1969-D radical die clash

[jfines69]

I will definitely be happy if wrong. Did you send an email to Mike Diamond? Oh, also super glue was invented in 1942. Please let us know what you find out.

I forgot to mention that A mind is a terrible thing to waste... Good thing I don't have one

[GrumpyEd]

Ruling out glue doesn't rule it out, it can be done either way. It just takes more effort to get it to work well without it.
It has been done a lot, soft die coins or coins damaged in similar ways show up all the time.
They can play with temps to get it to work well by heating the strips or chilling the coin when making the dies or chilling the strips and heating the coins when altering the coin.

[tomfiggy]

I will definitely be happy if wrong. Did you send an email to Mike Diamond? Oh, also super glue was invented in 1942. Please let us know what you find out.

Thanks guys. I hope I am right but based on my past luck I'd have to agree with you. Haha.
i do have the advantage of having it to inspect and if it's forged it's really good

[onecent1909]

OK I must stand and say.....
I will pay for a TPG of this coin.
.......I truly believe this is a PSD coin.
all dies are removed and destroyed after the year use.
A very few dies have been used outside of the year they were created to be used.
(A 1999 WAM reverse die that was first used to make 1998 WAM coins comes to mind)
a 1969 die with a 1981 die?
just think about it?
a 1969 die held at the mint for 12 years, to be hubbed with a 1981,,,???
a brockage can yield a mirror image.... but 1981 and 1969????
Tom. Let me know if and when you want to send in your coin

[Roller]

Very questionable. Why not send it in to Mike and see what he thinks? I'll pay the occustomed attribution fee.

[tomfiggy]

Very questionable. Why not send it in to Mike and see what he thinks? I'll pay the occustomed attribution fee.

I will send it to whoever most of you recommend. I used to send my questionable varieties to Mike Ellis. I have used ANACS to slab some of the ones he attributed.
I don't need help with the bill but thank you for offering. You are recommending Mike Diamond correct? Should I e-mail him with some pictures? I was thinking of sending it to ANACS with a note to only attribute the obverse and not to even look at the reverse.. hahaha. I looked at the earlier post referring to the quarter on a Canadian planchet. Will the Secret Service want my coin like they did his? I am as perplexed as I have ever been regarding a coin so I definitely need help with this one.

[tomfiggy]

OK I must stand and say.....
I will pay for a TPG of this coin.
.......I truly believe this is a PSD coin.
all dies are removed and destroyed after the year use.
A very few dies have been used outside of the year they were created to be used.
(A 1999 WAM reverse die that was first used to make 1998 WAM coins comes to mind)
a 1969 die with a 1981 die?
just think about it?
a 1969 die held at the mint for 12 years, to be hubbed with a 1981,,,???
a brockage can yield a mirror image.... but 1981 and 1969????
Tom. Let me know if and when you want to send in your coin

Here is another question I came up with after reading your post onecent1909. Is the reverse of this coin a 1969 reverse, or a 1981 reverse or were they the same reverse design for both years? The reverse changed when?

[GrumpyEd]

I think the 69-D would be RDV-002, the 81 would be RDV-004.
Your coin looks like the rev is RDV-002, not enough of the rev on the obv to say for sure on it.

You might ask Mike Diamond if he can comment on the thread and if he wants to see the coin send it to him.
That will answer it, see what he thinks.

Whoever you send it to needs to verify both sides of it, that date spread in years is a big part of why it would be special.
Also nobody will give a one side opinion, both sides are important when verifying what it is.

If it is real, about the only explanation would be an already struck 69-D got flipped and struck by the current dies in 81. I think it's unlikely from the look of it but I think that's the miracle you'd be hoping for.

[willbrooks]

Mike Diamond usually checks in daily in the error forum, but I see he was on in the last 24 hours and did not view this thread. I would just send him a PM to ask his opinion on this thread. He has always been gracious enough to respond in the past.

[tomfiggy]

I think the 69-D would be RDV-002, the 81 would be RDV-004.
Your coin looks like the rev is RDV-002, not enough of the rev on the obv to say for sure on it.

You might ask Mike Diamond if he can comment on the thread and if he wants to see the coin send it to him.
That will answer it, see what he thinks.

Thank you eD. i WAS JOKING ABOUT ATTRIBUTING ONLY ONE SIDE.
Whoever you send it to needs to verify both sides of it, that date spread in years is a big part of why it would be special.
Also nobody will give a one side opinion, both sides are important when verifying what it is.

If it is real, about the only explanation would be an already struck 69-D got flipped and struck by the current dies in 81. I think it's unlikely from the look of it but I think that's the miracle you'd be hoping for.

Thanks Ed. I was joking about getting a one sided opinion.

[tomfiggy]

There is nothing incuse on this cent

Here are 4 more pics. I am trying to show without a doubt that all features are raised. The error is on the die. This can't be a squeeze job.

[Petespockets55]

My bad. Sorry I jumped the gun and rushed a reply earlier before thinking it through carefully.
It cannot be a double struck coin because the dies would NOT produce mirrored images but they would indeed be incuse (raised), like a regular coin. Plus, UNITED would have to be rotated about 180 degrees for a clashed die or "soft die" scenario.
Am I seeing it correctly that the 1969 is minted "over" the 1981, obv. & rev?
Also the definition of obtuse is an angle more than 90* but less than 180* (I had to look that one up.)
Very interesting and learning a lot, thank you all.

[tomfiggy]

My bad. Sorry I jumped the gun and rushed a reply earlier before thinking it through carefully.
It cannot be a double struck coin because the dies would NOT produce mirrored images but they would indeed be incuse (raised), like a regular coin. Plus, UNITED would have to be rotated about 180 degrees for a clashed die or "soft die" scenario.
Am I seeing it correctly that the 1969 is minted "over" the 1981, obv. & rev?
Also the definition of obtuse is an angle more than 90* but less than 180* (I had to look that one up.)
Very interesting and learning a lot, thank you all.

My terminology must be off as well. I thought incuse meant an impression like a dent or pushed in area as in "incuse die deterioration doubling" where there is a pit or groove next to the feature... All the features on my coin are raised. You would need to squeeze a die not a coin to get that. I think the 1981, and the memorial were imprinted over a 1969 die.

[GrumpyEd]

The only explanation for a coin with 2 raised images with different dates (that I can imagine) is an existing coin struck years later.

But that coin will look the same as a normal flipover double struck coin other than the dates not being the same.

The mirroring is why I assume it's fake.

Even a strike over a decades old coin should look like a same year flip over and look at the images, they are not mirrored.

See some images here:

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1024&bih=639&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=flipover+double+struck+lincoln+cent&oq=flipover+double+struck+lincoln+cent&gs_l=img.12...36350.38681.0.40842.8.8.0.0.0.0.437.864.4-2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.img..6.0.0.aEEUw478S_o

Back to the original idea of massive clash, that would be mirrored but the image will be incuse not raised. Plus they won't have a decades old die to do it with. So I don't see any mint made way that could create it.

But the one issue is even if it was fake, the most likely way is from a soft die. But a soft die should not mirror the image either but assuming it's a person in a garage messing around they might be likely to do some tricks that mirror it. That seems more likely than the mint doing it.

Hopefully Mike has some ideas or has seen something like it before.

[jfines69]

What is the weight of the coin??? Preferably out 3 decimal places (I.E. 3.000 grams) if possible!!!