Planchet/brockage error?

[HaydenTubbs]

 

 

 

 

 

[zrlevin]

It looks to me like another coin was struck while this was on top of it causing a negative imprint and flattening on the back.

 

Zach

[TomB]

Post-Mint damage.

[MunkyMan95]

You can accomplish that post-mint?

[TomB]

It certainly could be a legitimate error, this niche is about my weakest in numismatics, but it just "feels" like it would be post-Mint.

 

Looking at the image, it appears that the obverse of the cent is perfect, save for the inverted reverse, which would mean that only about 15% of the reverse was blocking or retained on the obverse die prior to striking. The obverse does not appear to be especially deformed from this partial brokage, but the reverse has extreme damage in this area. An obverse brokage such as this would not likely, in my opinion, cause this type of damage on the reverse. Therefore, something else must have happened to the reverse.

 

This leaves me with two possibilities. The first possibility is that there was a 15% brokage on the obverse that did not really damage the obverse in any other way and that this brokage was matched with some sort of other damage on the reverse. The second possibility is that this was a normal cent that had another cent partially placed on top of it and then hammered, causing the negative impression on the obverse and the reverse damage.

 

Truly, I have no expertise in this area, but I feel more comfortable with the second explanation.

[Bruceswar]

It certainly could be a legitimate error, this niche is about my weakest in numismatics, but it just "feels" like it would be post-Mint.

 

Looking at the image, it appears that the obverse of the cent is perfect, save for the inverted reverse, which would mean that only about 15% of the reverse was blocking or retained on the obverse die prior to striking. The obverse does not appear to be especially deformed from this partial brokage, but the reverse has extreme damage in this area. An obverse brokage such as this would not likely, in my opinion, cause this type of damage on the reverse. Therefore, something else must have happened to the reverse.

 

This leaves me with two possibilities. The first possibility is that there was a 15% brokage on the obverse that did not really damage the obverse in any other way and that this brokage was matched with some sort of other damage on the reverse. The second possibility is that this was a normal cent that had another cent partially placed on top of it and then hammered, causing the negative impression on the obverse and the reverse damage.

 

Truly, I have no expertise in this area, but I feel more comfortable with the second explanation.

 

 

Tom great explanation.... I plan to try your number 2 out and see what happns to the coins. Its a rather cheap expierment to try.

[WaxonWaxov]

You can accomplish that post-mint?

 

do this...

 

1) Find a set a railroad tracks

2) put a nickel on the tracks

3) put a penny on top of the nickel

4) wait for the train

5) find the coins and look at what is left

[pendragon1998]

This leaves me with two possibilities. The first possibility is that there was a 15% brokage on the obverse that did not really damage the obverse in any other way and that this brokage was matched with some sort of other damage on the reverse. The second possibility is that this was a normal cent that had another cent partially placed on top of it and then hammered, causing the negative impression on the obverse and the reverse damage.

 

Truly, I have no expertise in this area, but I feel more comfortable with the second explanation.

 

Similarly, I have little expertise in this area, but it does look odd to me as well. Before reading TomB's thoughts, I also started thinking that it looked like post-mint damage. My thought was actually that it was done with a vise of some sort, due to the flattened, angular nature of the impressions. If the motto was pressed into the coin, where's the rest of the impression? That angled impression makes it look awfully weird to me. But wadda I know?

[HaydenTubbs]

It certainly could be a legitimate error, this niche is about my weakest in numismatics, but it just "feels" like it would be post-Mint.

 

Looking at the image, it appears that the obverse of the cent is perfect, save for the inverted reverse, which would mean that only about 15% of the reverse was blocking or retained on the obverse die prior to striking. The obverse does not appear to be especially deformed from this partial brokage, but the reverse has extreme damage in this area. An obverse brokage such as this would not likely, in my opinion, cause this type of damage on the reverse. Therefore, something else must have happened to the reverse.

 

This leaves me with two possibilities. The first possibility is that there was a 15% brokage on the obverse that did not really damage the obverse in any other way and that this brokage was matched with some sort of other damage on the reverse. The second possibility is that this was a normal cent that had another cent partially placed on top of it and then hammered, causing the negative impression on the obverse and the reverse damage.

 

Truly, I have no expertise in this area, but I feel more comfortable with the second explanation.

 

Hi Tom,

I myself was wondering if it was post mint damage,after all playing around with a vise can easily make an impression of the lettering,however the reverse damage is what confused me. I'm no expert in errors

 

I'll post some new pictures when I get it in hand,anyway I only paid about $4 so it's no big loss.