn’t have the deformity.

Having said that, given the wide spreads on this one, it makes the most sense to me these were indeed punched twice as part of the normal process, which, again, keeps it a striking deformity, but caused by a hammer die in different orientations during the punches.

 

The dies weren't locked all that tightly in place, so one MIGHT have rotated.

More likely, there was a second planchet in the press for one of the strikes that produced a brockage. They often refer to early coppers double-struck on one side as brockage-makers.

It's MOST DEFINITELY double-struck. That makes it a nice, scarce mint error. Congratulations to the finder.

 

Thanks for the info. I’ll let the owner know. Appreciate your time.

 

halfcent1793, I talked with the owner today. He will be sending it in for authentication. I'll let the group know how that goes. If I owned it, I'd do the same. The cost isn't all that bad and worth the investment. I expect he'll offer it up for sale (unless he decides to keep it). It is so cool, IMO, I'll be making an offer.
Thanks again for your, and the others, time. Much appreciated...

 

Quick update. I spoke with the owner this week. The coin has been sent in, I believe to PCGS. I'll do another update, when it comes back and let the group know the outcome. Personally, I'm very curious. Thanks,

 

I have high expectations for what you believe it is.

 

Thanks. I'm hoping he decides to sell it. I'd like to add to my collection.
Stay tuned.

 

New update. It's back from grading. Graded G04BN. The label states "Mint Error, Double Struck in Collar". Cert # is 41738100 if you'd like to look it up. Below is the
photo. After some talking I made an offer and now it's mine. I may have over paid a bit, but I'm OK with the price. It's just darn cool. Thanks for the assistance and the read.... Curious, anyone want to venture a value? One at this grade without the error lists between $110-$120 based on who you follow of the big two. I'm not sure how to value it for my records. Thanks in advance.

 

So I was correct then

 

Love it!!!!.

 

And I was wrong. On the other hand since these were not struck in a collar, it's just double struck not double struck in collar

 

Is a double strike different than a double strike in the collar ?

 

In general? Yes. Most double struck coins have the first strike on center in the collar and then something happens as the coin is exiting the striking chamber and the coin is struck again off center without the collar, leaving you with a big lobe on the coin where the second strike occurred. Double strikes in the collar are far rarer and are worth hundreds of dollars on modern coins, compared to just a few bucks for off center double strikes.

I'm not really sure what Conder means about these coins not being struck in a collar since I'm not very familiar with classic coinage, but that assertion sounds suspicious since coins struck without a collar will be off-round as the metal expands freely away from the pressure of the strike.

 

Large cents of that era were not struck in a close collar, which is what we talk about when we talk about a collar. Most specialists agree that "open collar", which is what they say the early cents, half cents, dollars and half dollars were struck in, really means "no collar." Technically, PCGS is probably wrong in calling an in-collar strike, but that it quite irrelevant. It's a very nice, double-struck coin as I said at the beginning.

 

Thx

 

Great pick up! Good to see closure on this for you!