EagleRJO

I am still curious what error you thought the coin had. Knowing this might help some less experienced collectors avoid thinking they had errors.

I think that by 1965 the US mint was punching mint marks onto working hubs, not working dies, so it doesn't seem likely your 1985 cent would have a re-punched mark.

The turn of the coin is different than an "inverted edge" when one set of edge lettering from a split collar die is facing up and the other set of edge lettering is facing down ("inverted"), referenced with the obverse side facing up. I think this occurred with the John Adams dollar coin and maybe one other. Also, since the edge lettering for more modern coins is done with a separate machine, after the sides are struck at a coining press and dropped into a bin, the result is there is no specific orientation of the edge lettering.

My understanding is that the "turn" of a coin is always referenced to the reverse ending in the right-side-up orientation.

ASE's have a "vertical turn" or "coin turn", as do other US coins if you look at your pocket change. This means if you hold the coin at 3 and 9 o'clock looking at the obverse and turn the coin vertically, the reverse should be right-side-up. [A corollary to this is "horizontal turn" where when you hold the coin at 12 and 6 o'clock looking at the obverse and turn the coin horizontally, the reverse should be right-side-up. Medals produced by the US mint have a horizontal turn, which is also referred to as a "medallic turn"]

I am also not seeing an RPM, as it appears to be a normal S with an upper serif that closes in and a dot/blob at the lower serif like other 1955-S 1C coins (see attached example from PCG$). What led you to believe this coin had an RPM?

The site www.error-ref.com has good info on coin errors, and the US mint has some excellent info and videos on the coin making progress ... https://www.usmint.gov/learn/production-process Both of these are included in the topic linked by Sandon above. Btw, why did you think this coin had errors?

NP, easier to see the date and other details. They do show a closer match of the date with an FS-101, but the other pics requested to verify that have not been provided. When posting new pics you really should just add them, keeping ones previously posted which relate to comments already made so it doesn't get confusing.

It might be an FS-101 or FS-102 but the 3 in the date looks wrong. On the op's coin the base of the 3 is sloping down, but in the referenced DDO's the base of the 3 is flat. See the attached from varietyvista.com It could be that the 3 took a hit, but it doesn't look like it without better pics of the op's coin. Also, attached is a 1936 1C DDO FS-101 graded VF by PCGS.

I don't think so. For example the date doubling is either on both sides or flowing towards the center of the coin.

@VKurtBand @Mr.Bill347Unfortunately the "gift box" for an additional $5 is just a larger book sized decorative outer box with US mint tissue paper and filler wrapped around the typical cheap dollar store smaller mint box. It would be suitable to say add a sticker on the outer gift box and put it under a tree as a gift. It was not the anticipated felt covered clamshell style presentation box used prior to mid-2021. So, adding the $5 hoping it was an upgrade to the clamshell style box was a fail. Well, the 2023 Proof ASE was $91 including the gift box and S&H (strike one); the mint continues to use the cheap dollar store presentation box with the flimsy plastic insert that has glued on felt which was already starting to peel off (strike two); and the coin capsule had some cloudy areas and several air bubbles or spots (strike three). I have purchased multiple boxes of Direct-Fit, AirTite, and even cheap knock-off coin capsules without any air-bubbles or spots on the capsules, so how hard could it be to match that quality considering it is the US mint after all. Add to that the issue the mint is having with milk spots, and I think I am done with Collecting ASE's.

Some minor machine or shelf doubling only, with the attached infographic depicting that. It does not look like it was double struck (not called double stamped). Attached is a picture of a double struck quarter. Also, It's not worth getting it graded.

The mint has gone woke, so expect more of that.

Well, at least it's not the only one out there. https://www.ebay.com/itm/144976247858?chn=ps&mkevt=1&mkcid=28 Likely a Chinese fake due to the spelling error and their propensity to copy anything at very low costs.

I agree with JPM that it looks like a spooned coin, likely with some significant wear to begin with. [The uneven and significantly indented edges from tapping with a spoon are clearly visible, and would not likely occur from rattling around in a dryer.] Also, see the following topic I started on those coins a little while ago ... https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/429492-spooned-coins/ They sent NGC the quarter to begin with, so no credit and a $50 loss. Also, if just that coin is sent in the op would loose more like $80 [shipping to NGC, $10 handling charge, $23 basic grading cost, plus $28 return shipping as a minimum], and get the coin back in a body bag as it's physically damaged from spooning.

Yea that part of the infographic as well as pics I have of my Indian Head half eagles do remind me of Coinbuf. I pushed the part on errors to the top, so maybe some will at least read that if they don't go through the topics before they post road rash coins as errors. And even if they don't read the topics before posting coins, at least it provides a handy reference for members responding to posts on many of the common issues.

You may very well be right that the op's coin is from a later die state after some polishing, even though the overlay you have is from a different year but which is still a good indicator. And thanks for the offer concerning checking your files on die clashes with Canadian coins. I am curious if others may know of sites they have used with die clash overlays similar to the following for US coins ,,, https://coinauctionshelp.com/overlay_home.html#.ZBzGB3bMK5d http://www.maddieclashes.com/denominational-overlays/

@GreenstangI saw the attached die clash from the beaver which definitely looks like a match from the overlay you provided, but doesn't seem to match the op's coin. Also, where do you find those overlays, as that is an excellent diagnostic tool.

It does look like MD. See the following topic which has an infographic to help tell the difference between true die or hub doubling and machine or "shelf" doubling. https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/430263-basic-resources-glossary-for-those-posting-questions/

Might be die scratches behind the head (that is possibly part of a separate die clash) and what looks like a die chip at the ear on the obverse, and what might be a die chip on the reverse. What elements are you seeing which leads you to think it's a die clash and which coin? It may just be a die variety and not a die clash, which might explain why you are not finding much. https://www.coinsandcanada.com/coins-prices.php?coin=5-cents-1950&years=

Welcome to the forum. You can use the attached infographic to help distinguish between true die or hub doubling and the less valuable deterioration or machine doubling, which is what you have with that coin.

Tokens are an area of interest for me, so from doing a little digging It's a British token ... https://en.numista.com/catalogue/exonumia47678.html Looks like it's a brass 1-Pound amusment arcade vending token selling on eBay in good condition for between $5 and $10.

It did initially appear to be raised, which I was thinking was a die chip or die delamination, not a planchet delamination. But the op indicated it is incuse, so yea a struck through. Maybe something that came off the press. Worth keeping with other minor "mint errors", but to me not of much value as the item that was struck thru is not readily apparent.

For a "struck through" the impression would be incuse or depressed, whereas it appears to be raised areas on the coin. Also, the 1 and 9 of the date are intact which makes me think die chips or delaminations, and a strike-thru likely would have affected the date. Maybe the op can clarify if the areas are depressed or raised, as to me thay appear to be raised from the pics.

It does appear that the impressions at the bottom right of the bust are raised, in which case it would be a die error as it wouldn't be something that normally may occur as part of the coin production process. Nice find, but you really should be able to identify what happened. It is unusual, and I was initially thinking die chips but the 1 and 9 in the date is intact.