Unusual 1989 Lincoln Cent Reverse Error

[searching4errors]

Hello everyone...
I have a 1989 Lincoln Memorial Cent which has an extension (without the reeds) to the right of the 1st column on the right, that extends beyond the actual column width. The original column is more narrow than normal, as you can see from the headers?, and the extension makes it about the same width as the other columns. The extension runs from the bottom of the column, to and including the roof line, for lack of a better description. Is it possible that this could have resulted from a filled die on the far right side of the column which caused it to become an extension instead of part of the original column? The extended area referred to is the darker shaded area to the far right in pic. 1 & 2. Sorry the pics aren't any better but it is hard to photograpy. The extension sets a little lower than the column and can be felt with fingernail when run across the area. What kind of die error would this be called? Please see attached pics.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

[jsellards]

Looks like a "Die Crack" and as such would not be related in any way to the column. Jack

[Steven]

I lean toward a die crack as well. Hard to tell by the photo. If it looks like this it would be mechanical/strike doubling showing a shelflike secondary device. Hope I got that right.:)
Steven


clickable photo:
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d84/stevenbingham/th_PICT4594.jpg (http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d84/stevenbingham/PICT4594.jpg)

[searching4errors]

Thanks Jack, for your reply. I appreciate your time. I do, however, have a question. If this is truly a die crack, wouldn't it be highly unlikely that it would complete the column in perfect uniform, and not extend above or below the column? The bottom of the extension fits perfectly onto the porch just as if it were the actual column itself. Thanks and have a great weekend! Fran

[searching4errors]

Thanks Steven, for the pic and for your reply. It looks very much like your pic, however, the device (as you call it) on my coin is thinner than the column and it is smooth. I do not see any other doubling any where else. I noticed that the column header next to the doubling on the coin you have pictured appears to be the same width as all the other column headers. This, however, is not the case with my coin. The extended device actually seems to complete the column and header. I'll try and get a better pic and post it. Thanks again for your input. Have a super weekend! Fran

[searching4errors]

OK Steven.... I managed to capture a better rendering of the coin. Hope I am allowed to post extra pics. The pics, especially the 1st one, seems to have a wavy edge on the device but, upon close inspection of the coin, the edge appears to be straight and smooth. Here goes....

[wavysteps]

Hi Searching4eroors - welcome to CONECA's forum.

As to your pictures of the coin. It is MDD (machine damage doubling) which happens after the initial striking of the coin. While it is a bit unusual to see that amount of flattened surface (the affect caused by MDD) isolated to a small area on one design element, all indicators point to it being what Steven first said it was.

BJ Neff

[Steven]

If you will notice you appear to have the same {machine damage doubling} just below the designers intials as well. If my eyesight is still with me:D

Steven

[searching4errors]

Thank you also, BJ, for your post. I really know very little about "MDD" other than what I've found on Coneca's "Other Forms Of Doubling Guide" so please bear with me. What I don't understand is why is the portion of the column which is supposedly doubled, merely filling in the space that a normally struck column would occupy. I don't mean to be overbearing but I am a how and why person, as you can see. :) Take away the "doubling", for instance, and you have a column that is about half the width of the other columns. Can it actually be called doubling with this being the case? This is why I thought the doubling portion of the device die was possibly filled enough to have smoothed out the grooves causing it to appear as though it were doubling rather than actually being part of the device itself. In other words, the column is incomplete without the "doubling" portion. Had it not been doubled, I guess I would have a coin with an undersized column error. :) Enough said. I honestly do appreciate everyone's enlightenment. Again, thanks for your patience with me and helping me to understand "MDD" a little better.

[searching4errors]

Steven... you have a very keen eye indeed. I missed that myself. Many Thanks! Fran

[wavysteps]

Okay Fran, to explain what is happen in Machine Damage Doubling. First, remember that this happens almost instantaneously; when the coin is struck by the hammer die (which can be either the obverse or reverse die), if one or both of the dies are loose in their collar, you get what they call "die chatter" This may cause the coin to bounce against the retreating die, which in effect will cause a flattening of the area that does come into contact with that die. It will thicken the design element affected, making it appear as though it has been doubled, when in actuality, it has not been.

Not only do we have to deal with this form of die damage , but there is also two other more conspicuous design element doubling. The first is die deterioration doubling, cause by metal flow over a design element and the affect of replicating it similar to what happens when ripples in the sand are caused by water flow (a great example of this phenomena is the 1955 Lincoln cent "poor man's double die"). And second, ejection doubling caused by the ejection arm taking off a stuck coin on a die, which will also cause damage similar to the doubling seen on a MDD design element.

All of these doublings are not to be confused with a doubled die for they are two different animals.

Hope that this helps.

BJ Neff