Found this and wasn't sure what to make of it. The reverse has something in bay 7 I can't identify. I also see something in bay 8 that looks like it could be a continuation of what's in 7. It's seems flat like MD but I can't be sure. (Sometimes looks flat and sometimes not.) I see plenty of polishing marks so I wasn't sure if this was "tooled" in by over polishing? Any insight is much appreciated.
That was the first thing I thought but I see nothing on the front, nor anything from the design that shows such a sharp edge. I feel certain it's not a stain from looking at it closely with my loupe. I am hoping someone could explain this, or it may just end up an oddity.
I never thought it was. Just curious what actually made this. I applied to the Coneca forums and can hopefully get some answers there whenever they approve my membership. (*crosses fingers*) Will post back if I find anything out.
It looks too perfect to be a clash. In fact, it looks too much like a photographic trick. A picture of the Rev taken off center could rule out a clash.
Thanks! Already have an old membership there from long ago so didn't have to wait to post. Not quite sure how to take this. It took some time to adjust the lighting to capture pictures where it looks both flat and rounded depending on the angle, which is what I observed in my loupe. I'd be happy to send it off to someone for inspection, but don't think it would be worth the postage even if by some act of god it happened during striking. I would do it out of pure principle though without a second thought. Just let me know what pro would waste their time with it and I'll send it off.
Why are you spoofing us with a photoshop job? On closer look we can see the section of the first three columns is identical with the section within the fifth and seventh columns except for difference of illumination which, in itself should have exposed the fraud.
so why does the person have to be spoofing us? to what end?. he/she could be asking a legit question. I actually have a coin that has similar characteristics that is a clash so its not out of the realm of possibility that this coin is real. @Akovia no dont waste your time sending this coin off because more than likely it is a clash and clashes are not worth a whole lot so just hang onto it keep it in your cool box and nice find.
I still think it is a stain. I have been fooled many times by stains that take the shape of something with the outline of the stain defining a shape thet looks 3 dimensional with a usb microscope and certain angles of lighting. I alao could be a gas bubble.
I honestly didn't know if I was being punk'd here or not so I looked at some of your other posts. You are certainly hung up on photography & lighting and seem to think everyone should be a professional photographer. Maybe I should take it as a compliment that you think I could pull off such an elaborate "fraud", but then I'd have to feel like an idiot to waste so much time and energy on a coin that is worth next to nothing. Instead I'll just chalk it up as you not being able determine how this coin came to be so it must be fraud in your mind. (and I thought I was cynical) I posted to the Lincolncent forum and got an answer that makes the most sense to me. It was a clash at some point and they tried to repair the die by sanding out the clash. The heavy abrasions around the problem area seems to support this. I'll mark it as such and file it away.
Just look at the Akovia photographs. The full Rev looks fine with 12 columns and with two little statues outside of the columns. They stand 3 columns away from their respective ends. Therefore they should be 6 columns apart. Now look at the enlarged picture. It shows 8 columns but nary any of the little statues. The enlarged picture cannot be of the first coin. It seems ridiculous to carry this any further, but I have more evidence to the second picture being a fraud.
Very cool. Not sure if that's a gas bubble or a die crack. Either way it's neat! LOL! You do realize that the second picture is a composite of two images side by side of the exact same area of the coin with different lighting right? As I stated before.. so... I agree
You should start your own thread if you have a question about a coin. You won't get many responses when you hijack someone else's thread. It is a gas bubble... worth one cent. That is the wrong reverse for a '97
The image you showed us is not the reverse of a 1997. It's either a 60's or 70's. Here is an example of a 1972D doubled die reverse from my collection.