1983 P Lincoln Cent With A Secondary, Incuse & Inverted, Trust In The Corner Of The Rim And Field.

I would almost guarantee he will.

Very cool find, if found to be true.

Hmm, it's looking more like just contact marks PSD for both coins.

Those were tightly packed rolls like you said.

Actually, I'm now almost positive that the first set of letter traces represents accidental contact marks. Clash mark letters should be broad, rather than narrow. This is because the widest portion of each letter recess is the portion that is level with the die's field. So, any clash mark should match the broad outline of the letter recess. That's what we see in the 1999 mule clash. Sorry I didn't catch this obvious fact on first inspection. I still find it odd that the raised obverse letters were able to leave an impression in the field right next to the design rim. One would think that both design rims should contact each other, preventing the formation of contact marks.

CoinHI's hypotheses are plausible. There are other possibilities. The coin responsible for the contact mark may have had a very weak or non-existent design rim due to a slightly weak strike. Or the coin may have had a " Ridge Ring" that equaled the height of the design rim. Letters that are being swallowed up by a Ridge Ring are very thin, matching the appearance of the impressed letters on Pete's coin. Anyway, there's no longer any need to send the coin to me given our current understanding of it.

I have finished a close, in-hand examination of the 1983 cent with a faint, incuse TRUST hugging the inside of the design rim. I am no longer convinced this is a string of contact marks. I have, in fact, returned to the possibility that we're looking at a mule clash involving two obverse dies. It's possible that the die responsible for a clash was worn, with a Ridge Ring that transformed the letter recesses into narrow, shallow remnants. Under high magnification, the incuse letters on the cent end abruptly at the design rim, follow the topography of the field, and are penetrated by the same radial flow lines as the adjacent field. These observations are inconsistent with contact marks. I'll be writing this coin up for Coin Week.

Thanks for the update MIke.

Were both coins with similar design impressions examined or just the one?