What's up with date & Mintmark on this weirdo steel cent?

[Buffalo Head]

I was cleaning out some stuff and in my old junk box I found this set of steel cents from the "Littleton" coin company. These coins all have nice color and in great condition. This 1943-S is a weirdo as the 4 & the S in the date are the only part of the coin that's doubled. Sooooo, I wonder what the deal is on this one? Machine doubling ? But wouldn't machine doubling affect more than just the mintmark and the 4? What's your opinion?.....Joe

 

[KeyMan64]

Not sure it is doubling...I think it where the toning seperates from the device(4 and S) that makes it LOOK LIKE it is doubled. I think others have refered to this as Pull-away toning or something like that?

 

Just one possibility...I'm no expert on them. I do see INSIDE the 4 that looks a bit funky. Hmmm.

 

Neat coin.

[Buffalo Head]

Not sure it is doubling...I think it where the toning seperates from the device(4 and S) that makes it LOOK LIKE it is doubled. I think others have refered to this as Pull-away toning or something like that?

 

Just one possibility...I'm no expert on them. I do see INSIDE the 4 that looks a bit funky. Hmmm.

 

Neat coin.

 

Nope, it's doubled. The 4 & the S has huge seperation with a step, or ledge, and the 4 looks tripled to me on the top. This is the only part of the coin that's affected. Thank you for your thoughts.....

[jom]

How does the "4" get doubled with the other numbers aren't?

 

jom

[physics-fan3.14]

The 4 and the S were added to the die at different points, so it is (almost) impossible to have doubling on both. The fact that these are both of the same magnitude, in the same direction, points to machine doubling. The step and ledge is characteristic of this problem. This is usually considered damage, and is worth no premium.

[Coindude]

TBH, the S looks machine doubled. It has a shelflike appearance which to me would mean Machine Doubling.

[PerryHall]

The 4 and the S were added to the die at different points, so it is (almost) impossible to have doubling on both. The fact that these are both of the same magnitude, in the same direction, points to machine doubling. The step and ledge is characteristic of this problem. This is usually considered damage, and is worth no premium.

 

If it's machine doubling, why aren't the other numbers in the date also doubled?

[physics-fan3.14]

The 4 and the S were added to the die at different points, so it is (almost) impossible to have doubling on both. The fact that these are both of the same magnitude, in the same direction, points to machine doubling. The step and ledge is characteristic of this problem. This is usually considered damage, and is worth no premium.

 

If it's machine doubling, why aren't the other numbers in the date also doubled?

 

No idea. I've seen selective machine doubling before.

[Buffalo Head]

The 4 and the S were added to the die at different points, so it is (almost) impossible to have doubling on both. The fact that these are both of the same magnitude, in the same direction, points to machine doubling. The step and ledge is characteristic of this problem. This is usually considered damage, and is worth no premium.

 

If it's machine doubling, why aren't the other numbers in the date also doubled?

 

This is where I'm at on this subject. How could this happen and NOT affect the other #'s in the date? Or any other part of the coin for the matter? Just wondering??

[ldhair]

The 4 and the S were added to the die at different points, so it is (almost) impossible to have doubling on both. The fact that these are both of the same magnitude, in the same direction, points to machine doubling. The step and ledge is characteristic of this problem. This is usually considered damage, and is worth no premium.

 

If it's machine doubling, why aren't the other numbers in the date also doubled?

 

No idea. I've seen selective machine doubling before.

I agree.

[Broc Mitchell]

I don't know about "selective machine doubling", I don't think coin manufacturing equipment is sentient

 

I would suggest the explanation relates to something-filled dies. The mechanics behind machine doubling IMO wouldn't allow for doubling that appears as it does in these pictures.

[RWB]

Some of the 1943 cent dies were chrome plated, but others were not. Unplated dies tended to clog very quickly with zinc dust. (Also depended on the type of zinc and the way the zinc was applied to the underlaying low-carbon steel.) Plated dies resisted clogging much better.

 

It is possible that this obverse die was chromium plated but the 4 and S were not fully covered by the chromium. Those areas could (“could” not “did”) have clogged with zinc and created a hard distorted mass.

 

At present, we know very little about what the mint did with chromium from the 1927 experiments until its regular use to plate proof coin dies in the late 1950s.

 

[Buffalo Head]

Some of the 1943 cent dies were chrome plated, but others were not. Unplated dies tended to clog very quickly with zinc dust. (Also depended on the type of zinc and the way the zinc was applied to the underlaying low-carbon steel.) Plated dies resisted clogging much better.

 

It is possible that this obverse die was chromium plated but the 4 and S were not fully covered by the chromium. Those areas could (“could” not “did”) have clogged with zinc and created a hard distorted mass.

 

At present, we know very little about what the mint did with chromium from the 1927 experiments until its regular use to plate proof coin dies in the late 1950s.

 

Sounds like an educated answer....I'll buy it. Thanks....Joe

[RWB]

...only a "guess" based on a few mint documents.

 

The more I research into the Mint and Assay offices, the less information seems to have survived. Huge quantities of records are missing, and even simple processes are a mystery.