Hey guys and girls,
I was wondering what the opinions of people were regarding the following coin. From my inspection the brockage part is definitely behind the final strike. Any idea what to call an error like this?
[attachment=1690]
[attachment=1691]
I shall name it "Awesome".:angel:
Quote from: 'planchetflaw' pid='12271' dateline='1366177923'Hey guys and girls,
I was wondering what the opinions of people were regarding the following coin. From my inspection the brockage part is definitely behind the final strike. Any idea what to call an error like this?
do you realise that if you hit on the thumb print and wait for it to come up on the bigger size then wind the wheel on your mouse , you can make it zoom in further , I just found this out .. ,, kel ,,
UNEQUE comes to mind :good:
I have NEVER seen anything like this.
It looks like another coin has been slammed into the planchet then minted leaving the reverse design under the strike.
Could it be a mint sport coin ?
at first I thought it was just a pattern but looking further into it I see it is the same words back to front but turned around a bit .
marvellous error ,.. never seen anything like it before ..
,, kel ,,
It's a rotated double strike, if you turn back the first strike ( rotate it back to where the 2nd strike is it is the right way round iykwim LOL )
Markn & PPH showed a couple of the roo variety a while back.
Very Nice & i would say very uncommon in the early years.
QuoteIt's a rotated double strike,
IF it is a double strike then how do you explain the reverse design under the final strike ?
But it's not reversed,it's rotated, use your imagination & pretend you can't see the final strike,in your mind turn the first strike back to upright position,you will see the strike is exactly as it should be.
Actually Planchetflaw,can you take a pic with the first strike in the upright or normal position please ?
Quote from: 'accumulator' pid='12291' dateline='1366181788'But it's not reversed,it's rotated, use your imagination & pretend you can't see the final strike,in your mind turn the first strike back to upright position,you will see the strike is exactly as it should be.
Actually Planchetflaw,can you take a pic with the first strike in the upright or normal position please ?
Have another GOOD look at the coin and you will see that the underlying impression is INDEED a mirror/reversed impression.
Have a close look at the P the E and the L they are backward.
That is what makes me think that this is a "Mint Sport" coin :ok:
Yes you are correct Trout, I stand corrected.
Now i'll shut up & go away !
Quote from: 'accumulator' pid='12294' dateline='1366182163'Yes you are correct Trout, I stand corrected.
Now i'll shut up & go away !
Don't you dare, I recon you would have forgotten more about errors than I Know Mate :ok:
This is most defiantly an error and not a "trout Mint" jobbie.
It's just that I can't simply understand how this came about and would appreciate being enlightened about it :good:
Where the hell is Nevol when you need her :dash1:
Can we see a picture of the obverse?
Quote from: 'markn' pid='12296' dateline='1366183423'Can we see a picture of the obverse?
I would hazard to guess that the obverse is quite normal Mark:ok:
Quote from: 'trout' pid='12302' dateline='1366185601'Quote from: 'markn' pid='12296' dateline='1366183423'Can we see a picture of the obverse?
I would hazard to guess that the obverse is quite normal Mark:ok:
Why. If it's a brockage that's been struck again then BOTH sides have been struck twice. An image of the obverse would confirm this. You'd expect to see traces of the reverse design under the obverse strike.
Yes, is the other side as interesting. If it is a brockage and then struck twice then it's a rare error I've not seen before.
Quote from: 'purplepennyhunter' pid='12327' dateline='1366192698'Yes, is the other side as interesting. If it is a brockage and then struck twice then it's a rare error I've not seen before.
I would imagine that if the obverse was as interesting as the reverse the OP would have posted images of this :angel:
Just saying.
Quote from: 'markn' pid='12309' dateline='1366188082'Quote from: 'trout' pid='12302' dateline='1366185601'Quote from: 'markn' pid='12296' dateline='1366183423'Can we see a picture of the obverse?
I would hazard to guess that the obverse is quite normal Mark:ok:
Why. If it's a brockage that's been struck again then BOTH sides have been struck twice. An image of the obverse would confirm this. You'd expect to see traces of the reverse design under the obverse strike.
Would you expect the obverse to be a mirror/ reverse image the same as the reverse as well Mark ?
QuoteI would imagine that if the obverse was as interesting as the reverse the OP would have posted images of this
I have to agree.
My take on this coin is that it is probably ‘Mint Sport’, but having said that, what I know of the Minting process would fit on the back of a small Postage Stamp.
I don’t know of any machine action during the minting process that could impart first a negative and then a positive image on the same side of a coin. But…like I said, I know bugger all about how coins are minted. I’ve never been to the Mint and at this time of my life, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever make it there.
How likely is it that the previously struck coin is stuck in the die, then flipped so the first negative impression is applied, then ejected before the positive impression is applied? It’s all I can think of to explain how this came about without human intervention. :dontknow:
I imagine that both Markn and PP would know if an error of this type is ‘possible’, plus any of these more knowledgeable members as well; emu666; drakesterling; acrellin; wwwww; waldo; gregk to name just a few.
