Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## Re: Strange Double Struck 1944 Cent

Expand Messages
• It s important to recognize that, in the case of a horizontal misalignment on the second strike, assessing any associated rotation of the coin or die must be
Message 1 of 14 , Jul 21 5:48 AM
• 0 Attachment
It's important to recognize that, in the case of a horizontal misalignment on the second strike, assessing any associated rotation of the coin or die must be undertaken in the center of the misaligned crescent. The ends are deceptive. Without any rotation of the coin or die, elements at the left end of the crescent will appear rotated counterclockwise and elements at the right end of the crescent will appear rotated clockwise, relative to the first strike.

In the 1944 cent, the M of UNUM is located in the center of the crescent, and the second strike shows a slight amount of counterclockwise rotation. Again, if the anvil die hadn't rotated, it should have shown some clockwise rotation.

--- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@...> wrote:
>
> I just noticed something that would seem to clinch the misaligned anvil die scenario. On the obverse face, second-strike elements are rotated counterclockwise relative to first-strike elements, indicating that the coin rotated clockwise after the first strike. Because the coin was struck in coin rotation, any clockwise rotation of the coin relative to the obverse die would necessitate a counter-clockwise rotation of the coin relative to the reverse die. And that would mean that second-strike elements on the reverse face should lie in a clockwise direction relative to first-strike elements. But on the reverse face, second-strike elements are also lie in a slightly counterclockwise position. This most likely means that, as the coin was rotating clockwise, the unstable reverse die was also rotating in a clockwise direction.
>
> So we have both a horizontal misalignnment and a rotated die error affecting the reverse die. The co-occurrence of these two types of alignment errors has been documented on other coins with respect to the hammer die.
>
> I suppose one could instead argue that the hammer die was rotating, but two unstable dies is a bit hard to swallow.
>
> --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> >
> > An alternative explanation, and one that I have no way to disprove, would argue that, during the second strike, the coin was off-center toward northwest (obverse perspective) and that, simultaneously, the obverse die developed a horizontal misalignment toward the northwest of the exact same magnitude. That would maintain obverse centering while the reverse would appear off-center.
> >
> > This is a constant, vexing possibility for MAD anvil dies, except for the one specimen in which a broken collar continued to surround the planchet.
> >
> > Still, for this 1944 cent I'll opt for the "if it looks like a duck" approach and assign it to the category it appears to resemble.
> >
> > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > For those who would suggest that this coin might have been struck with inverted dies (reverse die as hammer die), this setup was not introduced to the Lincoln cent until the 1990s and didn't become the prevailing setup until 2002.
> > >
> > > This 1944 cent rotated slightly clockwise after the first strike, leaving the second-strike design in a counterclockwise position relative to the first-strike design elements. Rotation is also seen on the reverse face, but it's harder to detect due to the misalignment and because more of the first strike was effaced.
> > >
> > > This coin will appear in Collector's Clearinghouse some time in the next 6 weeks. Ditto for the off-center dime with the Type III stutter strike.
> > >
> > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > With the coin in front of me it now does appear that we're dealing with a horizontal misalignment of the anvil die on the second strike, which was also a broadstrike. The maximum lateral excursion between the two strikes on the obverse face is 0.4mm, while the maximum lateral excursion between the two strikes on the reverse face is 1.3mm. These distances were measured with an ocular micrometer.
> > > >
> > > > The first strike was struck in-collar, so the collar must have broken loose between the two strikes.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what to make of the thin, faint, letter-like features between the normal die-struck 2nd-strike design elements on the reverse face. Right now I don't see enough evidence to conclude that we're dealing with an intervening strike between the unmistakable 1st and 2nd strikes.
> > > >
> > > > Both this and the dime will make fine fodder for Collector's Clearinghouse. Thanks for sharing them with us, Matt.
> > > >
> > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I now see the extra elements you were referring to. Puzzling. I'd be happy to study it up close. Just contact me offline at mdia1@
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "matt_dinger1793" <matt@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I uploaded 1 more picture of the coin. I can't say I've ever seen anything like what I'm seeing there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would be happy to send it if you would like to look at it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When looking at both faces I see only two strikes. The obverse strikes seem to be more centered and characterized simply by rotation between strikes. The reverse seems more offset between strikes. However the differences may simply be a visual illusion reflecting different degrees of persistence of the first strike. I would need to see the coin up close to see if anything more significant is going on. An error in which the reverse face is truly misaligned on the second strike (relative to the obverse face) would be highly unusual. That said, horizontal misalignments of the anvil die are known.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "matt_dinger1793" <matt@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mostly the difference between the obverse and reverse... If you look between e pluribus unum I see another partial motto... Is this 2 or 3 strikes?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's authentic, but is there anything that strikes you as unusual that you wish us to comment on?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "matt_dinger1793" <matt@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi guys. I just uploaded a couple pictures in the double struck section of a 1944 cent that I bought today.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to get your thoughts about this coin.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Matt Dinger
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
• Continuing to think out loud, I suppose it s possible that we have a counterclockwise rotation and a horizontal mislignment of the hammer die on the second
Message 2 of 14 , Jul 23 8:34 AM
• 0 Attachment
Continuing to think out loud, I suppose it's possible that we have a counterclockwise rotation and a horizontal mislignment of the hammer die on the second strike that precisely tracks the distance and direction of a simultaneous off-center strike. While I can't disprove this alternative scenario, it's entering the territory of special pleading. Gah, what I wouldn't give for certainty in this situation.

--- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@...> wrote:
>
> It's important to recognize that, in the case of a horizontal misalignment on the second strike, assessing any associated rotation of the coin or die must be undertaken in the center of the misaligned crescent. The ends are deceptive. Without any rotation of the coin or die, elements at the left end of the crescent will appear rotated counterclockwise and elements at the right end of the crescent will appear rotated clockwise, relative to the first strike.
>
> In the 1944 cent, the M of UNUM is located in the center of the crescent, and the second strike shows a slight amount of counterclockwise rotation. Again, if the anvil die hadn't rotated, it should have shown some clockwise rotation.
>
> --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> >
> > I just noticed something that would seem to clinch the misaligned anvil die scenario. On the obverse face, second-strike elements are rotated counterclockwise relative to first-strike elements, indicating that the coin rotated clockwise after the first strike. Because the coin was struck in coin rotation, any clockwise rotation of the coin relative to the obverse die would necessitate a counter-clockwise rotation of the coin relative to the reverse die. And that would mean that second-strike elements on the reverse face should lie in a clockwise direction relative to first-strike elements. But on the reverse face, second-strike elements are also lie in a slightly counterclockwise position. This most likely means that, as the coin was rotating clockwise, the unstable reverse die was also rotating in a clockwise direction.
> >
> > So we have both a horizontal misalignnment and a rotated die error affecting the reverse die. The co-occurrence of these two types of alignment errors has been documented on other coins with respect to the hammer die.
> >
> > I suppose one could instead argue that the hammer die was rotating, but two unstable dies is a bit hard to swallow.
> >
> > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > An alternative explanation, and one that I have no way to disprove, would argue that, during the second strike, the coin was off-center toward northwest (obverse perspective) and that, simultaneously, the obverse die developed a horizontal misalignment toward the northwest of the exact same magnitude. That would maintain obverse centering while the reverse would appear off-center.
> > >
> > > This is a constant, vexing possibility for MAD anvil dies, except for the one specimen in which a broken collar continued to surround the planchet.
> > >
> > > Still, for this 1944 cent I'll opt for the "if it looks like a duck" approach and assign it to the category it appears to resemble.
> > >
> > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For those who would suggest that this coin might have been struck with inverted dies (reverse die as hammer die), this setup was not introduced to the Lincoln cent until the 1990s and didn't become the prevailing setup until 2002.
> > > >
> > > > This 1944 cent rotated slightly clockwise after the first strike, leaving the second-strike design in a counterclockwise position relative to the first-strike design elements. Rotation is also seen on the reverse face, but it's harder to detect due to the misalignment and because more of the first strike was effaced.
> > > >
> > > > This coin will appear in Collector's Clearinghouse some time in the next 6 weeks. Ditto for the off-center dime with the Type III stutter strike.
> > > >
> > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > With the coin in front of me it now does appear that we're dealing with a horizontal misalignment of the anvil die on the second strike, which was also a broadstrike. The maximum lateral excursion between the two strikes on the obverse face is 0.4mm, while the maximum lateral excursion between the two strikes on the reverse face is 1.3mm. These distances were measured with an ocular micrometer.
> > > > >
> > > > > The first strike was struck in-collar, so the collar must have broken loose between the two strikes.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure what to make of the thin, faint, letter-like features between the normal die-struck 2nd-strike design elements on the reverse face. Right now I don't see enough evidence to conclude that we're dealing with an intervening strike between the unmistakable 1st and 2nd strikes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both this and the dime will make fine fodder for Collector's Clearinghouse. Thanks for sharing them with us, Matt.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I now see the extra elements you were referring to. Puzzling. I'd be happy to study it up close. Just contact me offline at mdia1@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "matt_dinger1793" <matt@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I uploaded 1 more picture of the coin. I can't say I've ever seen anything like what I'm seeing there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would be happy to send it if you would like to look at it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When looking at both faces I see only two strikes. The obverse strikes seem to be more centered and characterized simply by rotation between strikes. The reverse seems more offset between strikes. However the differences may simply be a visual illusion reflecting different degrees of persistence of the first strike. I would need to see the coin up close to see if anything more significant is going on. An error in which the reverse face is truly misaligned on the second strike (relative to the obverse face) would be highly unusual. That said, horizontal misalignments of the anvil die are known.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "matt_dinger1793" <matt@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mostly the difference between the obverse and reverse... If you look between e pluribus unum I see another partial motto... Is this 2 or 3 strikes?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's authentic, but is there anything that strikes you as unusual that you wish us to comment on?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "matt_dinger1793" <matt@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys. I just uploaded a couple pictures in the double struck section of a 1944 cent that I bought today.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to get your thoughts about this coin.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Matt Dinger
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
• My report on Matt s complex error is now out in Coin World (9/9/13). The public domain version should be released late Saturday. The best I could do was come
Message 3 of 14 , Aug 26, 2013
• 0 Attachment
My report on Matt's complex error is now out in Coin World (9/9/13). The public domain version should be released late Saturday.

