Hi folks. :smile Here's another tutorial that will hopefully help people in determining what they have. Today we will be learning about incuse (negative) anomalies vs anomalies in relief (raised). Key words: -Incuse: a negative image, an element that is sunken in. Opposite of relief. -Relief: An image or design that is raised on the coin. Opposite of incuse. Some errors that you find on a coin will be in relief, and some will be incuse. An example of an error with an incuse anomaly would be a struck through foreign object. This occurs when a foreign piece of material is present in between the planchet and the dies during the striking of the coin. When the dies strike the planchet, the foreign material "clogs" the die and prevents a full strike of the design in a localized area (sometimes can be throughout the whole coin in the case of extreme grease-filled dies). Instead of having a raised part of the design, coins with a struck-through error will show an incuse anomaly. The following is an example of a struck-through foreign object on the reverse of a wheat cent. Notice that it is incuse on the coin and prevented the design from being struck in that area. Now here is a coin that is NOT a struck-through error. Rather, it is damage. Although it is incuse on the coin, the sharp edges of the gouge along with the displaced metal means that it DID NOT occur during striking, and was damaged after being minted. On post-1982 cents, if the damage is deep enough, you will be able to see the silver-colored zinc core. Seeing the zinc is another indicator of a cent damaged after strike. The following error is a lamination error, which is caused by impurities in the planchet alloy. The anomaly is incuse. The main difference you can see is that the design elements are still present in the area of the lamination. This is because it is a planchet error and not a striking error. Now that we have covered incuse anomalies, let's take a look at a couple raised ones. First, we will look at die gouges. This is where things may be confusing. Die gouges occur on the die when a tool or other object scrapes part of the face of the die. This creates an incuse anomaly on the die. When a planchet is struck, this area becomes raised. This is because the metal from the planchet is forced into the negative image on the face of the die, meaning that the elements on the coin will be raised. To simplify the statement: if a negative image is present on the die, it will result in a positive image on the coin. Here is an example of some odd die gouges present on a coin below Lincoln. They are raised, because they were incuse on the die. Notice that they do not overlap with the design, as die gouges are usually localized on the flat parts of the dies instead of on the incuse elements. The last anomaly we will look at is a plating bubble (also known as a plating blister). Note that these are only known to occur on cents composed of a zinc core with a copper plating, as only post-1982 cents (as well as the zinc composition 1982 cents) have a copper plating. These anomalies are caused by contaminants located in the plating, and released gasses within the plating caused by heat during the strike expand the copper plating upward. These "errors" are very common and rarely command a premium. Here is an example of a plating blister on the reverse of a "Zincoln" (zinc-core lincoln memorial cent). Large plating blisters will pop and deflate if poked with a toothpick. That just about wraps up this tutorial. I hope it helped some people out. Feel free to ask any additional questions.:thumb: Keep up the hunt! Simon
I'm confused by all of this. Some things need to be re-phrased to complicate things less. I'm sure your info is accurate, but the way you have presented it makes it extremely difficult to understand.
Could you be a bit more specific as to what parts seem confusing? I would like to rephrase the parts that people don't understand.
I thought the language was fine - it just takes a moment to understand the relationship between the negative, positive, die, and planchet. Thanks non cents.
Die chips and cuds are also commonly occurring "raised/relief" types of errors. You didn't mention those. Also, where you talk about die gouges, mentioning that this "raised" effect is also seen on coins were the dies have been crudely repaired, with die polishing marks cut into the die (and subsequently, raised on the final struck coin). Those die repair striations are quite common and can be differentiated from "harsh cleaning" because the striations are raised, not cut into the coin's surface like is the case with cleaning -- and, because the die repair (polish) striations don't go over devices, but rather seem to "disappear" behind the devices. Nice pictures and write-up otherwise.
Just one question, when did plating blister start as a error? Is that something that e-bay started? Never thought of it as an error along with die cracks, MD, DDD, etc.
Good stuff non cents. You certainly know your errors. Collecting errors isn't my cup of tea unless they're ancients, in which case you get things like entirely misspelled legends, lol.
A lot of this error stuff just goes over my head, so it's probably just me who's having trouble understand Thanks for the lesson, non-cents
I missed die chips...maybe I will include a short blurb about them later. Thank you everyone for the feedback. It may not be the best-written piece, but if you take the time to read it I think it is a good explanation.
Since it is an anomaly that occurs at the mint itself, by definition it is an error (in my mind). That doesn't mean it is collectable or valuable, although I have seen some interesting plating blisters go for 50+ on ebay, described as such as well.
Die cracks and cuds are also raised features, as well as die clashes, albeit subtle. Retained strike-through errors also can be tricky, especially if it is a wire composed of the same material as the coin itself. Also, I am not sure if this applies to US struck coins, but with coins struck with chrome-plated dies, you can get raised features at the edges of the devices where they meet the fields, from the chrome-plating on the dies chipping/flaking away - Hans Zoell called this phenomena on Canadian coins as "mortar set". Food for thought for a second summary. Good job though, clear succinct descriptions and excellent photos.
Would this be a good place to ask about a possible 44 S wheat cent with feeder finger error? I've got pics if this is the place. If not please direct me. I'm a newby to the forum.
Hi and welcome to CT. It is best to start your own thread in the Error section, including full size images, not thumbnails. You will get more opinions this way.
Thanks expat, for the welcome and the advice. I'll start a new thread here shortly. I've got 2 I am curious about. One I asked about on here already and quickly got told it was damage but then I saw one very similar to mine and I find it hard to believe 2 coins with such similar damage. Thanks again and hope to "see" you around
