When I was buying this coin I thought I was getting an overstrike. You can see part of the eagle on the other side of this coin.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=320213918503

But now that I got it, I was surprised that this under eagle is incuse, and it is under the regular parts of the design. Since the eagle is incuse, it could have only come from a collision with another coin but before at least the reverse was struck. I find it somewhat difficult to picture how this came to be since both sides are struck at the same time (at least that's the way I understood it). I guess the previous coin was still in the press when this one got in for striking, but how did they then manage to strike the reverse?

Will it be possible for you to photograph a higher resolution photo? It's quite hard to tell from the small pictures.

I'm charging my camera battery, it was quite empty

I'm not sure if this is going to work. I posted on hotmail live:


http://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1pQR3Qji...EEateGDH9MNazXC


and on imageshack:

[img=http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/6341/piatak2ez0.jpg]

Very wierd - in fact at 9 o'clock, there is another impression of the crown. I'm somewhat suspecting that a coin was on top of it while striking and when the error was discovered, they just manually struck it again. Not bad for that price!

Overstruck coins, as people on this forum have pointed out to me in the past, usually show marked rotation between the orientations of the undercoin and the upper coin (overcoin?). I think it is a double strike; the marked die crack on the reverse might indicate that one of the dies malfunctioned (broke) during the first strike.

Here is a coin of mine which exhibits similar double-struck features. It also (coincidentally) is an overdate:

1793/2-AM pyatak, doubly struck

We discussed it recently here, but I can't seem to find the link right now...

Bob, I don't think this was a double strike in the usual sense; the under-eagle wing is incuse. Yours certainly was a double strike (possibly correcting a bad first strike) but the Alex coin could simply happen if there was an already struck coin stuck in the obverse die. Explains why we see an incuse reverse struck on the obverse. After getting an incuse reverse they removed the offending stuck coin and re-struck normally. We do see these from time to time in Russian copper; Alex's coin is a nice example.

Steve

Right, I overlooked the fact that the ghost images are not of the same sides.

Very neat coin, BTW!

I believe this is brockage. As Steve said, the coin was struck before removing the prevous coin from the press, thus the incuse reverse details, impressed from the other coin. The coin was then re-struck properly. giving the overstruck appearance.

I agree with the brockage. If you look at the little crescent shape at the top of the coin that is the impression from the edge of the planchet on top of it. Is there any doubling on the other side of the coin? as it would have to have been struck twice.

I'm not sure that this is a brockage. There are several issues starting with the reverse. Why isn't there any evidence of double-strike on the reverse? If the piece really is an overstruck brockage then it was struck once with another coin stuck to the obv die thus receiving an incuse impression of the eagle on one side and the normal relief eagle on the other. The press would then be cleared and the piece supposedly restruck as normal. The odds of it being perfectly placed back in the press so as to not show any double-strike on the eagle is highly unlikely. I find the alignment of the undertype questionable for the same reasons. I also note the distortion of the monogram, date and wreath. And, why isn't the obv heavily concave?

I'd have to see the coin in hand or at very least good blow-ups w/o any plastic in the way, but it looks suspiciously like a "sandwich job".

Edited to add: I disagree that the raised rim is good evidence for brockage. While a brockage strike could certainly raise such an edge, this would be struck down during the overstrike.

I'll take it out of the holder and take pictures of both sides. The obverse looks peachy keen, apart from the die crack.

I'm not sure what a "sandwich job" is, but if we are talking about a practice of smashing 2 coins together for fun or profit - this is not it. As I mentioned earlier the incuse impression is below the monogram and the crown, which means that it was a blank planchet that collided with another coin (imho). What does confuse me, is how did they correct the reverse? the obverse has no signs of double strike from what I can see.

If the coin was struck once normally... and then struck again with a struck coin on top of it without moving it would cause such an error. Its not that unlikely. Or even better this coin stuck to the die and then subsequently struck another coin causing the impression. Both are things that very well could have happened...

I just don't get the vice job feel from this coin so Im gonna stick with a brockage

EDIT: This would also explain why the side with the eagles looks normal and the side with the brockage looks weak and squishy...

Possibly the press wasn't cleared, and only the offending coin was removed, leaving the new coin sitting in the same position. What's wrong with the alignment? Looks rotationally correct.

What would seal it for me would be if I could see the prominent reverse die defect incuse in the undercoin. I can't see through the shiny plastic though.

