Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DEA, post: 3374722, member: 90140&quot;][USER=80148]@coin_nut[/USER] and [USER=83778]@Muzyck[/USER] - &quot;internal metal displacement phenomenon&quot; </p><p><br /></p><p>First caveat - I&#039;m not expert but constantly learning.&nbsp; Second caveat - I&#039;m taking the ANA&#039;s correspondence course - from whence my information derives.&nbsp; Third caveat - I&#039;m not the sharpest knife in the drawer . . .</p><p><br /></p><p>Applicable to US coins, the ANA teaches that the &quot;technical term&quot; (or phrase) is &quot;internal metal displacement phenomenon&quot; (hereinafter IMDP).&nbsp; Apparently, this occurred often with US wheat cents; i.e., &quot;ghost of Lincoln&quot; occurring on the reverse.&nbsp; The error or variety community places this issues under &quot;die errors&quot; on the PDS (planchet, die, striking) timeline of the existence of a coin.&nbsp; I&#039;ll quote: &quot;Heavy design transfer: When a die nears the end of its usefulness, it often exhibits the major central design of its opposing mate.&nbsp; This design is transferred from one die to the other through the striking of the coin metal.&quot;&nbsp; My lesson booklet refers the reader to Alan Herbert&#039;s <i>Minting Varieties and Errors, </i>fifth edition, New York: House of Collectibles, 1991, page 158.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>That seems enough to me but I will quote more from the giants if asked to do so.&nbsp; I do believe this issue was raised in an earlier post in this thread of another - and I think it involved both coin_nut and Muzyck!!.&nbsp; It took the issue coming up twice for me to get off my lazy buttocks and put two and two together.&nbsp; So, caveat four, I&#039;m not only <i>not </i>the the sharpest knife in the drawer, I&#039;m awfully lazy.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in