2001P anom. How did this happen?

[Roller]

There is psd on this coin but I'm concerned about the dent on the reverse and corresponding bulge on the obverse. Any force sufficient to make the dent should have obliterated the roof design and the "rivulets" to the west of the bulge on the obverse appear to be die related. Any thoughts other than just PSD?

[duece2seven]

That's just weird. Looks like it literally sunk! I have no clue?

[jfines69]

To me it looks as if there was a cavity on the zinc planchet prior to plating... There is some distortion around the rim of the cavity (The NUM especially the west leg of M, the roof lines and the banners)... The obv appears to have been a strike thru that obliterated the bow tie and was enhanced due to the area on the rev!!!

[mikediamond]

Puzzling. The reciprocal pairing of an elevation on the obverse and an indentation on the reverse does suggest post-strike damage. However, the small spots of exposed zinc on the left border of the indentation suggests a natural defect. The patch of peculiar-looking ridges to the left of the elevation also doesn't look like post-strike damage. Perhaps this is a highly localized example of reciprocal convex-concave die deformation. I would certainly be interested in taking a closer look at it. -- Mike Diamond

[Roller]

Puzzling. The reciprocal pairing of an elevation on the obverse and an indentation on the reverse does suggest post-strike damage. However, the small spots of exposed zinc on the left border of the indentation suggests a natural defect. The patch of peculiar-looking ridges to the left of the elevation also doesn't look like post-strike damage. Perhaps this is a highly localized example of reciprocal convex-concave die deformation. I would certainly be interested in taking a closer look at it. -- Mike Diamond

I will send it to you next week.

[mikediamond]

Great. From the definitive nature of your response, I'll assume you still have my mailing address.

[Roller]

Yes, I have it.

[jfines69]

This is a cool development!!!

[mikediamond]

Even under a microscope, the defects are very puzzling. However, I lean toward post-strike damage. The indentation on the reverse face actually does not show any exposed zinc (the bright spots are crud). The borders of the indentation are too clearly defined to represent any kind of die deformation, in my opinion. The bottom of the letters NUM (of UNUM) slope down into the depression but don't show any change in shape or relief. I would have expected some sort of change if this was die deformation. Likewise, the decorative band on the Memorial shows no change in shape or relief where it cuts across the depression. While the odd ridges and valleys on the obverse face do look like a natural feature, they don't resemble any kind of die deformation I'm familiar with. They also don't look like die damage or a struck-through error. I have to assume they're impressions of a textured surface against which the cent was pressed.

I will continue to study the specimen to see if I can come up with any more telling observations.

[jfines69]

Thanks for the update Mike... From what you are saying could it be someones attempt at a counter stamp??? A poor one at that!!!

[mikediamond]

It could have been purely accidental. Or I could be entirely wrong and this is a new and unfamiliar error type that defies understanding. Like I say, I'll keep working on it.

[jfines69]

Thanks Mike!!!

[mikediamond]

I've spent some more time with this cent. I now notice that, on the reverse, the downward-pointing angle of the N of UNUM shows some burnishing and flattening where it is overlapped by the depression. That's consistent with post-strike damage. Also, the curve of the U shows subtle flattening where it intersects with the edge of the depression. That's also consistent with post-strike damage. So the preponderance of evidence continues to point to post-strike damage. The fact that the error makes little sense from a die failure perspective (or that of any other minting error) adds to the negative vibe that surrounds this coin. I'll mail this back to you, Roller, unless you'd like to donate it to my research collection. -- Mike

[Roller]

I've spent some more time with this cent. I now notice that, on the reverse, the downward-pointing angle of the N of UNUM shows some burnishing and flattening where it is overlapped by the depression. That's consistent with post-strike damage. Also, the curve of the U shows subtle flattening where it intersects with the edge of the depression. That's also consistent with post-strike damage. So the preponderance of evidence continues to point to post-strike damage. The fact that the error makes little sense from a die failure perspective (or that of any other minting error) adds to the negative vibe that surrounds this coin. I'll mail this back to you, Roller, unless you'd like to donate it to my research collection. -- Mike

You can keep it Mike.

[jfines69]

Cool... Now we now what caused this... Thanks for the update!!!