1904 Liberty Nickel With Extra Stars?

Ok. I'll have better ones soon.

Here are some pics of my 1909 that may help in the overall assessment. The first pic, showing the doubling effect on the reverse, is about as close as I could zoom in. The second pic is the corresponding area on the obverse. Then follow some pics taken straight on at varying distances.



















There appears to be some residue of sorts within and about some of the devices, date and stars. Also, scrub lines from a moderately abrasive cleaning are apparent. This suggests to me that the nickel may have been a ground find at some point? It weighs 5.0 grams. The planchet is ever so slightly stretched, beyond being perfectly circular. The slightly irregular shape is somewhat apparent in the fourth pic; this, as the coin therein appears to have been photographed at a slight angle - which it was not.

Hi Vermontensium ... I wasn't implying it had been underground, but the residue and moderate whizzing suggests to me that it had at some time rested upon the ground in some foreign substance. Thanks for helping clarify that. I've long "dug" coins, but not literally, like you!

I'm with you on that, V.

Mike ... Thanks for the reply. Which then is the false die? Is it what appears to be the understrike? I'm having difficulty comprehending how one could even do this. As a longtime collector of counterstamps, I've never encountered anything likened to the effect of a second punch like this. Is there perhaps someone of whom you're aware who could reproduce this effect? It amazes me that the obverse was unimpaired by a "light strike" on nickel. The strike was apparently heavy enough to slightly distort the shape of the coin; this, while doing no harm to the obverse.

I hope that I'm not sounding contradictory or coming across as argumentative herein, Mike. Like Vermontensium, and perhaps others on the CCF, it's very difficult for me to envision the scenario that you portray. That said, I certainly do respect your knowledge and opinion; indeed, humbled by same. Duplicating the process you describe, Mike, would certainly make a great research project, methinks!

Even though the incomplete, offset image looks like the first strike, it's actually the second strike. The relatively soft composition of the false die causes it to "drape over" the raised devices and leave its impression primarily (or exclusively) in the field. I know it sounds counterintuitive and contrary to expectations, but I've seen this effect many, many times before on coins that have received a counterfeit second strike. For example, you see this same effect on the numerous fake one-sided double strikes that are known for 1964 cents.

By the way, I have no problem with people questioning my analysis or conclusions. Ex cathedra arguments (arguments from authority) are inadmissable in science and should be inadmissable in any other field of inquiry.

No. The incomplete strike was generated outside the Mint. A mint worker would do a much better job, using the equipment on hand.