I’ve manipulated the OP’s image so the negative ‘imprint’ is at the 12 o’clock position, the 2nd image is just sharpened up a little, but doing this proves nothing to me either way. The rotation is approx 35°.
1911 Halfpenny V2
(http://i46.tinypic.com/zjggnn.jpg)
1911 Halfpenny V3
(http://i50.tinypic.com/wv1jkx.jpg)
I have had a really good look at the image supplied by the OP and have come up with this possible reason for this coins existence.
A freshly minted coin was either placed upside down on top of the planchet or one fell there, Then the 2 were stamped together.
The top coin then was removed or fell out and the underlying (Now with an incused impression from the top coin) planchet is pressed normally resulting in the coin pictured by the OP.
The underlying impression is from a coin and not a die because it is a reversed design and is incused on the coin, Similar to the eBay shed jobs that abound.
This coin in my eyes is most certainly not a "Shed Job" because the incused impression is Under the design and not on top of it.
The probabilities of this happening by sheer chance are slim indeed and that is why I am leaning towards this being a "Mint Sport" Coin.
This only my theory, Any more ideas as to how this coin came about ?
this is a mystery we may never find out about ,
in them days I wouldn't think the coin making machines moved as fast as todays machines and they were minted on to blanks by a guy turning a big crank handle and just making them one at a time , very slow process ,..
1911 , the guy that did this is long gone by now ,, 102 years old ..
,, kel ,,
My thoughts are similar to Trout's. :scratch_one-s_head:
A struck coin was stuck in the die. A blank planchet inserted and pressed leaving the incused imprint.
The stuck coin(s) were removed and the incused planchet returned to the pile to be restruck.
Would love to see the obverse.
Regardless, what a great great error coin!!
You're all postulating that because the obverse image isn't here that it MUST be un-remarkable. The only way that it could be un-remarkable is that somehow the obverse die was removed or the inserted coin was struck against another blank AND against the already struck coin. There's a principle known as Occams razor which suggests that the SIMPLEST explanation is the most likely. Right now you're all inventing very complex sequences of events on the assumption that the obverse is OK. But we haven't seen the obverse. Until we see the obverse all of your explanations are pure assumption.
Quote from: 'markn' pid='12372' dateline='1366264562'You're all postulating that because the obverse image isn't here that it MUST be un-remarkable. The only way that it could be un-remarkable is that somehow the obverse die was removed or the inserted coin was struck against another blank AND against the already struck coin. There's a principle known as Occams razor which suggests that the SIMPLEST explanation is the most likely. Right now you're all inventing very complex sequences of events on the assumption that the obverse is OK. But we haven't seen the obverse. Until we see the obverse all of your explanations are pure assumption.
If you use the Occams razor principle to explain this then "Mint sport"
Would be on top of the list even without seeing the obverse of this coin :ok:
Regardless of our "assumptions" and theory's this is a most interesting piece :dance2:
I have PM'ed Planchetflaw asking for a pic of the obverse of the coin before we all go nuts:angel:
If my theory above holds any weight at all the obverse should have a sign of a previously pressed reverse. :read:
Show me the money!!!! (Or at least the obverse). :mafia:
If it shows the sign of the reverse under the obverse then I think mint sport is not the most likely answer. The most likely answer is that it was a brockage that was simple thrown back into the coining hopper to be minted again by a lazy mint worker.
Sorry for not being around. I only had these images. I'll get obverse pic on tuesday for you. I'm debating with myself on this coin being authentic. The obverse is far from remarkable. You'll know what I mean when I post it. The obverse is quite flat. That threw up flags in my head. This coin is not mine but was purchased from a large numismatic auction house in sydney about 3 years ago. If it is a shed job I just can't explain how they got the mirror impression under the strike on the reverse. Was hoping someone might have spotted a tell tale sign of funny business.
Quote from: 'planchetflaw' pid='12521' dateline='1366448446'Sorry for not being around. I only had these images. I'll get obverse pic on tuesday for you. I'm debating with myself on this coin being authentic. The obverse is far from remarkable. You'll know what I mean when I post it. The obverse is quite flat. That threw up flags in my head. This coin is not mine but was purchased from a large numismatic auction house in sydney about 3 years ago. If it is a shed job I just can't explain how they got the mirror impression under the strike on the reverse. Was hoping someone might have spotted a tell tale sign of funny business.
From what I have seen so far I would consider this coin to be authentic :good:
If the obverse is "unremarkable" then I would consider this coin to be a "Mint Sport" and in my opinion makes this coin quite remarkable :ok:
Obverse pics?
I cant see how the reverse imprint can be beneath the final strike.
Quote from: 'enworb' pid='12895' dateline='1366791826'Obverse pics?
I cant see how the reverse imprint can be beneath the final strike.
The coin would have been pressure hardened on the first strike so the final strike would only make a small impression on the coin due to the hardness of the planchet as a result of the first striking, That is the only way I can guess how this occurred :ok: