1988d extra die? and large lump in memorial

[Lavent]

Sorry, I have to do two at a time. Not a lot of time for this right now.

I have an 88d with extra lump on the d and I have a pic of the lincoln memorial with a large raised lump in between the poles 2 and 3, and the upper left corner.

[Maineman750]

Pictures are not great, but I'll say plating issue on eth 88-D and die chip on the reverse.Better pics could change my answers.

[Roller]

The reverse looks like it may be Abe's back. A partial clash.

[Maineman750]

Abe's back would be in the 3rd bay...not the second :tinysmile_twink_t:

[Roller]

Abe's back would be in the 3rd bay...not the second :tinysmile_twink_t:
Not necessaryly, if its MAD.

[Maineman750]

I can see it's not that MAD, can't you ?

[jfines69]

We are all MAD... LOL... They're coming to take me away Ha Ha... The 1st 2 pics are to blurry to be sure but it looks to be a gas bubble and split plating... The 1st Memorial pic I was able to zoom in to 300% before pixelating... Good job... It looks to be a strike thru grease!!!

[trails]

It is not a MAD die clash, but it could be the back of Lincoln's jacket line. To qualify as a MAD die clash, the dies must have clashed together with a 20% or greater offset between their respective positions. If the jacket line is seen in bay 2, 3 or 4, which is very possible, it is not a MAD die clash.

In this case, the anomaly appears to be too thick for a clash line and maybe a die dent. The onomaly associated with the mint mark is a case of the copper plating breaking down, the zinc corroding and deteriorating, a very common problem.

BJ Neff

[Maineman750]

BJ, that is some good stuff. Does that mean that the overlays I have for die clashes are basically worthless ? Also,does the 20% rule apply to MAD cents or just die clashes ? I've seen a lot of cents id'd as MAD that weren't 20%.

[mikediamond]

I have to disagree with BJ, here. A MAD clash can feature any amount of offset between the dies at the moment of the clash. This is in contrast to a "radical MAD clash" in which the obverse die was markedly offset and tilted at the moment of the clash. I don't know where the 20% rule was introduced, but it seems to be a good rubicon for the latter category.

The bulge next to the mintmark is due to subsurface corrosion causing metal expansion and pushing up the overlying plating. The deformation on the reverse of the cent is something I've seen from time to time and never quite understood. A large number were produced from a Philadelphia press in 1974. They are all offset to the left (relative to the back of Lincoln's coat). While it could be a worn clash mark, I have my doubts. The appearance is quite consistent. It's just one of many mysteries.

[trails]

You are right Mike, I did not include radical in front of the MAD.

We also have to consider misaligned die clashes that are produced with aligned dies.

So, in recap, a MAD clash is any clash that shows a misalignment of clash marks that were produced by either misaligned dies or correctly positioning dies that show a misalignment of die clash marks (example; dies in the correct position but the die clash marks are tilted 5 degrees).

A radical MAD clash is any misaligned clash that shows clash marks, either misaligned, tilted or pivoted with great than 20% from of a correctly positioned clash.

BJ Neff

[Lavent]

Thank for your input. Can you tell me how this happened? See attached pic.