| Author |
 Replies: 29 / Views: 3,340 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2624 Posts |
The more I look at it the more I think lamination prior to plating.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Zincolns don't suffer lamination. Copper planchets suffer lamination. I've seen this before. I always thought it was from Feeder Finger Damage, but debris left over from Feeder Finger Damage. The Feeder Finger Damage is raised. This is incuse on the coin. I found two LP2's with the exact damage on the coin. The rest in the roll were normal from the same die. It is on the fields only so it may just be debris on the die.  The tag on the image is incorrect, but you can see where the feeder finger was scraping the die. But because it is incuse it would have to be debris. |
|
Moderator
  United States
56855 Posts |
Thanks coop, again you saved the day  Just wondering if this coin has a premium? John1  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
I save stuff just because an image might be what it needed. I even have a tube now I've started for feeder finger damaged coins. You just never know when you might need an example.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
The thing that's weird to me is that it seems to leave the devices more-or-less unaffected. I could imagine that if it was excuse, but it's breaking my brain with the "damage" being incuse. I can see damage to the die only affecting the high points of the die, but if it is debris, how come there's no debris in the recesses of the die? Particularly considering that the damage appears to cluster around the devices, or trail away from the devices.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
The fields are the outside of the die. Something on them will only affect the fields. The Feeder Finger Damage only affect the field devices as they scrape off part of the field devices raising the damage. These are incuse so they would be something stuck to the die. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2624 Posts |
Quote:
I found two LP2's with the exact damage on the coin. The rest in the roll were normal from the same die. New info=new conclusion.Even if lamination on the zinc were possible (prior to plating) it could not produce two identical planchets. Clearly it had to be something wrong with the die which was not permanent. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
810 Posts |
john1 I dont think this error would have any kind of premium just more a conversation piece. If there is a value to these then I'm not sure of this because I threw 28 of these back in circulation so hope there isn't a value. Feeder finger die damage does come from the die itself. So does feeder finger die scrapes.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
A few things are certain:
1. This is not planchet damage. It is damage to a working piece in the die making process.
2. Whatever this is, it does not affect the raised devices.
3. Whatever this is, it is the result of a ripping effect - sort of like a lamination.
4. This is obviously raised on the die - so it cannot be something 'missing' from the die.
5. Dies are made from working hubs, which are positive relief bars of steel that look like the finished coin.
So...my best educated guess...
This is lamination of some sort on the working hub. The skin on the hub peels away, and the hub makes the die. The die raises into the cavity of the working hub because it is an exact reverse impression of the hub. The raised areas of the die that filled the damaged areas on the hub transfer to the coins incuse. So here we have:
step 1: peel away part of the skin leaving a cavity...
step 2: make a mold of the result - which produces a raised 'scar'.
step 3: use the mold to make copies - the scar is copied exactly - incuse as it is on the original.
Something to this effect is the only plausible solution as to what caused this, but the EXACT cause is unknown to me. In other words, I understand what had to have happened to make these coins, but I don't have a name for it, nor do I have any idea how common or scarce it is.
I am GUESSING:
That the working hubs are chromed or plated for longevity and this is a failure of that plating...again, like a lamination on a coin. Layers refuse to bond properly, and pressure works them apart.
Edited by coppercoins
06/01/2012 10:26 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
Oh...and also - this has nothing to do with the feeder finger in the coining process. Whatever is happening here has to happen prior to the die ever being hung on the press.
I would THINK that these would have some premium value because dies are supposed to be inspected one by one before they are hung on the press to make coins, and these marks were definitely on the brand new die.
Also, just because you found 28 of them only means that you had original source material - they were using that die that day. You may never see another one of these. We never know until more are found. Do yourself a favor - if you ever find a major doubled die in a roll of coins, don't toss all but one of them just because you found more than one. Offer the spares here and collectors will gobble them up like candy. I would have paid a $10 bill to get one of these for study.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
Thanks for this thread, it made my day. A tough day ended with some cerebral work on my part in having to plausibly answer what happened in an effect I have never seen. Refreshing to be able to come here once in a while and actually have to think...not just another day of 1970S large dates and Machine Doubling. Thanks! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
810 Posts |
Coppercoins Ill gladly send you one for to study for yourself free of charge.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2624 Posts |
Quote:
The rest in the roll were normal from the same die Mr.Daughtrey was Mr.Cooper misidentifying the die that struck the "normal"coins? Not trying to be argumentative (I would never do that to fellow vet.). Just giving more food for thought. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
810 Posts |
The 28 I threw back in circulation were really mild by the way. I looked and I have 3 of them and gave one away to a fellow member on here back in 2008. The ones I kept were the strongest ones it seemed that the error was getting worse as it was being made. The error first started off looking like some kind of smear mark.
|
| |
Replies: 29 / Views: 3,340 |
First Page
Posted 05/31/2012 04:43 am
