Welcome!

Log in or register to take part.

CONECA (pronounced: CŌ´NECA) is a national numismatic organization devoted to the education of error and variety coin collectors. CONECA focuses on many error and variety specialties, including doubled dies, Repunched mintmarks, multiple errors, clips, double strikes, off-metals and off-centers—just to name a few. In addition to its website, CONECA publishes an educational journal, The Errorscope, which is printed and mailed to members bimonthly. CONECA offers a lending library, examination, listing and attribution services; it holds annual meetings at major conventions (referred to as Errorama) around the country.

CONECA was formed through a merger of CONE and NECA in early 1983. To learn more about the fascinating HISTORY OF THE ERROR HOBBY and THE HISTORY OF CONECA, we encourage you to visit us our main site Here

If you're not a member and would like to join see our Membership Application

We thank everybody who has helped make CONECA the great success that it is today!

Register Now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1954 S Jefferson.......extra "steps" raised in field

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1954 S Jefferson.......extra "steps" raised in field

    I found a couple of these in an OBW roll today, it has what appears to be a small section of raised steps in the field to the right of the "N" in MONTICELLO,

    Any opinions would be appreciated.







    Edited to add another pic.....
    Last edited by sumorada; 02-20-2009, 06:52 PM.

  • #2
    That is extremely interesting. Since you say the steps are raised, then it's most likely a Type II counterclash error. Such errors are quite rare and quite desirable. I also can't rule out a wild doubled die. This definitely deserves to be looked at by James Wiles or BJ.
    Mike Diamond. Error coin writer and researcher.

    Comment


    • #3
      That is quite interesting. I personally don't know what it is from, but whatever it is, it is very nice indeed.
      Bob Piazza
      Lincoln Cent Attributer

      Comment


      • #4
        A Type II counterclash occurs when a die strikes a stray piece of metal, transferring the design to that metal. The metal fragment shifts position and is struck again, transferring the design back to the die face (usually the field). Every coin struck after that has an extra set of raised elements in an unexpected location.

        In this case, a combination of a lightly impressed, rotated, offset, and tilted hubbing could also conceivably produce this extra set of steps. A fascinating and noteworthy discovery.
        Mike Diamond. Error coin writer and researcher.

        Comment


        • #5
          Mike,
          Thank you, If you would like to examine one of these I would be happy to send it to you.

          Comment


          • #6
            That is very interesting anomaly and I am not sure what to make of it. My gut feeling is that it may no be a counterclash or a doubled die. I would think that if it was a doubled die, it should have been caught by this time, but then again, one never knows. Another thing that strikes me is that there are no steps on this reverse die, so that could effectively rule out the counterclash coming from this die; if it is a counterclash, the piece had to come from somewhere else.

            The only positive way of finding out what this maybe is an in hand examination. I would think that an overlay of the Monticello steps on top of the anomaly would show one way or the other if it was or was not that design element.

            BJ Neff
            Member of: ANA, CCC, CONECA, Fly-in-club, FUN, NLG & T.E.V.E.C.

            Comment


            • #7
              BJ,
              Thank you, I did this a couple minutes ago...........

              Comment


              • #8
                It appears to me that, in your specimen, the vertical bar next to the steps is incuse. In the overlay, the vertical bar appears to be raised. If that's the case, then the steps on your specimens might be incuse and the raised horizontal bars are the intervals between the steps. What do you think?
                Mike Diamond. Error coin writer and researcher.

                Comment


                • #9
                  In hand mine looks identical to the sample..........

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Okay, that's a relief (pun). If it had been incuse, I really would have been stretched for an explanation.
                    Mike Diamond. Error coin writer and researcher.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I have to say I was very surprised when I found these, instantly you could tell they were steps, then I thought it could not be a clash, must be a DDR

                      because I was not familar with the term "Counterclash" but that seems to make sense to me.......

                      with the naked eye this "whatever" is clean and crisp in appearance...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by wavysteps View Post
                        Another thing that strikes me is that there are no steps on this reverse die, so that could effectively rule out the counterclash coming from this die; if it is a counterclash, the piece had to come from somewhere else.

                        BJ Neff
                        The absence of steps on the regular design and the presence of steps on the counterclash (or whatever it is) is not unexpected. The die itself undoubtedly had steps. The (presumed) small piece of metal would have been subjected to extremely high effective striking pressure because the entire tonnage would have been concentrated in a tiny area. The metal would easily have flowed up into the recess corresponding to the steps.
                        Mike Diamond. Error coin writer and researcher.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The more that I look at it, the more I am inclined to believe the possibilities of a doubled die. I am going to contact Billy Crawford and see what he thinks.

                          BJ Neff
                          Member of: ANA, CCC, CONECA, Fly-in-club, FUN, NLG & T.E.V.E.C.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Mike - I am looking at the difference of the no step appearance on the primary design element and the sharp appearance of the steps on the secondary image. Granted the PSI would be higher, however, I would think that the difference would not be so remarkable between the two images if struck by the same die.

                            One option and not out of the realm of possibilities, is that the stray piece (with the step impression) of metal may have come from an adjacent striking chamber with earlier die state dies.

                            I just sent an e-mail off to Billy Crawford and I will also send one off to James Wiles and see what he thinks.

                            BJ Neff
                            Member of: ANA, CCC, CONECA, Fly-in-club, FUN, NLG & T.E.V.E.C.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I have actually seen an example. It came by way of ANACS for verification. I have listed it as DDR-002, 2-R-VIII, stage A, EDS. I considered a counterclash, but the doubling is raised, sharp and distinct. I would love to be able to give credit to the person who reported it through ANACS. Was that you? I would also love to add a copy to my reference collection. I will be placing it on www.varietyvista.com as soon as I can.
                              CONECA 20th Century Die Variety Attributer

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X