alexbq2 Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Will it be possible for you to photograph a higher resolution photo? It's quite hard to tell from the small pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted February 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted February 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobh Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 ... 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rittenhouse Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted February 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banivechi Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Maybe the mintmaster was drunk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 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? 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted February 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted February 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE MOULDING Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 ...you know what - the elements of the obverse (eagle) line up perfectly, with the incuse elements on the monogram side. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted February 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 gx can you get me a larger picture?? im not super with what is supposed to be where on these coins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rittenhouse Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.