Alex...better image?

Maybe the mintmaster was drunk...

First of all congratulations for an unusual coin at that low a price!!! Hadn't it been hidden under the plastic cover, it would have fetched much more! You were lucky! To your question: From several articles in the JOURNAL OF THE RUSSIAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY regarding Catherine's copper coins I remember that steel was a problem at the time. Steel dies in particular. There were good dies and less good dies. With gold and silver coin dies more care was taken than for copper coin dies. Given a relative carelessness for copper coin dies the eagle side die could have been better than the monogram side die. Imagine a strike without a planchet fed in, accidentally. You would see the impression of the stronger die into the weaker one. Any coin struck from then on would show the respective marks. Your coin seems to have been struck from a pair of dies where a hard eagle side die had hit a softer monogram side die WITH NO PLANCHET FED IN BETWEEN. The soft monogram side die had received an impression from the harder eagle side die. Strikes from then on would show eagle features on the monogram side.
I may be wrong but this is what I understood from the JRNS articles. Any comments highly welcome. Sigi

Interesting theory. When I read it I thought that it was a bit far-fetched. But I took the coin out of the holder (again), and you know what - the elements of the obverse (eagle) line up perfectly, with the incuse elements on the monogram side. So maybe! You are saying that the dies were damaged by a coinless strike? And in fact this faulty pair struck out some quantity of these peculiar coins? Interesting, you learn something new every day. Thanks for the interesting theory Sigi!

Here are the better pictures:

I kind of disagree - if that's the case, it would have been a die clash but you got to admit that there must have been at least THREE die clashes and assuming if the obverse die was extremely loose and went all the way to do the impact at 9 o'clock - I don't see how it is doable. I suspect that if that happened, it would have damaged both dies by then.

Question is, how does a brokage coin look like and if the mint decided to fix it up by striking it the coin again - what appearance would it give. I wouldn't say that brokage is extremely rare in those days - it definitely happened.

That goes back to my original idea. But what I find odd, and I could be wrong, is that I'd see some evidence of a double strike on the side with the eagle. All signs point that the coin was struck only once, in case of a fixed brokage the obverse (eagle) would be struck twice. My theory was that some sort of an out of die collision had occurred between a blank planchet and a recently struck coin. But what this collision could be, is beyond me. Maybe somebody got bored and decided to have a little fun with a hammer - I doubt it though.

Sigi's idea is new to me. I do not know how feasible this would be, but it is consistent with what I see on the coin.

They would also line up if it was simple brockage, no?

And does there really have to be evidence of a double strike on the reverse? The coin didn't have to be taken out and could have sat there in the press with the newly struck reverse held snugly by the incuse die that had just formed it. I would however defer to Rittenhouse's expert opinion on whether that's possible and what the reverse could look like in such a case.

I've taken a quick look through all the 1769EMs in the database (around 120 of them) and so far don't see any others like this. Another one would support Sigi's theory but so far no.

Thanks for the better pictures, btw.

Steve

Steve I think your right on with the coin not moving after the first strike....A die clash would not make the design on the obverse squished and flat like it is. This would only leave an impression in the dies. It also could not account for the marks at the top of the obverse. Those marks are common on US large cents that have been brockaged or struck indented. The presses didn't have enough striking pressure and the planchets were too hard to make a full on heavy brockage like the ones they made in later days. There are only 2 solutions to this coin... either its a brockage... or its a vice job... and honestly I have never seen a vice job that is able to obliterate the design like on this coin.

While we are on the same topic, Matt can you take a look at this coin and give your opinion on it:



P.S. there is an inverse "7" at the bottom right of the double head eagle's claw - it should be good as a head start.

I can also see the imprint of the double line and an ornament next to the left eagles head. Is it yours?

gx can you get me a larger picture?? im not super with what is supposed to be where on these coins...

OK guys, what we have here, as Stigi noted (kudos to you Stigi) is one helluva die clash. There's probably more than one clash, but I would need to see the coin under mag to be sure. The monogram die is also buckling. The buckling could be due to the clashes but could also be simply due to a poor die or normal wear and tear, although the clashing certainly didn't help. RWJ and I discussed this possibility last nite, but I wanted to see blowups before discussing.

