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

Re: Large Cent Obv Die Cap and Indian Cent Obv Die Cap

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Dec 31, 2004
      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 2 of 6 , Jan 1, 2005
        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.