1876-cc Trade Dollar Doubled Die reverse

[GarryN]

This is a coin that a gentleman owns. He contributes to the Carson City Coin Collectors of America club. This photo below is a stock closeup photo of the reverse. There are a number of doubled features of the coin that are obscured by the red arrows. I wanted to ask about the line under the eagle's beak. I am not sure that is really a doubled beak. The line does not appear to follow the perimeter of the beak and neck. Does anyone else believe this is an example of doubling? It has the characteristics of a possible clash mark. I wonder what an overlay would show.



[center][/center]


Here is the coin. MS60 if anyone is wondering. The pictures are huge. Sorry about that

[/img]

[Bob P]

Garry,
Here is a crude overlay using your original pics. I don't see anything that looks like that area under the beak on the reverse of the die. I would have thought it might be a clash remnant, but now I am not so sure. Maybe a gouge of some sort?

[GarryN]

Thank you very much, Bob. I would have guessed it was a gouge. However, that is being described as part of the doubling on that coin.

[eagames]

Could it be something else?

Maybe an off center counter clash?

Maybe clashed with another denomination that was also made in CC. Maybe try overlays to any other same year CC coins?

Just a few wild thoughts

[GarryN]

That would be fun, Ed! I dont see any other clashes in the photo though. Any other thoughts? Anyone?

[GarryN]

To expand on it, I dont understand why the line under the eagle's beak is considered doubling when nothing else like that appears to the right of the primary eagle. And the line hits the eagle's body at some point.

[Dick]

GarryN. the only thing that remotely could have anything to do with the beak, is from thepart of the skirt, or whatever that it, hanging directly above, on the mid-thigh. I haven't riied an overlay, but it might help. This is the first time doing it this way...... wish me luck.
Later:While setting up to do the overlay, I checked to see which marl is referred to, and it is the lowermost part of the material that hange from the mid-thigh, as I supposed. The mark is a remnant of a clash that apparently was very nicely claened up. I'll still do the overlay, and confirm, tomorrow.

Dick

[GarryN]

The overlay is in Bob's post above. There is nothing on the reverse that would have caused a clash mark like that. And no other clash marks are visible either. Ed had an interesting idea that the clash might be from another denomination. I am just wary of calling it doubling.

[Dick]

Bob, is it me, or is the overlay, only a rotate 180 Degrees? I think it might need a horizontal rotate, as well to get the PBV/REV relative to each other. This way doesn't look like what I am doing. Most likely it is me....

[Dick]

This is what I want to show:


This is normal:

It is not your everyday overlay, but I think it does the trick. The mark inder the beak is), or has to be), a gouge.
Dick

[GarryN]

OK, thanks Dick, so there is nothing that would have caused a clash. So it has to be a gouge. I think the matter has been dropped on the C4OA site. Rusty Goe hasn't provided his opinion. He is the owner of the site there. Oh well. I would still be interested in other's opinions on this.