ProfHaroldHill

Preston had help? Say it aint so! That was one of my all-time favorite movies... Yer gettin' perilously close to burstin' one of the few 'bubbles' I've got left to cling to, man!

No, it is the design of the reverse, but as seems quite clear now, it was caused by another coin, not the die.

It 'escaped unharmed and unmarked', I realized this a.m,... because the encasing machine is specifically designed to preserve the surfaces of the coin being encased. Rather than a 'hammer and anvil' blow, it must have been more like the machines that put new car tires on the rim... the force is applied in a rotary fashion, along the edges only. The coin that was on top of this one was pressed into this one along the periphery only. That would explain why the depth of relief of what looks like clashing, is slightly greater in the bottom of Liberty's hair, than in the adjacent field. The incusing was done into the existing coin surface, not at the instant of striking. The idea of the dies rotation and the depth of the 'clashing', made this a bit too complicated. The simple explanation rules the day. Sir Wilhelm of Occam would concur.

Well you know what the man said when they asked him how far he was going. "To wherever the people are as green as their money." [Gary Conservatory, Gold Medal Class of '05!] Say, RWB, speaking of powerful lungs, (or perhaps the distinct lack of,) ...how about that pathetic attempt by Matt Broderick to play The Professor? I mean, hey... I liked Broderick in 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off', he was great. Hilarious. But the kid just doesn't have the lungs to belt out the stuff like Robert Preston did, and it made a flop out of that 2003 remake. (And weren't they actually Sousaphones, in that movie?)

If the 1911-P were made of nickel, those curved lines would likely be visible on the rims. It's an 'incomplete punch' error, and it got those lines before it was struck, even before it went through the upsetting mill. It occurs during the blanking process when the blanking die, often called a blanking punch, fails to fully penetrate the strip of metal. When the strip is advanced partially, a blank will be produced with curved lines cut into each side, precisely in line with each other from front to back. The upsetting mill and the flow of metal toward the rims, then against the collar, can eliminate the effect from the newly created rims, but the sharp, fairly deep incisions will remain on the rest of the surfaces. I've seen nickels where the cut is visible across the rim.

Perhaps it was in the process of being encased and another cent was accidentally inserted on top of it, and the encasing device pressed the two together, thus simultaneously marking this coin and making it no longer encasable, so to speak. So they spent it. But how does the reverse escape unharmed and unmarked, when there is enough pressure to drive one coin into the other to the extent it deeply impressed the design upon this coin? And would the rest of the coins obverse be unscarred... Why is the cheek not flattened, it being the high point of the design... Surely it would also show design elements from the coin pressed against it, or at the least, obvious flattening/damage. Are the "unfinished denticles" simply that, there as struck, but not fully formed... Or do you believe the original rim area was deformed and the 'apparently not fully formed denticles', were actually created by the encasing device?

Actually, I'm a slip horn player. That bit about the one and only bass? Well that was just PR

When I first saw this piece, I thought perhaps it had been in an encasement, but the edge isn't deformed and half the obverse rim is normal.

Look just below the"S". See the shield? Just to its right, exactly where it should be, is the beginning of the wreath. You can see it in the feathers and continuing into the field. Look down at the 2 in the date and the A in America. See the bottom of the wreath and bow details? When the die clash occurred, the hammer die was rotated significantly. Perhaps as the die loosens it is thereby closer to the anvil die, leading to a greater severity of clashing. Yet by the time this coin was struck, the dies were properly opposing each other, producing the proper US coin alignment front to back. Or... Maybe it was...? The above is my best guesstimate of how the piece came to be formed as it is.

If you lined up both sides of the 1911P, you'd notice that the incuse curved lines are precisely opposite each other. They are also of the exact same apparent circumference, if the lines were continued beyond the edges of the coin, as a normal Lincoln Cent. That's a hint.

From an inefficient alloying process, when speaking of major laminations. Very minor lamination can occur from the rolling before the blanking, or punching out, of the strips. Oil, dirt, even air bubbles, can be trapped just under the surface during the drawing/rolling. I agree with you and RWB, regards the 1921-S, but I am of a different opinion on the 11-P.

Slightly larger in diameter. Weight is within the normal range, at 3.00 grams.

Thank you, RWB, I didn't know they outsourced the blanks for the cents in that era.

When I spotted this in a dealers bulk bin of Indian Cents, many years ago, I thought it was a severe case of grease filled dies. That alone would make it worth the 90 cents cost, but a few years back I learned that it's actually a coin struck on a defective planchet. (Known as a tapered planchet error, sometimes called a thinned or thinning planchet.) At 2.75 grams it's well below the normal 3.11 grams +/- .15 Where the design is at its weakest, the rim shows virtually only the effect of the upsetting mill, not the normally full rim imparted by the metal hitting the collar during striking. There just wasn't enough metal there to get the full design and rims.

Just out in front of Liberty's eye, the C from CENT can be clearly seen.

In my view, neither one is PMD. Picked them up at a coin store, years ago. 35 cents total, (not purchased at the same time.)

Using a handheld smart phone, these are about the best I'll be able to get.

Not a problem. I'll get some posted in a bit. My working theory is that a severe die clash forced the collar partially out of place. The anomalies in the digits of the date are incuse to the surface, as are the markings at various other places in that area and elsewhere on the obverse.

No, I got it for 75 cents from a dealer's bulk bin of Indian Cents. Rest assured, that your three bit coin is nothing like the one pictured above.

No one 'across the street' was willing to venture a guess, awhile back. It's a complicated coin, with even more going on than seen at first glance. (It's not damaged, btw.)

Image of the planchet.

And should it be submitted as an error coin, if acceptable for certification(?) It went through the upsetting mill but was not struck. Thanks

Do I post here? Maybe.