| Author |
Replies: 17 / Views: 5,792 |
|
Pillar of the Community

United States
4037 Posts |
I got into a discussion on another forum about the debunking of 1958/7 Lincoln Cents, and needed to learn how todo an overlay to see if it was a real variety or just die gouges. I shot 1957 and the possible 1958/7 and did an overlay with the two images, but ended up also making an animation of the overlays. My conclusion is the coin is NOT a 58/7, since the 5's are different (very clear from the animation), but I need to do another overlay at lower mag to show the whole date to see if the coin might be a 58/57. Anyway, here it is...Ray 
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
You are a constant source of amazement. 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
  United States
4037 Posts |
So to test the 58/57 theory, I took shots of a 1958-D DDO-1 and a 1957-D RPM-8, full-date shots, aligned to the 19 and the edge of the coat. This forced the alignment of the 58 and 57 to be very different from my previous overly. Now, the extra metal inside the upper part of the 8 lines up pretty well with the edge of the 7. Again, here is a fixed overlay followed by an animation. This time the animation has 4 images instead of 3, so is a bit smoother...  
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
These are fun--I've played with these animations in photoshop. I like to play with the delay between images to see what's easiest to see.
I specialize in overdates, but I haven't studied the possibility of an 1958/1957 (since it technically would involve two hubs) I guess you haven't seen much evidence supporting an overdate? Personally, I don't see much that's conclusive--all my overdates have stronger markers.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
  United States
4037 Posts |
The only evidence on this coin (other dies show different markers) of the overdate theory are the small extra areas of metal inside the upper loop of the 8, and at the upper right outside the upper loop. Breen thought this was an overdate and listed it as #2225 (#2225 D, #2223 P). The variety was supposedly debunked but I could not find any discussion about the debunking, only people stating that it was debunked, so I decided to do the overlays myself. I do see some possibility of the edge of the 7 lining up with the inner extra metal, so I am not so sure that Breen's explanation is wrong.
Also interesting is the extra metal on the upper left outside both loops of the 8 (look at the top set of photos). These appear to be evidence of a doubled die, but I've seen virtually no discussion of them.
Note that these coins are very common, and there are multiple dies exhibiting this characteristic, as would be expected if the doubling occurred in the hub(s).
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Were Lincolns done with the Master Die having a 19xx date, with the final two digits punched into the working hubs, or did the Master have the entire date? I could see the massive production rates requiring a new Master each year, but I don't know how many working hubs a single Master could produce, or how many working dies could come from a single hub.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
  United States
4037 Posts |
Breen's explanation was "a 1957 working hub (the 7 only imperfectly effaced) was used for creating a 1958 master die; working hubs and working dies derived from the latter showed various traces of 7, or most often none" but I don't think this makes complete sense...
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Creating a new Master Die from a previous working hub doesn't make sense - it's rather unprofessional and implies poor preparation within a system they had down pat - producing Lincoln Cents - decades earlier. I'd think there would be some little degradation of the details if done that way, as well.
1956 and 1957 were the first two years Lincolns reached the mintage level of 1 billion since 1945; I could envision a surfeit of 1957 working hubs since they'd have had the order from Congress in plenty of time to produce a large quantity of them at the beginning of the mintage year. And Denver had been carrying the heaviest load of Lincoln production throughout the decade of the 50's; I would think they'd have efficiencies figured out.
I'm seeing an overdate there. Are they common-enough to be explained by a single working hub? That's still a lot of coins from multiple dies. Can't see the Master being the culprit, or they'd all show the feature more or less.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
  United States
4037 Posts |
Yes, common enough but not so common that a single working hub might explain them. In my mind this also explains the variations, as some dies show the effect more strongly than others, while others show varying degrees of the doubling in the 8. A mix of first and second hubbings using different 58 vs 58/57 working hubs might explain the variations.
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
You did a good job alighing two dates for the animation!  That's key in getting a smooth transition. OK, I admit that I see something in the 8, and that it follows the contour of the 7, but I'm unsure if that's enough to get my curiosity.  Even within the realm of US overdates, there is usually more remaining digit, particularly inside the 8. One of the subtlest US overdates, the 1858/7 Flying Eagle cent, has a corner of the 7 showing far outside the 8. Often the corners of digits show in overdates, because pressure is focused there when the die was made. --just some impressions from looking at overdates 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
  United States
4037 Posts |
One guy on the other group (LCR) suggested I do an overlay of a "regular" 1958-D vs the Breen 2225 and see if there are differences. I plan to do the shots this weekend if I can find time.
I did the alignment ensuring the 1 was vertical, and aligned the positions of 1 and 9 between shots. Turns out the coat and edge of coin are aligned, showing that a single master hub with the 19 (as SD suggests) was used for both. Only difference between them is the 57 and 58. Note the shape of the 5 is different.
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
See if you get similar alignments from different 50's years.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2805 Posts |
I made an overlay to show off a die clash:  How is it?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
  United States
4037 Posts |
Looks pretty good! You can see the ear, back of head and neck, truncation of bust, and a little of the crown.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
 That overlay works really well--the ear really stands out!
|
|
Valued Member
United States
213 Posts |
Very Interesting Post on the 1958/7 Lincoln Cent that Breen described. Almost all proposed 1958/7 Lincolns are just die gouges through the "8" and mostly through the upper loupe of the "8". I have one example that is hard to explain away where the lower portion of the a "7" can be seen below then lower loop of the "8". This die also has two identifying modifications - 1.) Die clash in front of Lincoln's Throat and, 2.) a small die crack from the top of Lincoln's head out to the rim. That's something you can look for. I will take some images and post them here soon.
|
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 5,792 |