2002 Multiple Lincolns-Your opportunity to explore

[Novicetoerr]

Here's another coin belonging to my collections of "THE MULTIPLES".
When it comes to searching for ERRORS...

Imagination is an excellent tool! Do not let your decades of experience make
search rules out of them that bound you; and do not avoid seeing what you see. This is a good opportunity to explore what could have been missed years ago, until now.


J

[mustbebob]

I really can't tell what it is you think you are seeing. There are certainly not a bunch of Lincolns in the bays. In addition to that, the condition of the coin would make it almost impossible to determine what (if anything) is in the bays.

What I did get a kick out of was your narrative

Do not let your decades of experience make
search rules out of them that bound you; and do not avoid seeing what you see.

Experience is what makes it easier to understand what is and isn't a variety or error. Our experience also tells us what sort of things are more likely to happen on a coin because we understand the process. Your imagination is very vivid for sure J, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. However, you do seem to see much more on a coin than what is actually there. When you start seeing some of those things, you should ask yourself if it is even possible that such errors could occur. Don't look so hard....varieties and errors have a habit of making themselves known. When you find them, you generally know you have found something nice.

[Novicetoerr]

2002 Multiple Lincolns-Your opportunity to explore

- What I'm NOT trying to show is an MS70 PQ grade replication BUT
identical symmetries of recognizeable points between the primary and the
2ndary images. If they are there, then you could conclude (even without
a complete recognizeable replicated image) that it is there.

- As my similar analogy in the other 1997 Multiple Lincoln thread, the hilites
I showed in this 2002 coin is with a "flipped" (view from back) of 2ndary
image. The "flopped" (front view) images could have been replicated in
the columns making them unrecognizeable.

- Looks like a continuous striking by the reverse die clashed with "another"
reverse image resulting to flippped/flopped images in the coin.

- Being very familiar with the minting process, do you think there is "even a
slightest" possibility of what I'm trying to theorize here?

Has the other Forum participant shown her claimed 1995 double Lincoln statue?


J

[foundinrolls]

-

- Looks like a continuous striking by the reverse die clashed with "another"
reverse image resulting to flippped/flopped images in the coin.

- Being very familiar with the minting process, do you think there is "even a
slightest" possibility of what I'm trying to theorize here?



J

No....Most of what you post seems to be more imagination than knowledge of the Minting process.

Sorry, but the real situation is that the frequency of your supposed finds is also an indication that you are still learning about but have not yet grasped the error and die variety aspects of of coin collecting.

That is a very good thing as many of us, when we started (at least I did) probably went through a phase where our imagination took over during a time when our knowledge of errors and die varieties was growing.

It is not feasible to think that you are finding that many interesting die varieties. Those of us that search through coins in huge numbers and who know what we are looking at find few "keepers".

Imagination really does play a part when we try to imagine how something can happen given the constraints (yes there are guidelines and constraints) placed upon us by the minting processes involved in producing a coin.

Things like Plating anomalies, bubbles on the surface of a coin, corrosion underlying the copper, and many other things can look like anything we can imagine but if it is not possible, it can't happen. It's really that simple.

The key is to be knowledgeable regarding what is possible and then everything falls into place. You may notice that the numbers of responses you get to posts is relatively low. I suspect that is because people don't want to defend what they know against impossible scenarios. I know , for me, that can get tedious at times.

When I have time, I enjoy explaining why things can or can't happen but a baseline of information needs to be established. You can do a search for the US Mint website and see some things there that will explain the Minting process to you. Then, if you can establish a possibility of something based upon the minting processes and what is truly possible, people might be more willing to jump in and teach you some of what is known about errors and varieties.