This piece is quite analagous to several in the US Large Cent series, a good example being S 124/125 which come with a heavily clashed obverse that eventually buckles quite heavily. (For those not aware, I did the die states and emission sequences for the Noyes US Large Cent DVD Encyclopedia that is now being reprinted in hard copy. I also wrote the tech foreword on the presses, dies and striking for the Breen Encyclopedia and did the tech articles on Russian for the Journal as Stigi noted.)

Why isn't this a brockage? As I pointed out previously, in order for this piece to be a double-struck brockage it would have had to first been struck as a regular brockage (one side relief eagle and one side incuse eagle), removed and then restruck normally. Not only did it have to be restruck but the coin would have had to be very carefully and deliberately replaced to perfectly align the coin on the eagle die so as to show no signs of restriking. Sorry, but quite impossible even if the eagle die was the anvil die (which I tend to think it was given the overall appearance of raised edge on the monogram side).

Of course, one could propose that the coin was left in the press, the die cap piece very carefully removed from the hammer die and then the piece restruck w/o touching it. Not only is this an extremely wild scenario (which is always a red flag), but even this would show evidence of restriking since the coin will move once the pressure is released.

The likelyhood of the eagle die being the anvil also makes a brockage unlikely. The heavier a coin is the less likely an anvil die brockage becomes since it's tough to cause the coin to stick to the hammer die. That's why there's only one US silver dollar brockage that I'm aware of - the unique Morgan Dollar obv brockage sold by Bowers at the 2003 ANA. The fact that this piece is 20 - 25% off-center also indicates that the obv die was the hammer die (common) and that the planchet misfed and slid on the anvil die cap.

I'll also disagee with Matt's coments on the raised edge proving a brockage: "Those marks are common on US large cents that have been brockaged or struck indented. The presses didn't have enough striking pressure and the planchets were too hard to make a full on heavy brockage like the ones they made in later days."

First, they are not common on brockage and indented LCs. I can say that since I have Bill Noyes' full-color, large-format photos of the known LC errors (in fact I'm looking at them now). Brockages and indents show rounded edges. Secondly, fable about the presses being weak is just that: a fable. While the US Mint did start out with just the couple old presses from Harper, these were quickly replaced with very heavy ones from John Rutter and Samuel Howell in 1794 and 1795 (Howell built the dollar press). The presses were thus quite sufficient to produce full brockages and the copper planchets quite well annealed as the both the Noyes photos and Mint records in the National Archives clearly show.

Lastly, I do note what *appears* to be some evidence of clashing from the wreath, etc. on the eagle die. Sigi's comment re my tech articles on the dies is pretty much spot on in this regard. Some dies were one heck of a lot more soundly forged and hardened than others. One can thus have one die that is heavily clashed while its mate only shows light defects - not uncommon in US. Alternately, the dies clashed heavily and ruined one eagle die which was then replaced with the one we see on this piece. This is exactly what happened on S124/125 and a number of other US LCs. From what I've seen on the 5K, the Russians ran the copper dies until they litterally broke up just as the US did.

Taking into account all of the evidence, this piece is simply a very nice clashed die - no need for wild speculation.

To respectfully disagree again I don't believe that is correct.

This coin would have been struck normally first... and then a struck coin somehow made its way on top of the coin in question... and then it was brockaged before it was removed. The coin was not struck as a brockage and then re struck regular..... it was struck regular and then struck again as a brockage.

here is the same effect caused by a blank planchet being on top of a struck coin. You can see the weakness that is caused in the original strike by the blank planchet being on top of this coin when it was struck again... If the coin on top of this coin had any design on it... it would have been transfered to this coin in the same way it was transfered to the coin in question. This particular coin has a double struck reverse.... but the "ring" corresponds with the off center strike... as you can see on the coin in question it looks like it didn't move before it was hit again where as the coin I posed did move.

EDIT thinking faster then im typing hahah great discussion... lets keep it up

Nope ... the eagle is normally raised on the coin, so that would mean the die has an incuse version of it. Upon clashing with the other die, the incuse eagle creates a raised image which is later transferred to the next coin as an incuse image.

I realized that and then edited it to fix it hahahaha i was typing faster then i was thinking hahaa

Thanks to Rittenhouse for the detailed explanation. Doug Smith also writes about Brockages and Clashed dies, and the likelihood (or not) of each. Interesting!

http://dougsmith.ancients.info/brock.html

Steve

It's OK, I'm sure there are some people reading this thread who will appreciate having the extra explanation.

