| Author |
Replies: 35 / Views: 4,369 |
Page 3 of 3
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5686 Posts |
Wow, fantastic coin! It does look like a type B reverse, but I wonder how that reverse die got to the Denver mint? Or maybe the strike onto a cent planchet caused some distortion that is mimicking a type B reverse.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
6116 Posts |
Appreciate all the great comments! And it'll be heading for a slab soon enough, but I'm not sure I fully understand it yet, and so will keep learning to make sure I try and get the slab labeled well and correctly.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
440 Posts |
This one was out of my league all along, but as always, I really enjoy seeing what you bring to the table, Tbats! You know how to pick some great coins!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5838 Posts |
That's one heck of an error! Nice to have Mr. Diamond clarify it also.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
15548 Posts |
Quote: Nice to have Mr. Diamond clarify it also. Absolutely - his expertise is much appreciated.  Way cool error, thanks for sharing the specs and photos once freed from that slab.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
98351 Posts |
Incredible! Simply Incredible this coin is. Thanks for sharing Tropicalbats.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2740 Posts |
Tropicalbats send the coin to PCGS and also had Jon Sullivan look at it. They both declared it a counterfeit. I was then asked to look at the coin. I also concluded that it was counterfeit, although a very sophisticated one. This is a cupped broadstrike with a first-strike brockage of the reverse design on the obverse face. It is, in other words, the "saucer" of a cup-and-saucer mated pair. Here are the sticking points:
1. As others have observed, the reverse features the Type B subtype (RDV-002). James Wiles says this subtype isn't known from Denver. 2. The reverse lettering and central design are "soft". That should be associated with signs of die wear. But the field is completely and jarringly smooth. I've seen this appearance on known counterfeits from this time period (1964 and thereabouts). 3. The die-struck D-mintmark appears to occupy a slightly different position relative to the incuse D-mintmark. The former is more centered and farther from the crossed olive branches. The two mintmark positions should be identical. 4. As mentioned earlier, the coin cups down toward the reverse (anvil) die. While cupping in this direction is sometimes seen on the "saucer" portion of a cup-and-saucer mated pair, the degree of downward inflection is unusual. 5. The coin was struck on a blank, rather than a planchet. While most off-metal errors are struck on blanks, in this case I suspect the blank didn't come from the Mint. I further suspect that its composition will prove to be 100% copper.
The totality of the evidence strongly points toward a counterfeit.
Error coin writer and researcher.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
TB, Thanks for the thread. Very interesting read. John1 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
I think it is an RDV-008 which is RARE in D and fund only in 1969-D, 1970-D, 1971-D and 1972-D. Later when I come back I will post here all the main markers for RDV-008. This anvil was in fact design for the proof coins of that's years, and for a reason of others some remained in Denver and was use for theirs strike. In 20 years I find only one in 1969-D and at this date I do not know who has all's in theirs collection. Damage it is not list yet on the rare coins.
The Denver RVD-002 till this date no one find one. I do not day is not possible, but I doubt that anvils from Phil fly to Denver.
If it is Silver is RDV-002 and if it is Cooper it is RDV-008
Edited by silviosi 04/17/2022 2:20 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Indeed it has been a great thread.
Edited by Coinfrog 04/17/2022 4:06 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2748 Posts |
Dang, that's one professional counterfeit.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
6116 Posts |
Thanks Mike for all the work and such a great analysis. It really helps to know what you are seeing so we can learn what to look for on future coins. Tis an interesting coin, and as noted, a really good counterfeit.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
98351 Posts |
WOW, a counterfeit? amazing! Thanks Mike for the in-depth analysis of it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2740 Posts |
I need to extend credit to those perceptive and knowledgeable enough to recognize the incompatible design subtype. That would have flown right past me.
Error coin writer and researcher.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
Like promises early I will post here the main points to see the type B and the type H (mean RDV-002 and RDV-008) Are others markers also but those are more specifics to different Dies used. 
|
|
Page 3 of 3
|
Replies: 35 / Views: 4,369 |
Page 3 of 3
|