| Author |
 Replies: 40 / Views: 7,493 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 967 Posts |
It appears to me that this started as a normal coin with a normal rim. Somehow the bottom of the reverse struck just the inside if the rim and pushed it down to a lower level and leaving fully struck partial letters. Still Lookin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2739 Posts |
I tried to e-mail you through the Coin Community Forum but you've got that option switched off. If you have me at the 3714 address, that's the right one.
You describe the crescent as recessed and the letters as raised. That's deeply puzzling.
Error coin writer and researcher.
Edited by mikediamond
03/14/2014 11:47 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
967 Posts |
I do have that address. It will go out in the morning.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2739 Posts |
Thanks. I look forward to probing this mystery. It's nice to know that rim-restricted design duplication is now known from Canada. Brazil and the US are the only two other countries in which this form of Machine Doubling has been recorded. Error coin writer and researcher.
Edited by mikediamond
03/14/2014 1:54 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2739 Posts |
Based on the photos and description, I'm now thinking that this is a counterbrockage from a brockaged, crescentic metal fragment. Here's how it could have gone down:
1. A thin, crescentic piece of metal is sheared off a cent planchet in the process of generating an elliptical strike clip. This would be the portion of the planchet lying outside the striking chamber.
2. In an adjacent chamber a cent is struck and is lifted up at least briefly by the hammer (obverse) die.
3. The crescentic fragment makes its way into the adjacent striking chamber beneath the newly-struck cent, which is now being pushed back toward the striking chamber by the hammer die. The fragment has settled close to the edge of the striking chamber.
4. The crescentic fragment is brockaged by the overlying cent.
5. The overlying cent is ejected from the striking chamber while the brockaged fragment remains behind.
6. A new planchet is fed in on top of the brockaged crescent of metal. The two are then struck together, leaving the overlying cent with a counterbrockage of those design elements that were pressed into the fragment by the brockage-maker.
This scenario would account for raised, normally-oriented letters lying with a recessed crescent.
Error coin writer and researcher.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
853 Posts |
Sounds like a fairly rare error type. Can't wait to see the final verdict.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
901 Posts |
I thought it might weight more if it was a thick plainchant or had extra metal added.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
1943 Posts |
This is an interesting coin. My guess would be a collar counter clash. I'm looking forward to Mike's in hand assessment.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2739 Posts |
There's no such thing as a "collar counter clash".
Error coin writer and researcher.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
967 Posts |
It's in the mail.
Still Lookin
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2739 Posts |
I do have a nickel brockaged by a thin, curved, struck fragment, so it stands to reason that a counterclash could also occur. Should you wish to contact me directly, you can find my e-mail address here: http://conecaonline.org/content/con...aminers.htmlError coin writer and researcher.
Edited by mikediamond
03/15/2014 11:30 am
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
1943 Posts |
I didn't realize that. It was brought up as a possibility in a previous thread but the coin was finally determined to be PMD so the collar counter clash theory was never discussed any farther. The possible steps for this to happen would be: 1. A badly misaligned hammer die clashes with the collar damaging both dies leaving the clash of the letters on the top of the collar. 2. The hammer die is removed and replaced with an undamaged die. 3. The new hammer die becomes misaligned again this time causing a collar counter clash on the new hammer die. 4. The alignment is corrected and the coins now struck have the collar counter clash. While involved and unlikely is this a possible error? The only problem I have with using this theory on the above cent is the crescent area would not be recessed. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2739 Posts |
A collar counterclash is unlikely, as the collar is much harder than the die and would probably not pick up any design in the case of a clash. While the sequence of events you laid out is a possibility, I have not encountered any errors that would be consistent with this explanation.
Error coin writer and researcher.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
1943 Posts |
That makes sense Mike. Thanks. I'll await your assessment.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Interesting  |
| |
Replies: 40 / Views: 7,493 |
First Page
Posted 03/14/2014 11:45 am
