1952 1-Cent, Double Struck In Collar

It's nice to know there are other collectors of this series, but I have yet to come across anything this amazing.

Great piece as always

Boy you do find the coolest stuff.

Very nice

@SPP-Ottawa, May I raise a couple questions about this coin without giving offense?

Some aspects of the reverse make me pause. The more I look at the details, the more questions I have.
On a rotated in-collar double strike, wouldn't the striking pressure be the same as the original strike? If so, wouldn't the second strike largely obliterate the first strike?
If the strike with the full date was the second strike, wouldn't the strike with the partial date be beneath the maple leaf, rather than on top of the leaf?
Conversely, if the strike with the partial date was the second strike, wouldn't the full date be impaired significantly by the raised field on the reverse die striking the area containing that date?
The stem of the maple leaf is a high point of the design. It is clear on the strike with a full date, but appears to be missing on the strike with the partial date. It should run at about a 45 degree angle through the "1" in the denomination. Wouldn't at least some part of both stems be visible on a double strike?
The number "2" in each date appears to be different. (See the pictures below.) The "2" on the full date has a circular loop, a short thin base, and a wide gap between the tail and the curl. This "2" matches the 1952 date design. The "2" on the maple leaf has an oval loop, longer and thicker base, and less gap between the tail and the curl. Shouldn't these be the same?

What drives my caution is the counterfeit 1976-D multiple strike in collar Lincoln Cent that was submitted to NGC recently, and featured in NGC's Counterfeit Detection article on November 1.

Again, please don't take offense at my concerns or questions here. I sure hope I'm wrong, but the similarities I see between your coin and the 1976-D Lincoln prompt me to ask the questions. Here are the detail photos showing differences in the "2" in the dates.

That is a nice error SPP. From what little I know about double struck in collar errors, it looks good to me.

The second strike wouldn't obliterate the parts of 952 in the leaf from the first strike because the leaf part of the die is recessed, but it could distort the 2 from the first strike to look different. That's just a guess on my part from an error novice. Anyway, it's a neat coin.

I checked out that 1976-D cent. That one is an obvious fabrication. When you understand how much pressure is involved in striking coins, and what the dies do to the metal, it because much easier to understand.

Interestingly enough, the disclaimer at the bottom of that article says,



For Canadian error coins, I am one of the experts. I have published papers in Errorscope and I validate and describe error coins for two different Canadian auction companies. I also validate, grade and price errors for three major coin stores in Canada.

However, I digress, that does not mean I am always right; and I am actually happy that someone like yourself took the time to study the coin(s) that I post. This is a site about learning. Your questions were valid, I am happy to answer them, and this thread will serve to other novice collectors whom might want to learn about coin errors.

@SPP-Ottawa, Thank you for walking me through the answers to the questions. I appreciate the opportunity to see what you see with this coin, and to learn from you. Many varieties are in my wheelhouse, but some of the more stunning striking errors - such as this coin - are not. Thank you for taking my questions in the spirit in which they were posed, and not taking offense.

US coins frequently have much shallower relief than Canadian coins, and react very differently during the minting process. Lincoln Cents and Roosevelt dimes, in particular, have shallow devices. It makes sense that they would have fewer places for residual strike details to hide.

Thank you again for your detailed explanation. I appreciate you!