1977 P Date problem

**Petespockets55** · 08-15-2018, 03:54 AM

You have some circulation wear on this one but I think the 1 got sheared off from something (if it's not a grease filled die.)

**Coin5** · 08-15-2018, 05:26 AM

Looks like this picture helps your point with the shearing.
Thanks
Wed Aug 15 08-22-30.jpg

**VAB2013** · 08-15-2018, 06:56 AM

I agree with you guys! That 1 took a hit and it took the metal slap off! Coins take a lot of abuse in circulation, but it's a good thing to ask because something strange looking could wind up being a Mint error.

**Petespockets55** · 08-15-2018, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Coin5

Looks like this picture helps your point with the shearing.
Thanks
[ATTACH=CONFIG]133018[/ATTACH]

Most of the time when a design element gets sheared off there is more visual evidence left behind.
This is a good example of how random damage can be deceiving.

**Coin5** · 08-15-2018, 06:52 PM

This may have happened when the coin was new. There is corrosion and additional wear that may have smoothed the original visible evidence. I should have used the angled external light from the very beginning. Your observations were very good though and they made me take the new pic.
Thanks again.

**Coin5** · 08-16-2018, 04:20 PM

I was studying the different DDs classes thanks to a link (http://www.error-ref.com/doubled-dies/) provided by Vivien on my request and I found something interesting that reminded me of this thread immediately. It is the controversial class VII. Looking at the last pic I posted of the problem in the "1" it looks like some kind of chisel was used to remove that part of the "1" and part of the field. The removed part appears to be slightly incuse, which means it was raised in the working die and incuse in the hub. There seems to be continuity in the coloring, corrosion, deposits and other post mint characteristics which may have appear with aging and circulation of the coin. Those were the reasons why I though (without knowing about Class VII) that the shearing off may have happened when the coin was new. Furthermore, the shearing does not appear to be caused by a random object; but done on purpose with a chisel.
So here comes the necessary speculative questions:
- Why would someone other than the Mint use a chisel to remove that part of the device?
- Is it possible that this is an unfinished Class VII where they removed that part and did not repaired it back?

Your thoughts will be highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Adrian

**makecents** · 08-16-2018, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Coin5

I was studying the different DDs classes thanks to a link (http://www.error-ref.com/doubled-dies/) provided by Vivien on my request and I found something interesting that reminded me of this thread immediately. It is the controversial class VII. Looking at the last pic I posted of the problem in the "1" it looks like some kind of chisel was used to remove that part of the "1" and part of the field. The removed part appears to be slightly incuse, which means it was raised in the working die and incuse in the hub. There seems to be continuity in the coloring, corrosion, deposits and other post mint characteristics which may have appear with aging and circulation of the coin. Those were the reasons why I though (without knowing about Class VII) that the shearing off may have happened when the coin was new. Furthermore, the shearing does not appear to be caused by a random object; but done on purpose with a chisel.
So here comes the necessary speculative questions:
- Why would someone other than the Mint use a chisel to remove that part of the device?
- Is it possible that this is an unfinished Class VII where they removed that part and did not repaired it back?

Your thoughts will be highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Adrian

Well, look at you reading!! I know "knowledge is power" but reading has always been one of my major weaknesses. Nice correlation, I look forward to hearing folks thoughts on this!

**Coin5** · 08-16-2018, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by makecents

Well, look at you reading!! I know "knowledge is power" but reading has always been one of my major weaknesses. Nice correlation, I look forward to hearing folks thoughts on this!

Yes Jon, I can read a bit

The problem is, that if you ask me tomorrow about what I read today, I won't have a clue...

I may have gone to far speculating on this problem; but I would like to hear that from others also, not only from myself.

I'm with you, others will provide real knowledge from this.
Thanks
Adrian

**makecents** · 08-16-2018, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Coin5

Yes Jon, I can read a bit

The problem is, that if you ask me tomorrow about what I read today, I won't have a clue...

