Full reverse indent (two of them actually). How'd it happen? A second cent planchet was directly on top of this one in the collar when the dies struck. Notice how smooth the surface pattern is. As is common, look how designs from both sides have indirectly transferred into it. Now look at the full reverse indent on this nickel. Notice the surface pattern appears textured - not smooth like the cents - but it is not a split planchet; it weighs 5.0 grams, the standard weight for a nickel. I believe this was caused by the textured, striated side of a split planchet being hammered into the reverse side of this nickel. The label implies it is simply the result of "two coins struck together." Clearly there is enough room to state it's a "Full Reverse Indent from a Split Planchet." It makes a big difference here so I don't understand why NGC couldn't get this right and be specific.
THE '61 Cent and the 03-D Dime are both what I would call 'uniface strikes' - two planchets were fully seated into the collar when struck. (leaving one coin with a uniface obverse, and the other coin with a uniface reverse) To me, an Indent is a less than whole planchet laying over the unstuck planchet in the collar, when the dies come together. Just my two cents worth -
Do you mind weighing in on whether you think these were struck through split planchets? I'm skeptical of this claim and suspect them to be struck through whole planchets. How would one know the difference?
This is a good educational thread for those people who come to the forums claiming they have a coin struck on just one side, and they actually have a coin that has been ground off on one side. These images show what a true "one sided" coin should look like. The "blank" side is NOT flat and smooth.
The difference in texture is key here. Both cents have smooth surfaces compared to the nickel which looks jagged and textured. A complete planchet wouldn't leave the surface like that
