Good morning, I recently purchased this awesome coin and I am just wondering, what kind of error do you all think it may be?
Isn't this what they call Ghosting? Edit* - I asked this question before reading the Error-Ref defenition Quote -"Other synonyms you’re likely to encounter are “heavy design transfer”, “internal metal displacement phenomenon (IMDP), and “ghosting”." - closed quote
Yes. This is a classic case of ghosting. It is quite common on British large pennies of George V, and, if I remember correctly, his predecessor Edward VII as well. It isn't really an error so much as a characteristic of the strike. You see, it has to do with the way the metal was displaced to strike up the portrait on the obverse. Because of the size and thickness of these flans, this ghosting happens, but you wouldn't see it if these had been struck on thicker flans or had a different design which "demanded" less metal in the obverse portrait. Hope that made some sense. This is not really an error since it's a common feature on this type, nor is it especially worth much if any premium, BUT ghosting is kind of fun and interesting, and this is a particularly good example of the phenomenon. One of the most dramatic I've seen, in fact. The toning really makes it show up quite prominently on this coin.
Question: Does the process of the hammer die being the one striking the planchet, with the anvil die and planchet being non-moving during the strike, mean that only the hammer die gets an image transfer to it, and gets it with repetition of use, absent a missed planchet where that would instigate a transfer of both die images to each other?
I might be wrong, but it sounds like you're describing something akin to die clashing there. Think of ghosting as being more a case of there not being enough metal in these somewhat thin flans. Once the pressure of the strike moved that metal into the recesses of the obverse die to create the portrait, it left a slightly depressed area on the opposite side of the coin. A "ghost" of the king's portrait. It has more to do with the way the metal was moved during the strike than it does with the dies themselves.
Ok, but then how can it be a die deterioration issue? The linked piece says that the continued striking forces metal to create a weakened impression or outline of the obverse central design (usually) to be transferred over time (i.e., use of the anvil die) to the die itself, and then the ghosting starts being produced on the coin.
Most ghosting is caused from worn dies, that's why just part of the image shows . Early die states, show up really well ( Ghosting Of Full image ) ..
I've seen you post this sort of thing before. Do you just buy huge quantities of old coins and melt them down?
Thank you all for the responses, this definitely helps a lot! Even though this effect is common on British large cents, are they worth more than a comparable non-ghosted large cent?
The reverse pic isn’t the best coin photography but the angle shows the head ghost around the sails of the ship really well.
No, the ghosting carries no special premium, unless you find someone who really, really wants it. It's one of those fun added features on a coin that make it more interesting but not really more valuable in any kind of measurable way. BTW, a "cent" is a decimal coin worth 1/100th of a unit. Those old pre-decimal pennies are not "cents'. They're "pennies". Confusingly, you could call the modern decimal British pennies a "cent" (though nobody does), since they're 1/100 of a British pound, but these old pre-decimal ones, no. They are strictly large pennies, not large cents. This is the flip side of the way the US coin gets called a "penny" when it's really a "cent". The two terms have gotten hopelessly entangled over the past two centuries. But they do mean different things.
I believe that the error-ref article is describing a different process than @lordmarcovan is, and what we see on the US cent is not the same thing as on the British penny and Chinese dollar. The error ref article describes an outline that transfers onto the die, this is seen as a "fuzzy" outline without sharp, clear borders. The ghosting we see on these British pennies, and other coins with a much larger/higher profile design on one side than the other, is different. It is the result of unbalanced metal flow rather than anything being imparted by a deteriorated die. It looks different with clear and sharp borders. This is exactly why the British experimented with and modified the design in 1926, 27, 28 in order to make the portrait smaller and shallower in profile, which eliminated the ghosting problem.
Exactly. Thank you. The ghosting issue on the British penny in the OP has nothing to do with die deterioration. It's all about metal flow.
