Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Large Cent Obv Die Cap and Indian Cent Obv Die Cap

Expand Messages
  • byersnc
    I own them both. Here are the links including blow-ups: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2214074883
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
    • hspindel
      At the time I was supplied with the photos the owner of the coins supplied them, but since that was 3-4 years ago things have changed I guess. Howard
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 31, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        At the time I was supplied with the photos the owner of the coins
        supplied them, but since that was 3-4 years ago things have changed I
        guess.

        Howard

        --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, byersnc
        <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        >
        > I own them both. Here are the links including blow-ups:
        >
        > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2214074883
        > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3920816265
        >
        >
        > Mike Byers
        > http://mikebyers.com
      • Mike Diamond
        They are magnificent, although I don t think they are die caps. Again, the brockage in each case is clear and uniformly expanded across the reverse. That
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 31, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          They are magnificent, although I don't think they are die caps.
          Again, the brockage in each case is clear and uniformly expanded
          across the reverse. That would indicate that neither coin struck a
          planchet after initial formation. And that is something that is
          required of a die cap, by definition.

          --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, byersnc
          <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          >
          > I own them both. Here are the links including blow-ups:
          >
          > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2214074883
          > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3920816265
          >
          >
          > Mike Byers
          > http://mikebyers.com
        • Mike Diamond
          My mistake. I thought we were talking about Howard s first two coins. The 1859 Indian cent definitely IS a die cap as the reverse features a spread out
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 31, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            My mistake. I thought we were talking about Howard's first two
            coins. The 1859 Indian cent definitely IS a die cap as the reverse
            features a spread out RAISED design. That could only occur if it had
            struck at least one extra planchet after sticking to the die.

            --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, byersnc
            <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            >
            > I own them both. Here are the links including blow-ups:
            >
            > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2214074883
            > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3920816265
            >
            >
            > Mike Byers
            > http://mikebyers.com
          • numismistake
            I m tempted to put my 2 cents in. First post of 2005. I have to agree 100% with Mike Diamond s assessment of the nature of the 1st 3 error coins (cannot see
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 31, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm tempted to put my 2 cents in. First post of 2005. I have to agree
              100% with Mike Diamond's assessment of the nature of the 1st 3 error
              coins (cannot see rev. of nickel, 4th coin). The first 2 coins, large
              cent and Morgan dollar are indeed struck only once BY A CAPPED DIE
              (by definition). The only way to get a head on head or tail on tail
              brockage strike as such, as far as I know, is for an already struck
              coin to remain in the striking chamber and strike the next incoming
              planchet, which is what these 2 coins represent. This caused a
              broadstruck mirror brockage which in this case is somewhat enlarged
              and spread from pressure and metal flow (just like the 'saucer cent'
              mirror brockages we saw from the new presses until the mint tightened
              up recently). These mirror brockage first strikes were the 2nd strike
              for the host or underlying coin that did not eject and then, by
              definition became a die cap. The 'hosts' were struck twice; 1st
              normal, then struck incoming large cent planchet or the Morgan
              planchet causing the first 2 errors. The Indian cent error was struck
              by an already struck and now to be capped die, imparting a brockage
              of the reverse as it capped the opposite die (or fell away). The 1st
              2 are the brockages caused by the cap, and the 3rd coin of the 4 is
              the cap. (in this case, the Indian cent appears to be a 1 strike cap)
              Did I get this right, or is something missing?
            • Mike Diamond
              Happy 2005, Marc. Your reconstruction of events surrounding the 1856 large cent and 1886 Morgan dollar are correct, in my opinion. As each of these coins was
              Message 6 of 6 , Jan 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Happy 2005, Marc.

                Your reconstruction of events surrounding the 1856 large cent and
                1886 Morgan dollar are correct, in my opinion. As each of these
                coins was struck, it turned the bottom coin into a reverse die cap.
                The top coin in each case was struck only once. Your account of the
                1859 cent is a little hard to follow, so I don't know if you're on
                the right track or not.

                The 1859 cent is a bona fide obverse die cap because it stuck to the
                obverse (hammer) die and proceeded to strike at least one other
                planchet. That's why the normally-oriented, raised reverse design is
                spread out and distorted. The die cap would have left the underlying
                planchet with a brockage impression of the reverse design.

                As we both have observed, far too many coins have been slabbed
                as "caps", when they're really something else. The authenticators
                are misled by the cupping and by the allure of the word "cap", which
                adds extra "zing" (and value) to any description. Regrettably, I
                don't expect the situation to change any time soon. If any company
                were to tighten their criteria for diagnosing a die cap, their
                customers would probably flee to other companies with a more liberal
                policy. So there is a definite financial incentive to maintain a
                very broad (and incorrect) notion of what a die cap is. But we all
                know what it takes to be a die cap. A coin must remain on the die
                after the initial strike and must be struck against at least one
                other planchet. Nothing else will do.

                --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "numismistake"
                <numismistake@y...> wrote:
                >
                > I'm tempted to put my 2 cents in. First post of 2005. I have to
                agree
                > 100% with Mike Diamond's assessment of the nature of the 1st 3
                error
                > coins (cannot see rev. of nickel, 4th coin). The first 2 coins,
                large
                > cent and Morgan dollar are indeed struck only once BY A CAPPED DIE
                > (by definition). The only way to get a head on head or tail on tail
                > brockage strike as such, as far as I know, is for an already struck
                > coin to remain in the striking chamber and strike the next incoming
                > planchet, which is what these 2 coins represent. This caused a
                > broadstruck mirror brockage which in this case is somewhat enlarged
                > and spread from pressure and metal flow (just like the 'saucer
                cent'
                > mirror brockages we saw from the new presses until the mint
                tightened
                > up recently). These mirror brockage first strikes were the 2nd
                strike
                > for the host or underlying coin that did not eject and then, by
                > definition became a die cap. The 'hosts' were struck twice; 1st
                > normal, then struck incoming large cent planchet or the Morgan
                > planchet causing the first 2 errors. The Indian cent error was
                struck
                > by an already struck and now to be capped die, imparting a brockage
                > of the reverse as it capped the opposite die (or fell away). The
                1st
                > 2 are the brockages caused by the cap, and the 3rd coin of the 4 is
                > the cap. (in this case, the Indian cent appears to be a 1 strike
                cap)
                > Did I get this right, or is something missing?
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.