I need some Error Expertise

This is an 1866 Indian I picked up years ago with many things going on. I listed it in the US Coins forum, but I think it needs some Error Guys to help me determine what all is going on with it.

Also, a little help with the Snow ID would also be appreciated.



Unfortunately, the color and luster aren't anywhere close to the coin in hand and my photography skill does it no justice. It's a light tan with some red luster around the devices, particularly around the space between the wreath and rim.

This is a direct lighting shot of the Date.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Seems to be a partially clogged die w/ a die clash, and a rotated reverse. The wreath is easy to see in front of the indians face. Nice triple error and there may be more...

 

I added the closeup of the date by editing the original post. Am I seeing both doubling of the second 6 and a verticle line like a 1 in the first 6. Also ERTY in the area above the date?

 

It's possible that the second "6" was repunched because it was originally set to low, but that is just an opinion from someone who is not familiar with the series.

Chris

 

Here is an Indian Cent Overlay to show the clashed areas.

The area above the head is also area as other may have mentioned. The C in Cent near the nose. As well as the grease strike and over date.

 

I see the die clash and the repunched date. I don't think it is a clogged die, I suspect a tapered planchet.

 

Connor101: I agree. The area where the questioned grease happened fall on top each other. I betting the area in question is thinner in that area of the edge of the coin. I did an overlay for the clash, but it appears it happened when the dies were in the correct position. but they were in the alignment showed in the images that Marshall posted when the strike over the thinned planchet happened.

 

Coop....as always...nice job on the pics and analysis!

 

Thank you so much for your comments.

Oh! As if there isn't enough going on, can antbody tell me what type of doubling is in the STATES?





Here's a couple with lighting from a different direction to eliminate shadows and image doubling.

 

Longacre doubling.

Common on Longacre designs.

 

Coin coin with the die clash. I think the left side of the coin might be struck thru grease (could be what some are calling the clogged die?). Final note, the rotation of 15 to 20 degrees is common and doesn't add value to the coin. PCGS needs a rotation of at least 35 degrees to call it rotated dies on a slab.

 

a dime marked 200

i found a dime that is marked 200 so how do i find about it

 

start a new thread with something like "error dime", and post a picture if you can, then we can analyze it and figure it out.

cheers

 

I definitely see something involving both of the sixes. I don't have a Snow # for this one, but along with some of the other things mentioned, It is an RPD of some type.

Thanks,
Bill

 

Die clashing on early Indian cents is pretty common, particularly the 60's, and unless it is really prominent or off center, it does not bring a premium, though I personally think they are pretty neat.

Also, repunched dates on 1866's are also not unique, and there are many varieties. It's hard to tell from the photos but it's possible yours is a S-6 which includes a repunched "1" - but the image of the "1" is hard to see.

The doubling in STATES looks to be Longacre doubling (basically machine doubling) as Coop said. And I can't tell at all what's going on with the planchet. I'd need to see the edge.

 

Thanks.

 

Penny Lady,

Would you please explain that? I could be wrong but I thought Longacre Doubling and Machine Doubling were two entirely different animals.

My understandiing is:
Machine Doubling occurs when a die "chatters" a split second after the coin is struck. Machine Doubling shears off a portion of the just-struck raised device leaving a flat shelf.
Longacre Doubling occurred when letters were punched into the die so, unlike Machine Doubling, every coin struck with that die would have the same Longacre Doubling.

 

Hobo, you are technically correct, and I shouldn't have used those two terms together. However, the result is basically the same, and it's hard to tell from the photos which exact type of doubling exists on this coin, though it does not look like a double die.

There are so many different types of mechanical doubling that can occur during the minting process, many of which produce very similar results, and most of which do not add value to the coin. FYI, here is a list of several different types of doubling that a coin can have:

http://koinpro.tripod.com/Articles/OtherFormsOfDoubling.htm

 

From my reading of the thread on Longacre Doubling, there are two theories on the origin of the Longacre Doubling.

One is that it's part of the process of making the master hub and variation comes from wear on the dies.

The second theory is that the process creating the doubling is used on both the master hub and the individual dies and therefore a source of variation.

The only thing it has in common with Mechanical Doubling according to the article is that the powers that be have not crowned it with additional value tags and therefore consider it inconsequential. The author believes the scarcity justifies a premium, especially strong examples.

I personally don't care if any deviation from the standard is crowned with added value or not. It's just that some errors have additional value, some diminish value and others have no impact on value. Just don't tell me it's NOT an error because of lack of added value.

 

I bumped the excellent thread on Longacre Doubling by Treashunt. It should now follow closely.