1994 and 199 wierd reverses

[Bob P]

BJ Neff sent me the coins I have pictured below for my evaluation and opinion. Now...it's not too often that I get stumped, but these have definitely got me wondering what they are. Is it a form of die deterioration? Striking problem? Hubbing problem? Anyone have any ideas??

[wavysteps2003]

Thank you Bob - Hopefully we will find some answers out there. One thing that I would like to add is that the angle of the lines is different coming from the columns than the angle of the lines coming from the lettering. A possible cause for this is the happening of two seperate events on the reverse die???. One other oddity is that both coins, the 1994 and the 1999 appear to have identical angles in the added lines.

BJ Neff

[coop]

Was more than one example found in the roll? If there were others like that I would think Die damage. If just once, Not sure what it could be. You might ask Fred Weinberg. He might have an idea. He deals in errors.

[wavysteps2003]

Hi Coop - They were both found in circulated bank rolls and months apart from each other.

BJ

[JRocco]

Hi BJ. I noticed a similar pattern on the obverse of some 2005 cents (at least 20 examples). I asked Mike Diamond about these and he was intrigued. He thought they might represent feeder finger damage or just die scrapes from an unknown cause. Interesting. Yours are so prominent. Here is a pic of what I saw.
http://forums.collectors.com/include/uploadbox/viewfile.cfm?files=lincdmark%2Ejpg

[coop]

JRocco: I think those are left over lathe marks from the creating the surface of the dies. When they are hubbed they push into the lower parts of the dies. After a few 100's of Cents they wear off except where the scratches show in crevices Like the collar and the lower spots on the lower bust. In earlier die states it may show in fields.
http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/diestate.php?date=1960&die_id=1960d1mm122&die_state=eds
Usual wear flattens these marks except in the lowest parts of the die. Die scratches also fade quicker on fields, deeper/higher relief areas, but take a lot longer to disappear inside letters/numbers and in areas where changing height of the die slows fading of die scratches. The fields cover quickest, even die clash marks disappear after several 100's strikes on the die through normal wear. Well, until the next die clash then the die scratches/die gouges reappear. Die cracks/die breaks continue to get worse as the die breaks down till the die is discarded.

[coop]

One anolomly I found today. Angled die gouge. Wonder if they were playing around or trying to remove something on the die?

[murphy]

Hi Bob. Your coin reminds me a lot of what you see with wavy steps only involving lettering and other devices other than steps. Weird. Let me know when ya get it figured.

[Bob P]

Seems like there are a lot more of this type of error out there than I originally thought. I still don't know what is causing it, but the pic below shows a 1996P cent I found today that shows the same anomaly. So...we know there are some in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1999. Here is the pic of the one I found today.

[murphy]

I found this which though not as severe as y'all's, it looks like the same kinda process made them all. I have found two hundred examples of two types of these 2005 obverse oddities. I thought maybe the cause of these types could be worn machinery. If you alter the path of a die from straight into the planchet, to coming together and leaving at an angle, wouldn't you get something like this? I dunno what could be the cause. In this photo, besides what you see, there are also some lines coming off of "TRUST". I just didn't photograph that. Here's my 2005P example in which I have over 200 of these:

[Danester]

These all seem to be striking errors. It looks like the plantchet was not flat (for whatever reason) when the initial contact was made with the dies. Is it possiible the plantchet was slightly out of diameter tolerance, and caused an “initial angle strike” that then "snapped into place”. All the angles shown here seem to the same, indicating we have a single scenario - whatever it is.

The Danester

[wavysteps2003]

Hi Bob - That is a nice example of "lines from letters". Does it have extensions off the top of the columns?

It is still a puzzle how these lines occur, however, we do know that:
1. They can be found on the obverse and reverse. Murph's 2005 establishes that.
2. It is die associated and not a function of after the coin is struck. Agin, Murph's (200) 2005s supports this along with the fact that all the lines appear to be at the exact same angle. Maybe an overlay can conferm this fact.
3. They are on various dates and occur with both die making procedures, single squeeze and multiple hubbing.

If we can correlate that the lines are in fact the same angles in all years, I would think that the theory of die cleaning can be ruled out since that is a human function and would show some variencies, even though minor, through out the different years.

And then there is the difference in angles from the "lines from letters" and the extensions from the top of the columnss. It would be very interesting to find a Memorial with just the extensions from the toip of the columns; this would give credence to my supposition that this is actually another type of WAVY STEP!!!!.

Maybe, one day, we will all get to bottom of this mystery.

Mean while, I have Ophelia knocking at my front door and once again, the poor weatherpeople have not a clue as to what this storm is going to do.

You all have a good one and thank you for the information that you have provided.

WAVY STEPS
BJ Neff

[Bob P]

Hi BJ....
To answer your question, my 1996 coin does have the extensions off the top of the columns. As a matter of fact, I can find some evidence that the extensions are on the entire reverse with it being very strong and long on the top of the coin, and very weak and short on the bottom.

I agree somewhat with your observations especially where you state

[coppercoins]

My turn to chime in.

These coins are interesting to say the least.

The ONLY offer of advice I can give is for someone to research the relationship between the angle of the design on the dies when affixed in the press and the rotary wheel that brings the planchets into place for striking. If there is enough drag on the finished coins while being ejected we could have an answer - die wear caused by ejecting coins from the dies. I would assume since the anvil die is the reverse that these would be far more common on the reverse than on the obverse, which seems to be the case here. Furthermore, it makes it possible on the obverse as well, just like machine doubling and eject doubling on the individual coins.

Why this wouldn't have shown up in far previous years I don't know.

Whether the mint still uses the presses that bring the coins around in a circular fashion for minting is also not known by me.

Just some food for thought for someone energetic enough to do the research.

I'll publish about these in an upcoming SLCC newsletter and see what kinds of responses I get.

[wavysteps2003]

Would you believe that I am just getting around to reading your post Chuck? Been to busy.

I just ran across a 1994 that has the same effects; I have not yet compared to the other 1994 to see if it is the same die.

I find your theory very interesting Chuck, although I ma not to sure of the mechanics envolved and because of that, I can not offer any argument either for or against what you have stated. I can see a number of logical reasons for the lines from the letters and even the disfiguration on the top of some of the letters I can explain to myself. What has me still totally baffled is the lines from the top of the columns. They are in the second deepest part of the reverse die and I just cant see how scraping, polishing or cleaning could have caused them.

Thank you for taking up mystery and hopefully you will be able to delve some information out of the people not yet reached with this oddity.

NO MORE HURRICANES

Regards,
WAVY STEPS 2003
BJ NEFF