The best I could do was come up with four working hypotheses, one of which is slightly better than the other three.

--- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@...> wrote:
>
> Continuing to think out loud, I suppose it's possible that we have a counterclockwise rotation and a horizontal mislignment of the hammer die on the second strike that precisely tracks the distance and direction of a simultaneous off-center strike. While I can't disprove this alternative scenario, it's entering the territory of special pleading. Gah, what I wouldn't give for certainty in this situation.
>
> --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> >
> > It's important to recognize that, in the case of a horizontal misalignment on the second strike, assessing any associated rotation of the coin or die must be undertaken in the center of the misaligned crescent. The ends are deceptive. Without any rotation of the coin or die, elements at the left end of the crescent will appear rotated counterclockwise and elements at the right end of the crescent will appear rotated clockwise, relative to the first strike.
> >
> > In the 1944 cent, the M of UNUM is located in the center of the crescent, and the second strike shows a slight amount of counterclockwise rotation. Again, if the anvil die hadn't rotated, it should have shown some clockwise rotation.
> >
> > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just noticed something that would seem to clinch the misaligned anvil die scenario. On the obverse face, second-strike elements are rotated counterclockwise relative to first-strike elements, indicating that the coin rotated clockwise after the first strike. Because the coin was struck in coin rotation, any clockwise rotation of the coin relative to the obverse die would necessitate a counter-clockwise rotation of the coin relative to the reverse die. And that would mean that second-strike elements on the reverse face should lie in a clockwise direction relative to first-strike elements. But on the reverse face, second-strike elements are also lie in a slightly counterclockwise position. This most likely means that, as the coin was rotating clockwise, the unstable reverse die was also rotating in a clockwise direction.
> > >
> > > So we have both a horizontal misalignnment and a rotated die error affecting the reverse die. The co-occurrence of these two types of alignment errors has been documented on other coins with respect to the hammer die.
> > >
> > > I suppose one could instead argue that the hammer die was rotating, but two unstable dies is a bit hard to swallow.
> > >
> > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > An alternative explanation, and one that I have no way to disprove, would argue that, during the second strike, the coin was off-center toward northwest (obverse perspective) and that, simultaneously, the obverse die developed a horizontal misalignment toward the northwest of the exact same magnitude. That would maintain obverse centering while the reverse would appear off-center.
> > > >
> > > > This is a constant, vexing possibility for MAD anvil dies, except for the one specimen in which a broken collar continued to surround the planchet.
> > > >
> > > > Still, for this 1944 cent I'll opt for the "if it looks like a duck" approach and assign it to the category it appears to resemble.
> > > >
> > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For those who would suggest that this coin might have been struck with inverted dies (reverse die as hammer die), this setup was not introduced to the Lincoln cent until the 1990s and didn't become the prevailing setup until 2002.
> > > > >
> > > > > This 1944 cent rotated slightly clockwise after the first strike, leaving the second-strike design in a counterclockwise position relative to the first-strike design elements. Rotation is also seen on the reverse face, but it's harder to detect due to the misalignment and because more of the first strike was effaced.
> > > > >
