What would cause the look on the rim on this token?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have always thought it was struck twice but only seeing it on the rim seems odd. I can't see any signs of the second strike on the rest of the coin.
I'm now thinking MD is the answer. Maybe during ejection before the dies were out of place.

 

Possibly a collar clash. I would have to refresh my memory on how dies were made at that time.

 

See, @ldhair , what did I tell you.

After 3 days of nonsense, smoke blowing, and bloviating on the NGC forums, somebody got (what I believe to be) the correct answer here in less than 5 hours.

Yes, I believe this to be an incomplete planchet punch. Read more here: https://www.error-ref.com/incomplete-punch/

Basically, when they were punching out the planchet, they did not punch it all the way through (in this case, looks like a bit of a bounce on the punch, because it's fairly shallow). When they did punch the planchet out, that incomplete cut was left visible.

It is still visible on the token (or coins that have this) because the cut is fairly deep, and the striking pressure was not able to eliminate it (the cut you see was on the planchet *before* being struck as a coin or token).

 

very interesting.

 

You are thinking about this from the perspective of very modern technology.

Think about the technology that was probably used to create these tokens. The US mint itself had only just started to use a closed collar in 1836. It is highly unlikely that a token maker setting up private shop had a steam press or a closed collar. This was almost certainly made using a screw press - individually. No ejection from the dies. No collars to clash. No machine removing the tokens.

The story about the dude who (most likely) made this is pretty interesting. You can read it here: https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/514022?page=19

 

The 3 has doubling on it. To me it looks like a mint error as there are 2 rims starting at 3 and ending at 6. Beautiful coloring and a sweet piece.

 

Does it, though? Be very careful of your terminology, especially with pre-modern coins like this.

"Doubling" implies something rather specific in modern numismatics (where it often always implies "hub doubling").

In the language of numismatics of early US coins, you might consider the term "repunched."

I do appreciate, however, that you are the first person on two forums over 4 days, with dozens of responses, to mention the repunched 3!

 

It really stood out as soon as I saw the coin. I used the term “doubling” as the majority of CT members will take notice of it. Thanks for the correct information.

 

Now this thread was fun. Great coin

 

Yeah, a clash wouldn't be impossible if it were a modern tech.
I also think that @ToughCOINS is right.

 

I don't even bother going there anymore. So much blather...

My first thought was also "incomplete planchet punch" but I had no idea what to call it. The perception of a double strike seems to be an optical illusion.

 

Mechanical doubling should be ruled out, it is too modern.
lD are there 2 distinct sets of dentils? Or is it an artifact of the photo?