Altered Error

coop · Expert Member

The reverse gets a change often. I've noticed different features added to some years and others may go years without change. You get to the point where you can see the reverse and almost guess what year the coin is. A few things I've noticed:
1959-1967 the lettering is more rounded and the details on the the stairs is weaker.
1968-72 the letters are a little flatter looking but still good clean edges on the letters and field. On later die states of course the letters show more die flow on the outside edges of the letters.
1973 The FG is larger than most reverses
1974 Large Dates the top of the base on the pedistol has a doubled line in this area under the footstool. Small Dates the statue is weaker and less details show.
1975-1979 These show a good strike on the reverse with the same look as the 59-67 reverses. Weaker stairs, weaker columns. but still a great appearance.
1980-1986 the reverses in these years go down hill quickly as the details on the letters is very weak. I did note on several years a single line below the statue on the base. This is weak, but still visable in this area.
1987-1992 The thin barely there steps. I find so far few of the wavysteps (well none yet for me) in this area.
1993-2006 The thicker more details stairs show more in these years with the steps that show the wavystep better.

As I note more Details I will add to this post.

Asfor changing the coloumns to cover the extra bars. I don't think the mint know they have a problem there or if they do they figure most collectors will take note, but we're here...

Dick · Expert Member

Coop, I made a hard copy of this, so I an refer to it from time to time. I think what I am doing is trying to feed too much info into my head at a time when one year might keep me busy for a worth-while period. T am going thru roll, after roll, and it gets to be like seeing the same coin over, and over, etc. TOO impatient!!! I'll just keep going until I finish this box, and start tossing each year into different containers. Make that DECADE! I don't have that many containers. Not to mention where to put them!
I got CD's book today, so that will help a lot.
Dick

coop · Expert Member

http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/coop49/Fake_quad_struck_Cent_01.jpgOK, here are a couple from that notorious site that sells stuff that isn't what it really is. Either the sellers don't have a clue or they have been busy making garage pieces? So rather than give my opinion. see what you think. Rather than post an auction I thought I would use their words, images (The forum information will last longer than the auctions) and images I edited a little. So look closely and see what is wrong with these auctions? We'll take a Cent one first:

2004 LINCOLN CENT, STRUCK 4 TIMES, BU. A VERY STRANGE AND RARE COIN. THE FRONT OF THE COIN SHOWS THAT IT WAS STRUCK 4 TIMES. EACH STRIKE IS APPROX. THE SAME DISTANCE APART FOR EACH OTHER. EVERYTHING ON THE FRONT OF THE COIN - THERE ARE 4 OF - "IN GOD WE TRUST", LINCOLN'S HEAD AND BODY, THE DATE AND LIBERTY. NICE STRANGE BU COIN. THE REV. SHOWS A RIM STRIKE AROUNT THE TOP OF THE COIN. (Caps their choice)

Your thought on #1?

Second coin up for gabbs (SP had to do it. Pun intended) :

VERY NEAT ERROR COIN.VERY WEAK STRIKE OR A DIE TRIAL??????.COIN HAS NO FILE MARKS NOR HAS IT BEEN MACHINED.THERE IS NO REEDING AND DIME IS VERY THIN.THIS ONE CAME FROM THE MINT.I KNOW IT IS 196 AND FAIRLY POSITIVE THAT THE LAST DIGIT IS A 7.IT'S NOT A 3 BECAUSE OF THE COPPER CORE.SEE PHOTO AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELF AND ADD THIS COIN TO YOUR COLLECTION. (caps theirs again)

Well he got the clad statement right about it being a 1967. But what is wrong with # 2?

eagames · Expert Member

Well I doubt I can guess exactly you're thinking Coop. but....

#1 is a bad garage job, some home made soft die struck it. The seller is right that it was "struck 4 times". One stike at the mint the other 3 by him and his soft die. A real one would be struck 4 times with the the same offset on the reverse, I only see damage on the reverse!

#2 is a coin the seller attacked with a file. Maybe he sanded the course evidence away. If it was a weak strike or trial strike it would have a rim. The rim is on the coin before it gets struck so being a trial or weak strike does not excuse the fact that the rim and reeding was taken off with a file. The seller is right, "this one came from the mint". Then he attacked it with a file.