> > > > > This coin will appear in Collector's Clearinghouse some time in the next 6 weeks. Ditto for the off-center dime with the Type III stutter strike.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the coin in front of me it now does appear that we're dealing with a horizontal misalignment of the anvil die on the second strike, which was also a broadstrike. The maximum lateral excursion between the two strikes on the obverse face is 0.4mm, while the maximum lateral excursion between the two strikes on the reverse face is 1.3mm. These distances were measured with an ocular micrometer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The first strike was struck in-collar, so the collar must have broken loose between the two strikes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure what to make of the thin, faint, letter-like features between the normal die-struck 2nd-strike design elements on the reverse face. Right now I don't see enough evidence to conclude that we're dealing with an intervening strike between the unmistakable 1st and 2nd strikes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both this and the dime will make fine fodder for Collector's Clearinghouse. Thanks for sharing them with us, Matt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I now see the extra elements you were referring to. Puzzling. I'd be happy to study it up close. Just contact me offline at mdia1@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "matt_dinger1793" <matt@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mike,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I uploaded 1 more picture of the coin. I can't say I've ever seen anything like what I'm seeing there.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would be happy to send it if you would like to look at it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When looking at both faces I see only two strikes. The obverse strikes seem to be more centered and characterized simply by rotation between strikes. The reverse seems more offset between strikes. However the differences may simply be a visual illusion reflecting different degrees of persistence of the first strike. I would need to see the coin up close to see if anything more significant is going on. An error in which the reverse face is truly misaligned on the second strike (relative to the obverse face) would be highly unusual. That said, horizontal misalignments of the anvil die are known.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "matt_dinger1793" <matt@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mostly the difference between the obverse and reverse... If you look between e pluribus unum I see another partial motto... Is this 2 or 3 strikes?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's authentic, but is there anything that strikes you as unusual that you wish us to comment on?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "matt_dinger1793" <matt@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys. I just uploaded a couple pictures in the double struck section of a 1944 cent that I bought today.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to get your thoughts about this coin.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Matt Dinger
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
• Article on 2nd strike with misaligned anvil die now online: http://www.coinworld.com/articles/printarticle/misaligned-second-strike-invites-competing-ex --- In
Message 4 of 14 , Aug 31, 2013
• 0 Attachment

Article on 2nd strike with misaligned anvil die now online:

http://www.coinworld.com/articles/printarticle/misaligned-second-strike-invites-competing-ex

--- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, <mdia1@...> wrote:

My report on Matt's complex error is now out in Coin World (9/9/13). The public domain version should be released late Saturday.

The best I could do was come up with four working hypotheses, one of which is slightly better than the other three.

--- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@...> wrote:
>
> Continuing to think out loud, I suppose it's possible that we have a counterclockwise rotation and a horizontal mislignment of the hammer die on the second strike that precisely tracks the distance and direction of a simultaneous off-center strike. While I can't disprove this alternative scenario, it's entering the territory of special pleading. Gah, what I wouldn't give for certainty in this situation.
>
> --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> >
> > It's important to recognize that, in the case of a horizontal misalignment on the second strike, assessing any associated rotation of the coin or die must be undertaken in the center of the misaligned crescent. The ends are deceptive. Without any rotation of the coin or die, elements at the left end of the crescent will appear rotated counterclockwise and elements at the right end of the crescent will appear rotated clockwise, relative to the first strike.
> >
> > In the 1944 cent, the M of UNUM is located in the center of the crescent, and the second strike shows a slight amount of counterclockwise rotation. Again, if the anvil die hadn't rotated, it should have shown some clockwise rotation.
> >
> > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just noticed something that would seem to clinch the misaligned anvil die scenario. On the obverse face, second-strike elements are rotated counterclockwise relative to first-strike elements, indicating that the coin rotated clockwise after the first strike. Because the coin was struck in coin rotation, any clockwise rotation of the coin relative to the obverse die would necessitate a counter-clockwise rotation of the coin relative to the reverse die. And that would mean that second-strike elements on the reverse face should lie in a clockwise direction relative to first-strike elements. But on the reverse face, second-strike elements are also lie in a slightly counterclockwise position. This most likely means that, as the coin was rotating clockwise, the unstable reverse die was also rotating in a clockwise direction.
> > >
> > > So we have both a horizontal misalignnment and a rotated die error affecting the reverse die. The co-occurrence of these two types of alignment errors has been documented on other coins with respect to the hammer die.
> > >
> > > I suppose one could instead argue that the hammer die was rotating, but two unstable dies is a bit hard to swallow.
> > >
> > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > An alternative explanation, and one that I have no way to disprove, would argue that, during the second strike, the coin was off-center toward northwest (obverse perspective) and that, simultaneously, the obverse die developed a horizontal misalignment toward the northwest of the exact same magnitude. That would maintain obverse centering while the reverse would appear off-center.
> > > >
> > > > This is a constant, vexing possibility for MAD anvil dies, except for the one specimen in which a broken collar continued to surround the planchet.
> > > >
> > > > Still, for this 1944 cent I'll opt for the "if it looks like a duck" approach and assign it to the category it appears to resemble.
> > > >
> > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For those who would suggest that this coin might have been struck with inverted dies (reverse die as hammer die), this setup was not introduced to the Lincoln cent until the 1990s and didn't become the prevailing setup until 2002.
> > > > >
> > > > > This 1944 cent rotated slightly clockwise after the first strike, leaving the second-strike design in a counterclockwise position relative to the first-strike design elements. Rotation is also seen on the reverse face, but it's harder to detect due to the misalignment and because more of the first strike was effaced.
> > > > >
> > > > > This coin will appear in Collector's Clearinghouse some time in the next 6 weeks. Ditto for the off-center dime with the Type III stutter strike.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the coin in front of me it now does appear that we're dealing with a horizontal misalignment of the anvil die on the second strike, which was also a broadstrike. The maximum lateral excursion between the two strikes on the obverse face is 0.4mm, while the maximum lateral excursion between the two strikes on the reverse face is 1.3mm. These distances were measured with an ocular micrometer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The first strike was struck in-collar, so the collar must have broken loose between the two strikes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure what to make of the thin, faint, letter-like features between the normal die-struck 2nd-strike design elements on the reverse face. Right now I don't see enough evidence to conclude that we're dealing with an intervening strike between the unmistakable 1st and 2nd strikes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both this and the dime will make fine fodder for Collector's Clearinghouse. Thanks for sharing them with us, Matt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I now see the extra elements you were referring to. Puzzling. I'd be happy to study it up close. Just contact me offline at mdia1@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "matt_dinger1793" <matt@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mike,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I uploaded 1 more picture of the coin. I can't say I've ever seen anything like what I'm seeing there.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would be happy to send it if you would like to look at it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Matt
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When looking at both faces I see only two strikes. The obverse strikes seem to be more centered and characterized simply by rotation between strikes. The reverse seems more offset between strikes. However the differences may simply be a visual illusion reflecting different degrees of persistence of the first strike. I would need to see the coin up close to see if anything more significant is going on. An error in which the reverse face is truly misaligned on the second strike (relative to the obverse face) would be highly unusual. That said, horizontal misalignments of the anvil die are known.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "matt_dinger1793" <matt@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mostly the difference between the obverse and reverse... If you look between e pluribus unum I see another partial motto... Is this 2 or 3 strikes?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's authentic, but is there anything that strikes you as unusual that you wish us to comment on?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "matt_dinger1793" <matt@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys. I just uploaded a couple pictures in the double struck section of a 1944 cent that I bought today.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to get your thoughts about this coin.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Matt Dinger
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.