| Author |
 Replies: 15 / Views: 631 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
337 Posts |
Came across the coin on the right about 6 months ago. I thought it was interesting enough to keep. Yesterday found the coin on the left and said "Wow, I've seen that before." Sure enough looked through my files and voila, there it is! ODV-032 (Small Date) 8,151,079,000 1984 P struck. Anyone estimate how many 1984 P LMC's with this damage out there (25,000?), and what are the odds of finding two six months apart? Also, an interesting type of die damage!     |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
337 Posts |
Please let me rephrase my question: Has anyone ever seen this error before?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
61632 Posts |
Looks more like a coin scratch. If it were on the die it would be raised, and not even. That area of the die, is below the fields. (deeper into the die) So that area on the die would not be affected. On the coin it is the highest area, and would be affected by damage to the coin first. What looks like a raised area is where the plating was moved when the damage happened to the die.  So it is not a mint error, but a damage that happen post strike on your coin. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
15475 Posts |
First question to be asked here is: are those raised or incuse?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
337 Posts |
Coop, You've never given me a bum steer and I always appreciate your feedback. I would without question accept your explanation if I didn't find the 2nd coin. However, I can't agree with you that TWO 1984 P LMC's were damaged in the same exact place, by using the same method, anyplace but the mint. It's tough to see in the photos the damage is raised on both coins. And while there are motives that I will NEVER understand, I don't see someone having the skill and desire to intentionally damage two, or more, coin(s) in this very unusual raised manner. Seems to me to be an awful lot of effort for very little return. Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred. William of Ockham |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3263 Posts |
Cool finds! As you originally stated, a die scratch/damage, not an error. I have found same dies a few times but is still an uncommon event. If you have ever found the same variety, "doubled die or RPM", then you have also found the same die.
-makecents-
|
|
Valued Member
United States
337 Posts |
Thanks -makecents- It is very cool.
It might not be popular consensus but my opinion is this damage happened at the mint and not in the wild.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3263 Posts |
I agree. The two coins are spot on.
-makecents-
|
|
Valued Member
United States
337 Posts |
Let's assume for argument sake this damage happened at the mint as a result of a die deformity, these two 1984 P LMC's are proof of a yet to be reported variety or doubled die. It would also mean that there probably are others out there. A new DDR discovery. That is cool, very cool. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5163 Posts |
Coop is wrong. There are a number of die scratches visible in the images above the memorial that match up confirming the coins were from the same die. Somewhere along the line the die got a couple gouges so yes, it happened at the mint and all coins made after the die was gouged would look like that. It's the same for dozens of die issues, maybe most popularly with Cuds. Once the die breaks then all further coins show the same Cud. While your die gouges are interesting, probably little collector value involved. But then, who would think you could get two hundred bucks for an eagle with a minor die gouge across its chest? People collect odd things sometimes so it's collectible if it catches your fancy. Anyway, if you want to see a number of coins from the same die, just start searching BU rolls. There are often six or eight coins from the same die in a roll, with all matching die marks. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
15475 Posts |
So the marks are raised, which tells me that the die had a long gouge or scratch in it creating these marks. Still not an error but rather a die event maybe something was dropped on the die, marking it up and not getting noticed while it was being installed.
Still a very cool occurrence that you found 2 of them 2 years apart.
I'd have to say:
First: Good Memory from the first find to the second find
Second: It's a good thing you saved the first one
and Third: Great eyes on finding them.
@TB: I think you are correct (sort of) about the collectability of die scratches on a single find. But when a few are found and sold as a group, I think the desire to have them goes up a little.
Edited by Dearborn
11/21/2022 08:31 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
337 Posts |
Thanks for the feedback TB and DB.
It was only 6 months ago I found and set aside the first coin. I wish I had 2 year total recall.... or maybe not.
The symmetry of the damage makes for interesting discussion. Assuming it is a gouge, it's not a single curved gouge, but two gouges that are equidistant apart. They are both the same exact length. Like two rails on a curved track. They both start at at the same place just west of the right edge of the monument and terminate at the same place above the 7th column. I'm not very familiar with die gouges but would think a single curved gouge of this length would be unusual and two gouges of the same curved length originating and ending at the same point on the device something more.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
337 Posts |
Little more detective work on this reveals the arc of the damage on my two coins matches the arc of a cent. Assuming the damage to the die was caused by another cent, I'm still trying to determine how the damage got transferred to the die and why there are two arc's of damage in the same place on the die and 4 cm's long. I'm open to any theories.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
61632 Posts |
Well the areas affected on the die, would be the same depth to make the same lines on the coin. These devices on the die are deeper on one area, and more shallow on the other areas. The height is the same on these marks. In order to create these lines on the die, the fields could not be affected the same as the coin shows. If the upper line is showing zinc, then it was altered post strike.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5163 Posts |
A coin is pretty soft to mark up a die that strongly. Now if another cent die fell on it maybe that could cause the double gouges. But my theory is that your gouges are not 4 cm long  |
|
Valued Member
United States
337 Posts |
Good point - TB, they are four mm's long. Another cent die falling on the die....... and bouncing...... That makes of sense to me. You may have something there TB. That would account for the two die damages sites, and subsequent raised damage on two or more coins. Sorry Coop. Again, I don't agree, that on multiple coins, one of these is die damage and the other is PMD. |
| |
Replies: 15 / Views: 631 |
|
Posted 11/20/2022 2:32 pm
