| Author |
Replies: 24 / Views: 3,660 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
137 Posts |
If it were struck through dropped material, the numbers should be incuse.  
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Gotta admit, looks too good to be true. I think coop nails it again. 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2253 Posts |
Quote: The reverse is not showing any design copy on it Kind of looks like part of the wheat ear above the "N" on ONE on the reverse.?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4406 Posts |
Very interesting coin!
If it is double struck, then the first strike is slightly off center. Which is odd considering the coin has a normal shape.
Also, MPDs aren't possible in 1928 as the dates were not added to the dies by hand at that time. In 1928, the date was already on the die via the hubs so it was not possible for it to be misplaced.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2189 Posts |
I notice on the reverse the top right of the wheat stalk is also above the N & E of the ONE the same degree that the date is off on the obverse. I'm leaning more to genuine but I could be wrong. Quote: Kind of looks like part of the wheat ear above the "N" on ONE on the reverse.? I see it also
Edited by jasper62 03/25/2018 8:53 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2376 Posts |
The problem I see with the soft die theory is the extra date is strongest in a recessed area of the coin and becomes weak on the higher areas. This is opposite of how a soft die would have affected the coin. I also note the wheat ear in the reverse. Looking at the rims on the reverse , there is weakness disguised by circulation beside each wheat ear which may have been created by the off center first strike. It would be odd for the second strike to fall back to center but this coin looks good for it.
|
|
Rest in Peace
10197 Posts |
Could it have been an off-centered first struck brockage that got restruck with full collar deployment the second time? This may be a "mint-asststed" error. A mint employee intentionally tossed a defect back in the chain? I don't think so, because of the brockage hampering full collar deployment second time around, answered myown question, I guess....?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
The mark on the right wheat lines tip to the EPU is pressed outwards from the soft die on that was used on the obverse. If it were a die/second strike, that line would be a wheat stalk that would be raised. As it is the soft die had edges that made that raised area on the reverse of the coin by pressing into the coin on the obverse.  Damage on one side affects the other side.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189767 Posts |
 to the Community!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2253 Posts |
Munching on my second bag of 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2485 Posts |
that's very interesting, excellent tutorial, thanks coop
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
I can't think of any other way to create this. It wasn't there on the strike. PSD
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2253 Posts |
Quote: It wasn't there on the strike. PSD I was hoping there was more to it than that. Just another coin that someone decided to deface.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Keep it as a defaced coin to show to new collectors. Mention how someone altered it with a soft die and the opposite side would have been also been affected if it were the read deal. (educational piece)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2747 Posts |
I stumbled across this old post and am really curious about this one.
As others mentioned, the correctly facing right wheat ear design above the N and E in ONE suggest this is a legit error.
How the first strike was limited to the date and wheat ear is puzzling.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 24 / Views: 3,660 |
Page 2 of 2
|