1801 1C, 3 Errors Reverse (S-219)

[foxpigsquid]

This recent pickup was easy (even for me) to identify! It suffers from environmental damage and the fraction is weak but all three errors are identifiable and it came at a price I was happy with. Given the errors are in the die itself rather than the minting process, I figured it belonged here.

Breen's text suggests Scot's failing eyesight and/or lack of attention to detail was the main culprit(s) for the blunders? He must have been a one-man quality assurance department. What are some other egregious US die errors that made it out into circulation?


1801_s219_rev.jpg 1801_s219_obv.jpg

[occnumis2021]

neat pick up. thanks for sharing.

fwiw, it depends how you define numismatically, egregious.

large cuds, double struck and a plethora of other obvious errors including massively obvious overdates, transitional dies (unintentional).

i personally think the mint made adjustment marks to early silver coinage to be absolutely insane considering the work that went into designing and producing the coinage only to have them put huge multiple file marks across the obv/rev just to save a few shavings.

now back to how you define egregious and also mint error.

they knowingly put out OMM, ie o/cc o/s etc. but by mint standards i think they would technically be errors. maybe you mean more unintentional design errors though.

missing mint marks on is a big one no?

longacre doubling has confounded many a person. idk if that is egregious or error but it is kinda crappy imo. perhaps the designer could argue trying to be artistic or something. i'd have to look up the cause of it again though.

i can go on with several more examples of things but this continues the thread nicely imo.