error proof kennedy," need expert advice" huge pics!

[ibyandsellsmith]

This is a 1998 proof kennedy still in the holder thats why the pics are not that good but if you look close you'll set some serious damage not sure what caused it. this damage is on all the letters and numbers it's pretty cool really I didnt put in pics of every single detail but these are the jist of the coin maybe somebody out there knows if this is a known error or not.

best pics i could get my my little ole cannon.

[EZ_E]

It appears to be machine doubling to me. A true double die will be more distict with a shelf between the doubled figures.

[ibyandsellsmith]

it's not doubled at all parts of thge words and #'s are missing like the die broke on every part of the letters and #'s.

[WoodenJefferson]

This is what I find interesting, the jumped rim. I have no idea (explaination) how this happened unless the coin raised out of the hub and the second strike forced it back down or if this was a miss fed planchet or what?

 

Is this the only place on the rim (obverse or reverse) that has an indicator as such, you'd think there would be another one opposite or in line with the one near the date?

 

Not a known error, looks like the letters and numbers have a type of machine doubling...something was lose, a die, the collar or a combination of both. You don't usually see this kind of problem on proof coins, but it does happen.

[Coin]

More common than you would think actually .

 

FIRST let's look at Die vs Strike effects on coining.....

 

Notice how each appears as sort of a 'slid over' square base/shelf rather than rounded, off-set , images ? Keep this in the back of your mind.....

 

Unlike the characteristics of a centered doubled image made into a new DIE , when, in the hubbing process, the master was misaligned/loose and settled ,upon imprint(impact), and caused that particular DIE to carry and then impress this distorted image into all the coins that IT eventually produced when used.... this appears to me to be the case where a normal die , with okay features , hit the planchet.

 

NOW , second , lets look at the strike vs die efects on coining.....

 

This is a Proof coin , however , and proof coins are struck UP to two times and at a lot lot higher pressure than business strikes .....so keep in mind some of what ya picked up about the production of the hub and relate the following as to the hub itself striking a planchet and then settling ...or.... striking the planchet two or more times at differing pressures....

 

Somewhere either in ONE good solid high-presure hit the ram die SETTLED on impact with the blank planchet ( but in your coin's pics , this would mean that the 'shelf images' would all be closely oriented/moved in the same direction --- I don't see this)..........

or with TWO whacks .......

...the second strike did not have the same striking power

(could have been more force or less)

....just like when the machine was in between a start and stop operation...where upon its last striking the machine was stopped ( to clean /check or what ever) then restarted with a new unstruck planchet or the same planchet with one strike already on it , in place....

 

... but the ram DIE was not at the exact position from which it normally begins its journey down ( either it did not go all the way back to sear (starting position) or went a bit past it) , thus.... the little starting position difference,.... affected the amount of force exuded onto the planchet surface and voila ! you got the results of two different pressures from two strikes on the same coin before it was ejected so another could be placed upon the anvil die.

 

It is an error , but only to the extent that it has no higher value except for curiosity , even though it occurred on a proof coin made well after the mint went to the single -squeeze (hub producing) process.

The shelf features occurred via the STRIKING process , while the coin was struck with a non-double imaged and well manufactured die.

 

This of course is just science fiction( my uneducated guess) and the way I understand what all I've been told over and over , so please take it with a grain of salt and realize that it is hard to explain the entire hubbing process in such a small passage , but if you are starting to get the gist of this so far ,..... then you can begin to understand the DDO DDR and strike doubling/ off-center , broadstrikes , flip over double strikes , start-up test striking , and all the different types and fancy words and terms until one day you look into a mirror and see Ken Potter , Wexler , Fivaz , etc looking back at you ....I'm not an expert , so their opinion would carry a lot more weight than mine , but you got my doubled cents worth of an opinion.

 

If I am totally way off base or there is room for improvement/corrections , someone feel free to correct me ...don't hold back any of that secret information we all want ...

[Conder101]

Not machine doubling, not doubled die. This is the result of the coin (or more likely the die) shifting slightly between the two strikes. So it is a close in collar double strike.

[Buffalo_Pete]

The two impressions needed to produce your half were slightly offset.

 

The rim is the givaway, being slightly shifted.

 

There is, to me, definite notching between some design elements,which show extra thickness. That thickness is very different than the kind normally seen with strike doubling, the area being raised rather than flat.

 

It's a collectable, but not rare like a true hub-doubled die.

 

Pete

[Fergie]

Howdy

 

I waited for others to express their opinions before commenting on this coin.

 

Fully understanding doubled dies and original toning are the two hardest aspects of numismatics for a person to acquire. I am a "C" student in both, at best.

 

My first take was, and is, that it's a double die proof that was struck the second time slightly tilted or offset from center.

 

A double die of some sort anyway.

Just my view.

See ya,

Fergie.

[ibyandsellsmith]

I want to thank everbody who has giving me there input, now for the big one if it is as you say a double strike why is kennedy's face not doubled, see its not that I thank it's a double die the letters and numbers are the correct size. is it possible when they struck it the second time the metal peeled of the coin. see if you look close the parts that look doubled are actually a little bit lower and rougher than the rest of the raised parts.

I dont know but it is a cool coin when you look at it through a loop.

[Conder101]

why is kennedy's face not doubled

Because Kennedy's face was closer to the pivot point of the shift. The closer you are to that point the less disruption you will have. Snce it appears from your images that the greatest separation is around the R in LIBERTY, the pivot point looks to be somewhere between his chin and where the jaw meets the neck.

 

Of course I could be more sure of that if you had provided an image of the face.

[ibyandsellsmith]

here is a picture of his face.

[ibyandsellsmith]

I was looking through coneca and found this. It's not the same coin, but, definatly the same strike.

Nienaber Finds DDD On Proof

 

 

 

August 21, 2003 -- Larry Nienaber reports finding a very strong example of Die Deterioration Doubling on a 2003-S Missouri State quarter that he found in a clad proof set. The clad quarter alloy is far more destructive to dies than silver. This is the "type" of DDD that is rather typical of what we see from chromium plated dies such as those in standard use in Canada for their business strike and collector coins.

Tests by the Royal Canadian Mint in the early 1940s indicated that chromium plated dies had a life of five to six times of that for unplated dies. Dies traditionally yielding averages of 700,000 pieces were able to yield mintages up to five-million when chromium plated.

Once the chromium plating wears and/or is polished away from selected areas of the die, those areas deteriorate more rapidly than protected areas. The result is very strong doubling, often with a sharp boundary between it and the protected areas of the die that may appear normal with no signs of deterioration at all. DDD is usually first evidenced around areas of greatest stress closest to the rim (such as lettering and other characters) and extends inwards to other designs on more extreme examples.

While quite a bit of experimentation with chromium plated dies has taken place in the US Mints for a number of years, it appears that it's use has been largely restricted to proof coins struck from dies that are generally retired long before the effects of DDD take hold. The use of chromium plating on proof dies not only extends their life but also imparts a more attractive mirror-like finish to areas of the coin were desired.

While DDD has traditionally been considered more of a nuisance than a collectable by most variety coin specialists, it must be noted that it's appearance on US proof coins has been rare. Nienaber wonders if it is destined to be considered a "modern day error on a proof" suggesting that perhaps it may be of interest to collectors in the absence of other types of errors getting out of the Mint in recent years. We find it very interesting to see DDD on a US proof coin but have no idea of value or interest and present it here for its educational value only. Time will tell if it catches on as a collectable

inatly, the same kind of strike.