1923 S Lincoln Cent

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • TJ1952
    Member
    • Apr 2016
    • 658

    #1

    Error Other | 1923 S Lincoln Cent

    Not sure what this is called. Some type of doubling.

    S20190111_001.jpg

    S20190111_002.jpg

    S20190111_003.jpg

    S20190111_004.jpg

    S20190111_005.jpg

    S20190111_006.jpg

    S20190111_007.jpg

    S20190111_008.jpg
  • VAB2013
    Forum Ambassador
    • Nov 2013
    • 12351

    #2
    That's odd... is the anomaly incuse or raised? It sorta looks incuse in the pics.

    Comment

    • makecents
      Paid Member

      • Jun 2017
      • 11037

      #3
      When I first saw this, I immediately thought of the rare clashing... Link (http://www.lincolncentresource.com/F...raLetters.html)

      Comment

      • Petespockets55
        Paid Member

        • Dec 2014
        • 6882

        #4
        Originally posted by makecents
        When I first saw this, I immediately thought of the rare clashing... Link (http://www.lincolncentresource.com/F...raLetters.html)
        Really neat coin. The additional letters are the correct orientation, not reversed, so not a vise job.
        Good thought Jon but because the overall area is incuse, but I think it is more of a strike through (grease or metal?).

        I don't think a lamination because of the extra letters inside the depression look to be raised based on the light reflection.

        It's the multiple, recessed extra letters and rims of the motto that are really perplexing.

        EDIT: Also most of the furrowing seems to be under the top layer of UNUM.
        Last edited by Petespockets55; 01-25-2019, 08:03 AM.

        Comment

        • TJ1952
          Member
          • Apr 2016
          • 658

          #5
          Originally posted by VAB2013
          That's odd... is the anomaly incuse or raised? It sorta looks incuse in the pics.
          Let me double check. Pretty sure it's incused.

          Comment

          • Petespockets55
            Paid Member

            • Dec 2014
            • 6882

            #6
            The anomaly looks incuse but how about the letters?

            Comment

            • TJ1952
              Member
              • Apr 2016
              • 658

              #7
              Originally posted by Petespockets55
              The anomaly looks incuse but how about the letters?
              You're right. The furrowing is definitely incused but the letters inside that area. Man, it's hard to tell. I'm looking at it under the loupe. Hold on, I'm going to put it under the Microscope again.

              Comment

              • TJ1952
                Member
                • Apr 2016
                • 658

                #8
                Guys, I would say the letters are incused as well.

                Plus. the horizontal lines going thru "IN GOD" in Jon's link, looks very similar to the lines going thru UNUM in my pictures.

                1983_extra_letters_in_motto-409x240.jpg

                Comment

                • jfines69
                  Paid Member

                  • Jun 2010
                  • 28628

                  #9
                  How about a floating die clash http://www.maddieclashes.com/328-2/ or counter clash Type 1 http://www.maddieclashes.com/type-i-counterclash/ Type 2 http://www.maddieclashes.com/type-ii-counter-clash/
                  Jim
                  (A.K.A. Elmer Fudd) Be verwy verwy quiet... I'm hunting coins!!! Good Hunting!!!

                  Comment

                  • TJ1952
                    Member
                    • Apr 2016
                    • 658

                    #10
                    Originally posted by jfines69
                    Wonder if it would be worth submitting. The coin itself looks in decent condition.

                    Thanks for the feedback gents and ladies!

                    Comment

                    • jfines69
                      Paid Member

                      • Jun 2010
                      • 28628

                      #11
                      Originally posted by TJ1952
                      Wonder if it would be worth submitting. The coin itself looks in decent condition.

                      Thanks for the feedback gents and ladies!
                      I don't know if it would be worth it??? I would think having the attribution done before sending it in would most likely make it worth while... At this time I have no idea who does these attributions??? JCuve use to do them but I have not seen him on in a long time!!!
                      Jim
                      (A.K.A. Elmer Fudd) Be verwy verwy quiet... I'm hunting coins!!! Good Hunting!!!

                      Comment

                      • GrumpyEd
                        Member
                        • Jan 2013
                        • 7229

                        #12
                        Originally posted by jfines69
                        I don't know if it would be worth it??? I would think having the attribution done before sending it in would most likely make it worth while... At this time I have no idea who does these attributions??? JCuve use to do them but I have not seen him on in a long time!!!

                        Agree, TPGs will not know what it is. It needs someone like Mike D to get a good opinion on it.
                        I think things like that 83 are die damage so damage on a die for the most part will be raised on a coin. This looks more incuse.

                        Comment

                        • TJ1952
                          Member
                          • Apr 2016
                          • 658

                          #13
                          Originally posted by GrumpyEd
                          Agree, TPGs will not know what it is. It needs someone like Mike D to get a good opinion on it.
                          I think things like that 83 are die damage so damage on a die for the most part will be raised on a coin. This looks more incuse.
                          Mike responded to me on CCF:

                          I see two possibilities. The first is a set of conjoined dropped letters. However, since there are two sets of incuse letters, this would require the coin itself to have been double struck, along with the plug of die fill. I see evidence of only one strike. The second, more likely possibility is that this cent was struck through a very thin, previously-struck piece of metal that had experienced two uniface strikes prior to the strike that generated this struck-through error. Mike Diamond

                          Comment

                          • makecents
                            Paid Member

                            • Jun 2017
                            • 11037

                            #14
                            Originally posted by TJ1952
                            Mike responded to me on CCF:

                            I see two possibilities. The first is a set of conjoined dropped letters. However, since there are two sets of incuse letters, this would require the coin itself to have been double struck, along with the plug of die fill. I see evidence of only one strike. The second, more likely possibility is that this cent was struck through a very thin, previously-struck piece of metal that had experienced two uniface strikes prior to the strike that generated this struck-through error. Mike Diamond
                            Very cool TJ!! Thanks Mike!

                            Comment

                            • jfines69
                              Paid Member

                              • Jun 2010
                              • 28628

                              #15
                              Cool... So much for my clash theory
                              Jim
                              (A.K.A. Elmer Fudd) Be verwy verwy quiet... I'm hunting coins!!! Good Hunting!!!

                              Comment

                              Working...