I like the way these crooks say something like:
"ADD THIS MANGLED PIECE OF JUNK TO YOUR COLLECTION"

Not only that the maroon spells worse the me!

Dick · Expert Member

Coop, I can't tell you what is wrong with the cent, but I can say that I had a 1919 cent, many years ago, that had a triple struck reverse, a little wider spread than in this case, and the obv was normal. It went the eway opf many of my coins then, to feed the kids. But, I did notive one thing, (I may be wrong), but it seems to have some very nice "wavy-steps"! THe obv just doesn't "feel" right, and the rev looks to have been in a very strong vise, (and not centered, either), while clamped. For what purpose, (Legit, that is), I don't know. It it Too clear to be genuine. The dime looks like it was clamped between something very hard, and hammered, to give it the "brockage" look. I'm not that familiar with that kind of A"errors"???
Later: I just remembered, I have some of those dimes that look very much like that one, except, they do have some reeding, and very little rim, similar to the "rimless dime" mentioned, now, and then.
What is the story? It should be interesting!
Dick

eagames · Expert Member

Also on the cent the reverse second strike or damage is only a vertical shift without rotation. The obverse images are very rotated. This does not happen. On the one Dick mentioned if you had it to look at today I would suggest looking close at the obverse for an image or damage with the same rotation. Coins get struck between 2 dies, the shift must be the same on both sides. Minor stuff like MD might only show on one side but this coin is more than MD.

Yes it's possible the dime was smashed or hammered, have to see it to say but in any case it has no rim or reeding and was not a weak or trial strike as stated.

coop · Expert Member

Also on # 1 the rim is flattened on the side of the "so called" quad doubling. Another obvious give away that the coin had been altered.
# 2 Looks like someone used a sander to flatten the high spots and then polished it to cover the damage and sanded the edges to remove the reeding. I thought posting the devious information rather than the auction, might help new members when reading this thread. When you post an wedsite auction, the information disappears in a short time. This way the information/miss information remains on the site for educational purposes.

eagames · Expert Member

Coop,

This reminded me of a question, maybe you can answer.

I never thought about this because I only focus on cents Laughing

When do they put the reeding on coins? It would seem that if they're already on the planchets they would get deformed by striking. Is it done by the collar when it's struck or are they already on the planchets?

Dick · Expert Member

ED, the reeding is done in the collar, (where reeding is a part of the final design, read strike). If you don't have the "plaid Book", I would suggest you get one. It explains all areas of the coining process, and is very interesting reading.
Dick

smed · Senior Member

What's the plaid book??

coppercoins · Site Admin

#2 = rock tumbler.

Dick · Expert Member

SMED, the "plaid Book" is the way it is covered, but it's proper name is: The Error Coin Encyclopedia, fourth Ed. by Arnold Margolis, NLG & Fred Weinberg, NLG. It is a text that takes you thru the whole process in the coinage system, plus it has a very clear explanation of the different classes of doubling, etc. Everything you might ask, will be answered there. I read it from cover, to cover, and refer to it over, and over. It is a work, that I can recommend with pleasure. I think I found it thru CONECA, of maybe one of the forum members recommended it to me before I became a member. It is well worth the price asked.
Dick

smed · Senior Member

Thanks Dick. I'll look into it.

eagames · Expert Member

These are not altered but it's amazing to watch people bidding $100 for a strike double even when the seller truthfully described it as exactly that. Seems crazy! They could be buying a nice coin. Razz

Between these 2 listings the buyers are spending over $600 for a bunch of common strike doubles. They must have too much money and too little cents Wink

http://cgi.ebay.com/1969-S-LINCOLN-CENT-MAJOR-DOUBLE-STRUCK-VDB-ERROR_W0QQitemZ260085648266QQihZ016QQcategoryZ524QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/1969-S-LINCOLN-CENTS-102-STRIKE-DOUBLED-ERRORS-AMAZING_W0QQitemZ260085655600QQihZ016QQcategoryZ524QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Dick · Expert Member

$415.00 for those MD's??? MAybe I should sell some of mine on ebay!
Dick