I may have gone to far speculating on this problem; but I would like to hear that from others also, not only from myself.

I'm with you, others will provide real knowledge from this.
Thanks
Adrian

Hah, I was just joking about the reading part because I do so little.

**Coin5** · 08-16-2018, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by makecents

Hah, I was just joking about the reading part because I do so little.

Yes I know, I was joking too. I don't like reading too much either, I prefer to learn hands on coins style.

**VAB2013** · 08-17-2018, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Coin5

I was studying the different DDs classes thanks to a link (http://www.error-ref.com/doubled-dies/) provided by Vivien on my request and I found something interesting that reminded me of this thread immediately. It is the controversial class VII. Looking at the last pic I posted of the problem in the "1" it looks like some kind of chisel was used to remove that part of the "1" and part of the field. The removed part appears to be slightly incuse, which means it was raised in the working die and incuse in the hub. There seems to be continuity in the coloring, corrosion, deposits and other post mint characteristics which may have appear with aging and circulation of the coin. Those were the reasons why I though (without knowing about Class VII) that the shearing off may have happened when the coin was new. Furthermore, the shearing does not appear to be caused by a random object; but done on purpose with a chisel.
So here comes the necessary speculative questions:
- Why would someone other than the Mint use a chisel to remove that part of the device?
- Is it possible that this is an unfinished Class VII where they removed that part and did not repaired it back?

Your thoughts will be highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Adrian

Hopefully the experts will chime in on this question Adrian. I have never understood Class VII doubled dies. My thought is... if this were the case with your 1977, I would think that examples of it would have already been found. I've seen hits to coins completely take out letters and numbers. I found one and I think I saved it, where a hit completely moved the LI of Liberty over to the right next to the B!

**Coin5** · 08-17-2018, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by VAB2013

Hopefully the experts will chime in on this question Adrian. I have never understood Class VII doubled dies. My thought is... if this were the case with your 1977, I would think that examples of it would have already been found. I've seen hits to coins completely take out letters and numbers. I found one and I think I saved it, where a hit completely moved the LI of Liberty over to the right next to the B!

Good thinking Vivien, you maybe right (most likely). I'm just speculating this might be a possibility, as there is (with my zero knowledge) no hard evidence on the contrary. Still, the fact there are no scratches and post strike features blend nicely in that area; plus the chisel like traces and smoothness, make me wonder if that is possible... I'm just thinking its possible they didn't finish the repair job for whatever reasons. Perhaps, they found that out quickly and just a few coins escaped the Mint... Not likely; but possible. My main problem is, that I have no idea how these repair jobs are done at the Mint, which tools they use, etc. That's why so much thinking. Maybe someone with that experience can tell if that's the case or not?????
It may help, if you can find your coin for comparison???
Thanks Viv for your great input.

**jfines69** · 08-20-2018, 04:01 AM

People will do strange things to coins... Some have gone as far to remove parts of devices to give the appearance of different varieties of high value in other words create a counterfeit coin... PSD can create some interesting coins and the best part of that is those coins are one of a kind... That is due to the nature of the damage and the circ wear it goes thru... Your 77 looks to be a fairly late die stage and has received its share of PSD... All of the numbers in your date appear to have taken hits and the normal circ wear has worn away much of the evidence... My guess would be it was isolated damage caused by a coin rolling machine... Just a guess as we will never really know for sure... Hope this helps a little... By the way nothing wrong with asking questions we can only answer questions to the best of our abilities if the question is asked!!!

**Coin5** · 08-20-2018, 08:59 AM

Interesting...
Why will someone will go to such extreme to put the coin back into circ where it has been for so long after the damage and from where I took it?
The PSD by a machine looks more probable to me. That would explain why the damage is flat, parallel to the suface and chisel like. As you mentioned we may never know what really caused the damage. In the mean time I'll keep the coin as a curiosity while I learn and more evidence surfaces in either direction.
Thanks

1977 P Date problem

1977 P Date problem

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment