| Author |
 Replies: 49 / Views: 3,892 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
885 Posts |
It almost looks like a pile-up of post mint plating. Having never tried that (and probably never will) I don't know how that would have happened.
|
|
New Member
 United States
15 Posts |
The shop said it appeared like it was a "milling mark" from rollers before the planchets were punched. Usually those marks get removed from the die strikes and they've only ever seen a couple of coins with them but never one that went all the way across like this. So how it ended up staying the way it did is what left them scratching their heads.
Edited by Gump
02/08/2022 4:48 pm
|
|
New Member
United States
15 Posts |
At least that was their best guess. They just told me congratulations and thanks for bringing it in.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
Time to PM Mike? John1  |
|
New Member
United States
15 Posts |
Where do I find Mike? I'm guessing he's the one to ask?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2189 Posts |
What if there was a strip of plastic or paper laying across the planchet before it was struck? just throwing an idea at there.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19193 Posts |
This has the makings of an epic Tom Hanks movie...or maybe Chuck Norris.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
885 Posts |
Chuck would just look at it and the mark would appear so...short movie
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3207 Posts |
struck thrus are incuse, instead this is raised
|
|
New Member
United States
15 Posts |
Reached out to ANA for an opinion. Got this in response. Based on the overall look of the coin, it is clear that it is a genuine Mint error; did not happen after it left the Mint. It is not something that was on the die that struck it, or we would likely have seen several other specimens showing the same feature. It appears to be an error that affected the planchet (a prepared blank) before this coin was struck, referred to as a type of improper alloy error. |
|
New Member
United States
15 Posts |
Also received this response from a different knowledgeable source "Based on the photograph, this 1943 Steel Lincoln Cent appears to have been manufactured or struck from a damaged die. Each die of the set of two contains an inverse version of the image to strike the metal disk or planchet which laters becomes a coin. It looks as if a die scrap, with pressure from the feeder finger at the U.S. Mint, made an impression on the revserse die. Designs from dies are raised on coins. If a die is damaged in any way, and there are many ways, the pattern from the damage will also appear raised on the coin. There are other causes of die impressions (e.g. rust, abrasion marks), but in this case, the feeder finger most likely caused damage to the die. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3207 Posts |
I see Feeder Finger Damage as unlikely since those scrapes do not typically reach down into the design areas of a die, like, in this case, the letter N. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2004 Posts |
OH My, an error that stumps this learned community!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2738 Posts |
I also suspect this cent was reprocessed. If so, I would assume the raised strip form during the replating of the cent. All sorts of weird effects are associating with reprocessing. If this cent's surface is original, then the raised strip might represent hubbed-in debris. It does not look like a die dent or a die gouge.
Error coin writer and researcher.
|
|
New Member
United States
15 Posts |
Haha the search continues for the definitive answer. I will keep you all up to date with any new info I am able to get. But a defective planchet has been the most popular opinion.
|
| |
Replies: 49 / Views: 3,892 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 02/08/2022 4:38 pm