Thanks,
Bill

[3¢nicker]

hey j, i am one who have kept up with your posts since your start here and havent started replying to them until recently more so because there is so much to learn. on your trails, if you want to pm me your address i will gladly send you some free examples of some i have doubles of, so you can really see what they are and what they look like. one suggestion i could give you is to go out and look for local dealers, granted some are good and some are a tad bit lower on the human scale and talk to them, ask to see some of there doubled dies and errors ( harder to find dealers who are into errors unless well known high dollar). Ask questions more than make statements. now i myself don't truely understand the minting process well, but i know how to look for the end result. I don't know what you have been able to sell on ebay, but you speak often about about selling your latest finds and all. i could guess that the easy to sell errors you have really haven't got the bids behind it, maybe not. i've seen people buy some coins that were not really what they were made out to be, i've bought some myself but they are fewer and farther between the more i know. in trying to help you out i would warn you not to buy too many "errors" or "varieties" off ebay until you have a better understanding, i'd hate to see a new enthusiest ( yes i cannot spell) get burned and waist so much money in it and get out without any value in their collection.

there is so much information out there in this forum. i don't know if you do or not but look through the posts. i still reference back to them even though i have sometimes read the same one dozens of times. I believe you will find people here may be a bit less short with you if you started your post a little less decided and more inquisitive about what you think you have. being that you are a novice ( self admitingly ) it may work out better if when given layers of advice and responce you were not so contradictive perhaps? what might help you a little better with these "multiple lincolns" is to think of the mating surface of the coin (technically planchet) and the die like a mold. you have a negative design on the die and a positive outcome design on the coin. for one reason why the multiple lincoln thought doesn't create much talk from the others is because... say you were able to measure how protruding lincoln is from the surface of the field of the coin and comparethat to the colums next to him, they come out at you a bit farther. so his image would be overcome by the colum. this is the reason when you see die clash marks they are in usually in low lying areas because the more protruding elements of the coin are deeper on the die and when the dies hit eachother the deep pockets on both sides cannot make contact. hope this gives some insight, and please do give me your address so i can send those trails and wavy steps

[3¢nicker]

to add to what i said earlier, in the bays that you point if there was extra lincolns there you would see evidence of colums in the bays and not lincolns

[Novicetoerr]

2002 Multiple Lincolns-Your opportunity to explore

Sorry to miss these follow-up msges. Thanks all for trying to clarify.

Pls refer to the previous thread "1995 two Lincolns?" where I also posted
a similar replication of a 1983 cent which were ruled to be gas bubbles.

- I may agree they may not be absolute Lincoln replicates. They, however,
can not be gas bubbles. Bubbles do not produce patterns.

- Further... is there a possibility (even the slightest of it):
...They can be repeated replication of images (certain portions of the central
design (i.e., LCM bldg and its INS & OUT contents with highest/deepest
raised/incused points) that were actually struck by an error die?
...That the replicated images are either, and/or, DDs, MDDs?
...That they are the "incused" images ( but now added as positive raised
images) to the normal central design elements?
...(How the "incused" images got included intto the die will be other separate
premises that can be explored.)

Thanks,
J

[3¢nicker]

huh? that is all

[mustbebob]

J,
It seems as though we have answered these same questions (or questions like it) before. On each occasion, you are seeing things that simply aren't there. Your vivid imagination makes you see what you think is there. In all honesty, you must ask yourself if it is possible that type of anomaly can occur.
I would figure by now that you must have read up on the hubbing and striking process. Have you done that? I would have assumed that the same answer, time after time, would lead you to believe that maybe you are seeing things. It seems to me that you are searching for someone to say that something is possible (no matter how obscure it might be) so that you may use that as an answer for everything.
I think there comes a time when you must really listen to the folks out there who are trying to guide you in the right direction. Based on the answers you are provided, why continually revisit the same thread. We have told you that there aren't any extra Lincoln's or extra inverted ears, or trails, and yet you keep coming back to the same issues. Please take a step back and re-read your threads, and at least give the folks who have responded the benefit of the doubt once in a while. When I re-read the threads and replies, I realized there are over one hundred years of expertise in those who answered you. Many of these folks simply have ceased to reply because of the very things I have talked about here. You say you understand, but you do not.
As I have stated before, should you show something that is a genuine error/variety, we will be more than happy to congratulate you and verify your findings if possible. Believe me when I say (like others before me have said), when you find it....you will know. It won't take CSI to figure it out.