Matt,

We will have to disagree then. The scenario you propose is not only most unlikey and tortured but does not fit the diagnostics. That being said, you are certainly free to offer to buy the piece as a brockage. In the end that's all that matters anyway - can you sell the piece as what you propose. I'll defer to Moulding et al as to the value of a possible unique overstrike brockage, but I would think that 8K - 10K would not be out of range. As to your large cent, I cannot comment w/o seeing decent photos of both sides.

I don't mean to flog a dead horse, so I hope that participants are not tired of this coin yet. But I just noticed that there are signs of a double trike on the monogram side of the coin?! Look at the date (I'm using thumbnails so click to expand):



There are signs of a small displacement. Much finer displacement than what you saw on the incuse imprint, here:



So what does that mean? Is it possible that the coin got stuck (wedged) in the hammer die and they slammed it a couple of times to set it loose? Can anything get stuck in the hammer die? can't quite picture it.

You're certainly not beating a dead horse as far as I'm concerned. I think this is the coolest 5K I've seen in a long time. Heck, it's the coolest COIN period. Freakin' incredible clash.

The "doubling" you show is not double strike. The double incuse crown could be from the dies clashing more than once. The best way to tell is to look at the die flow and other clash doubling. If you see good die flow and other clash doubling then most likely the dies clashed more than once. This is not unusual. When the press mis-feeds it typically isn't caught for a few strikes.

As to the doubling on the date, I *think* this is just distortion from the the die buckling with perhaps some minor machine doubling. Could be an overdate variety - I'll defer to Sigi, Steve, RWJ, squirrel on that, they know the varieties much better than I do. Tough to tell from a web photo.

I can understand your excitment. I really do wish the piece was a brockage. It would be incredibly rare, especially in a coin this size. An overstruck brockage would be just nuts. Geez, I'd just like to see a photo of an "ordinary" regular brockage in a Catherine 5K. RWJ and I discussed, he's never seen one. Steve - have you??? Given the size of the coin, the style of the dies, the screw press, etc., I be surprised if one even exists.

Like I said, I think the coin is cool. If you're interested in selling it, I would like to buy it since I want to publish it in the Journal. I am most willing to pay full retail for the piece. Heck, I'll pay over retail for it. Shoot, I'll offer a min price of $75 right now and will discuss w/ RWJ to see if I should up that (or Steve, Sigi and squirrel can chime in). If you're nervous about the coin being some sort of monster mondo super rare error, I'll make a further guarantee: I'll send the coin to PCGS/NGC/ ANACS at my cost and send Fred Weinburg hi rez photos. If they say it's a brockage, I'll return it to you, you keep what I paid you. You can check my cred with Bowers, Borckhardt, RWJ, Tom Reynolds, etc., etc. I think you'll find I'm good for it.

If you really don't want to sell it, I'll certainly undertand. I wouldn't. In that case, may I have your permission to use your photos and publish??

Well, I don't know what to say, except "CONGRATULATIONS!" to alexbq2 on his good fortune in acquiring such an interesting and unusual coin.

Thanks rittenhouse, both for your help in the discussion and for the kind offer. But I am one of those hoarders, I only sell stuff I don't like anymore. I certainly like this piece

I will certainly be willing to provide you with tons of high res photos, better than what I could host on imageshack. Let me know how I can forward them to you. If anyone else is interested, please let me know, I can send out as many as you like. Please do not tell anything, about this discussion, to the guy who sold it to me, he might feel bad.

There is a known overdate for EM 1769 from 1768. But on this one I can see the doubling on 1, 6 and 9. The 7 is in the part of the coin that was not sharply struck (possibly due to the die damage as you suggested). I can see very fine doubling in some elements of the monogram as well.

I am surprised there is no known brokage from that period. It seems to me, that EM mint was always more geared towards quantity, often at the expense of quality so I would have thought there would be a few known errors of various kind.

Grivna, Sigi, LostDutchman, STEVE MOULDING, bobh and all participants - thank you as well

alex, can you also post the crown that I see at 9 o'clock? It should be directly on the left of the figure "1" of 1769.

That's not a crown. It's a part of the banner that has Piat Kopeek inscribed on it.

I would be interested in what fred has to say about this coin.

