1951 Lincoln Cent- Re-engraved vs Normal Bangs

[Petespockets55]

Jon's (Makescents) thread about channeling was perfect timing for me this weekend as I was looking through a mixed roll of 1951 P&D wheats. I noticed the area between the forehead and bangs were different and was hoping someone might shed some light on this for me.

Does anyone know if the 1951 LWC were re-engraved like the front of the lapel on the 1953 proofs? (Not like the channeling on some coins which is incuse, but re-engraved which would be raised in relief.) Of the 14 coins (P&D) only 2 were "normal". The other 12 had the "re-engraving" on them.

Thanks in advance, Cliff

1rst three images are marked up showing the "Re-engraving" between the bangs and forehead that were on 12 of the coins in the roll. (It is raised, not incuse) Most (all?) of the coins also displayed the raised line down Lincoln's nose as well.

Next 3 are Coin1 (1952d) with Normal design at the bangs

Last 3 are Coin2 (1951p) with Normal design at the bangs

[willbrooks]

Interesting. The "channeling" would have been done to the working hub which is why it is incuse on the coin. This looks like work done to some individual dies. It is surely possible (and consistent with the Mint's normal "put a band-aid on it" procedures.") The area there is quite weak on the "normal" coins, so it makes sense they could have tried to enhance the area. Sounds like a study is in order.

[Petespockets55]

Interesting. The "channeling" would have been done to the working hub which is why it is incuse on the coin. This looks like work done to some individual dies. It is surely possible (and consistent with the Mint's normal "put a band-aid on it" procedures.") The area there is quite weak on the "normal" coins, so it makes sense they could have tried to enhance the area. Sounds like a study is in order.

Thanks for looking Will.
I know I have a very small sample but 12 of the 14 showed signs of being "re-engraved". Seems like "normal" may be harder to find.

I'm just wondering if anyone knows if it is truly re-engraved or caused by something else. It is pretty strong and noticeable not to have caught someones attention before now.

I guess they seem kind of like the CLAM and WAM varieties or transitional reverse (1988 RDV-006). They weren't popular until they became known. I just thought the '51's have been around a while and someone might have some insight.

I know some collectors love the 1953 re-engraved proofs (1953 1C Re-Engraved Design, FS-401), but that is the only re-engraved ones I'm familiar with and it seems to get attention. I'm sure having an FS# put it on peoples radar.

I did find this 1939 and 1950 re-engraved proof varieties at VV LINK .

EDIT: A few more images showing the "re-engraved" lines pretty well.

[makecents]

Ran across this tonight, it's a D mint but see what ya think.

[Petespockets55]

Yep, thanks Jon. It shows it pretty well. The really weird part is that the "re-engraved" like you found were more abundant by a 6:1 ratio.

On a side note, it probably didn't hurt that Dr. Wiles discovered both of the 1953 re-engraved proofs. So it made VV pretty easily and the FS# probably didn't hurt it's popularity.

[jfines69]

Here is some info on the LCF about reengraving http://www.lincolncentforum.com/the-...resource-page/ Check this out http://www.lincolncentforum.com/foru...earchid=386314 Hope this helps a bit!!!

[willbrooks]

So, Ray has a bunch of BU wheat rolls. I asked him to look through some 51D. He had the same experience that you did, Cliff. Most had the engraving. It was clearly done on a die by die basis. We could definitely see some variance on the examples from different dies, but it was quite interesting how much they were the same. It surely appears it was done by a single person with this exact purpose in mind. One specimen in particular had the engraving line farther up into the hair, but the others were almost identically done. I haven't decided if it is worth doing a write-up yet, but this is a pretty cool discovery by Cliff. Maybe it can be part of a larger article. I'll have to think on it, but first I need to finish the Mint mark article and make a bunch of updates for Mike on the error-ref site.

[Petespockets55]

Thanks for you and Ray looking into it.

I just can't make up my mind if it was polishing that removed the lines on some coins. Some of the actual hairlines look further from the forehead (like the gap is larger) and I know the overall design wouldn't change. Seems like this could explain part of the missing enhanced lines as well.

[willbrooks]

Thanks for you and Ray looking into it.

I just can't make up my mind if it was polishing that removed the lines on some coins. Some of the actual hairlines look further from the forehead (like the gap is larger) and I know the overall design wouldn't change. Seems like this could explain part of the missing enhanced lines as well.

I did't do anything except look at Ray's photos. He did all of the work.

[jfines69]

Cool... Another mint anomaly!!!

[ray_parkhurst]

Thanks for you and Ray looking into it.

I just can't make up my mind if it was polishing that removed the lines on some coins. Some of the actual hairlines look further from the forehead (like the gap is larger) and I know the overall design wouldn't change. Seems like this could explain part of the missing enhanced lines as well.

I did see a wide range of die wear in the examples I looked at, but most of the coins exhibited the re-engraving, even the ones where the die surface had been polished and almost all the area of the bangs was at field level.

The differences between the dies is pretty subtle, and my initial look under stereo microscope made me believe that the dies were all the same. I had to do an overlay of the coins to see that there are small differences in the angle, length, and position of the re-engraved lines, indicating as Will says above that the re-engraving was done on die by die basis rather than at working hub level. This makes each one a different variety, though a subtle one.

[Petespockets55]

Thanks Ray, for taking a deeper look at these and helping to establish a "starting point" of understanding.

I'm also glad to know the slight differences in the enhancement I thought I was noticing weren't a figment of my imagination but an indication of different dies.

[willbrooks]

I am thinking that I will write this up at some point soon as part of a larger article on engraving. Also, once I get caught up on the error-ref edits, I will make an entry for this in the appropriate section. We'll get Cliff's name in there.

[Petespockets55]

I guess severe confusion on my part can possibly lead to enlightenment (with a lot of help of course)?

[WaterSport]

Makes very good "cents" to me that the mint did this on a routine basis to extend die life. I am sure they knew which areas were problematic and re cut them through the years.
WS