An Interesting Error

[LostDutchman]

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).

 

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.

[LostDutchman]

 

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.

[LostDutchman]

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

[bobh]

if the coin was a clashed die wouldn't the eagle be raised and not incuse????????

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.

[LostDutchman]

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

[STEVE MOULDING]

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

[bobh]

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

 

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

[rittenhouse]

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.

[alexbq2]

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.

[rittenhouse]

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):

 

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??

[grivna1726]

I think this is the coolest 5K I've seen in a long time. Heck, it's the coolest COIN period. Freakin' incredible clash.

 

 

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

[alexbq2]

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??

 

 

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

[gxseries]

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.

[alexbq2]

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.

 

[LostDutchman]

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

[rittenhouse]

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

 

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.

[grivna1726]

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....

 

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!

[sigistenz]

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.

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

[alexbq2]

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?

 

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

[bobh]

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.

[rittenhouse]

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

 

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.

[sigistenz]

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

[rittenhouse]

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.