No prob, I understand. I obviously like the piece too, that's why I want to publish it. We could use hi rez shots (say 1.3M tiffs) of both sides similar to the ones you posted. If you can get a close up of the defects on the right side of the eagle die that would be great. Send them to RWJ since they need to fit his publishing needs for the Journal and then he and I will discuss. Do you want us to shoot copies to Fred Weinburg for comment or do you want to do that?

While an increased volume of coinage obviously increases the chances for a brockage, the diameter, thickness/weight, collar/no collar, and press type have a greater effect. As a coin increases in diameter and weight the less likely a brockage since it becomes more difficult for a coin to adhere to the dies. In collar strikes increase the probablility since you have an additional mechanism to trap the coin in the striking chamber. Thonnelier and later mechanically powered presses likewise increase the likelyhood due to the type of strike (squeeze vs. impact), coining rate (higher speed = more pieces when it happens) and the greatly increased pressure (more likely to extrude the coin around a die creating a cap).

With a coin as big and heavy as the 5K, it would be very unlikely to adhere to the hammer die, especially given the relatively low pressure of a screw press. It would also be difficult to get 2 pieces into the striking chamber even if a coin stuck to the anvil. The feeding mechanism and fresh planchet would slam into the thick coin and either pop it off or create a real mess. Not sure that a fed planchet would even ride up and over a 5K stuck to the anvil. Too damn thick. It would quite literally be a "train wreck". One shot and the pressmen would know something was seriously wrong.

All in all, I'd say very low prob of a 5K brockage. Even less likely than the unique US dollar brockage since the 5K were struck w/o a collar. Add to that that Sigi, Steve and RWJ apparently haven't seen one....

BTW, if anyone else has some good photos of 5K clashes, please let me know. I'd like to include other examples in the article. RWJ mentioned he's seen some, but not this dramatic.

Thank you for a clear and coherent post which provides a very convincing explanation why this is almost certainly a die clash and not a brockage error. Neat coin!

Dear Rittenhouse, thank you for the praise. I must confess that living far away from the English speaking world, I do not understand all the details of this lengthy discussion. Would it be possible for you, the expert, to resume shortly the coin's features and why you are so enthusiastic about it? Thank you in advance, Sigi

I don't have RW Julian's email. I can send them to RNS (RNSJournals@gmail.com)? You can send them to Fred Weinberg, it would be interseting to hear his take.

Thanks,
Alex

Since RW Julian is a member in this forum, you could send him a private message through the forum interface with a request for his e-mail address. I'm sure he would be happy to oblige.

Sigi,

Happy to explain. I'm a minting technology "freak" and I get excited about anything that shows me something about the minting process. This is a really dramatic clash. I don't recall anything like this is US or British. Those dies really wacked together. That tells me a good bit about the die making process. Whereas prior to this piece I had to surmise how good the Russian die forgers were and how good the steel was from regular coinage, this piece sez the steel was darn good and the processes quite in control or such a piece would not exist. On lesser steel and with lesser dies, this impact would have shattered them. So to me this is very exciting.

Then there's simply the spectacular nature of the piece. Here we had a piece that generated a lot of discussion because it was so dramatic. Had it been a lesser clash, the answer would have be quick.

BTW, I am no expert on errors. Minting tech, yes. Errors, no. That's why I asked for better photos and took my time. Byers or Weinburg can do this stuff in their sleep. They're the error experts. I have to have good photos and a bit of time to reason it out.

Dear Rittenhouse, thank you for your time to explain! Specializing in the large Russian coppers I always looked for the nicest coins (and die clash coins aren't). I will however go thru my collection to look for any. I remember having sent back once a 5kop1793EM showing die clashes on both sides. Now I regret it. About 1/2 year ago I presented my bent 5kop1788SPM in this forum. From #27 of this thread it seems that it had been bent by a blank planchet fed in the screw press too early. I think I should warm this up as a new topic. Thanks again, Sigi

Sigi,

You're most welcome. There was little harm in returning an "average" die clash unless you're doing die state work like is done in the early US copper. Monster clashes like this one are another story. With as much stuff as you see, I'd keep my eye open for major striking errors - terminal dies states (very heavy arcing & bisecting cracks, heavy cuds, etc.), heavy off-centers, double struck (not one date overstruck with another, tho those are interesting too), monster clashes, heavily buckled dies. Combining the "best" with major errors would make for one helluva collection. Good luck.