Hussulo Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 I think this cent might have a brockage error, aswel as being double struck and possibly a die adjustment as the obverse is so weakly struck. Any error experts help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 I'm extremely tempted to say that it's a really bad case of post-mint damage. The flattened obverse makes it look like someone was hammering other coins into the reverse to create "brockage". Double strike - any secondary, tertiary, etc. strike that's off-centre would result in that part of the coin being flattened and drawn out. The coin is round, and the reverse rim concerned the affected area is also raised rather than flattened, which points against that. If the obverse was weakly struck, it should display a "soft" image. Presently, it displays lines which suggest a previously higher relief which was then hammered out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedeadpoint Posted October 29, 2006 Report Share Posted October 29, 2006 Though I am by far not a good authority on the subject, it does look like post mint damage. What I see as the give-away is on the flattened side. Notice some small indentations. They are probably from metal clippings or other small debris caught between the coin and the (dirty) anvil the coin was struck against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hussulo Posted October 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2006 I'm extremely tempted to say that it's a really bad case of post-mint damage. The flattened obverse makes it look like someone was hammering other coins into the reverse to create "brockage". Double strike - any secondary, tertiary, etc. strike that's off-centre would result in that part of the coin being flattened and drawn out. The coin is round, and the reverse rim concerned the affected area is also raised rather than flattened, which points against that. If the obverse was weakly struck, it should display a "soft" image. Presently, it displays lines which suggest a previously higher relief which was then hammered out. I agree you could make a brockage by hammering a coin onto the reverse and you could also hammer out higher relief’s but how do you create two reverse images slightly misaligned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted October 29, 2006 Report Share Posted October 29, 2006 I agree you could make a brockage by hammering a coin onto the reverse and you could also hammer out higher relief’s but how do you create two reverse images slightly misaligned? Good question. I see especially from the "ONE CENT" and Lincoln Memorial. It looks good, but there is nothing coresponding on the reverse to suggest that there indeed was a double strike. The only suggestion that I could make is that there indeed was a double strike, which is now ruined. A remote possibility is a fake counterbrockage, done the same way as a fake brockage. Regarding the flattened obverse, my explanation to clarify is that the obverse was placed on a flat surface of a harder metal (ie. steel), and a coin with the obverse facing the reverse of your coin was then hammered in, resulting in a false brockage on the reverse, and the flattened obverse. Note: I'm no expert on errors, just enoungh to reconize some of the more commonly encountered ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hussulo Posted October 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2006 Good question. I see especially from the "ONE CENT" and Lincoln Memorial. It looks good, but there is nothing coresponding on the reverse to suggest that there indeed was a double strike. The only suggestion that I could make is that there indeed was a double strike, which is now ruined. A remote possibility is a fake counterbrockage, done the same way as a fake brockage. So it could have been a genuine double strike which someone tryed to make more interesting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted October 29, 2006 Report Share Posted October 29, 2006 So it could have been a genuine double strike which someone tryed to make more interesting? Possible, which if true would be a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hussulo Posted October 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2006 Possible, which if true would be a shame. Wow errors are fascinating there is alot to learn,but I might start taking more of an interest in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foundinrolls Posted November 3, 2006 Report Share Posted November 3, 2006 Hi, I have no doubt that this is post-mint damage. Have Fun, Bill Wow errors are fascinating there is alot to learn,but I might start taking more of an interest in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belg_jos Posted November 5, 2006 Report Share Posted November 5, 2006 I don't see any sign where a genuine error could be pointed out, so I guess it's what we all have had those bad dreams of: "PMD!!!" Post-mint damage, that is... Are there collectors for these? I've seen some really great forgeries and damaging. Are there people that collect them, even when they now the truth? What happens when the truth is known? Regards Jos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.