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

  • #16
    Hello Everyone,

    I've been watching this thread and wondering if it was a counterclash or DDR. I just want to verify my thought on counter clashes. Wouldn't a counter clash still be raised on the affected coin? A doubled die will produce an image at approximately the same height (from the field) of the original design elements.
    I want to go further into the description about a metal fragment being between the planchet and die and the pressure applied to them and the affect but will refrain.

    Thank you,
    Lestrrr

    Comment


    • #17
      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.
      James Wiles

      Thank you, I was not the person who reported it through ANACS. I found these just yesterday in an OBW roll.

      I'm not sure what I'm going to do with them yet but if you would like to photograph/examine one I would be glad to send it to you.

      I appreciate your response, thanks .

      Comment


      • #18
        You make a good point, James. The steps are more sharply delineated than most counterclashes. Also, there's no associated die damage. Most counterclashes (including the recently reported Delware quarter) show accompanying die damage. If it really is a doubled die as you say, it sure is a weird one.

        Would you say it's a combination of offset, rotated, and tilted hub doubling? Would the extra steps represent a second, light (and possibly accidental) hubbing?

        Originally posted by JamesWiles View Post
        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.
        Mike Diamond. Error coin writer and researcher.

        Comment


        • #19
          A counterclash is always raised and normally-oriented.

          A doubled die is not always the same height as the normal design. It all depends on how deeply the hub penetrated the working die.

          It is sometimes difficult to distinguish a counterclash from a doubled die if the counterclash is only a short distance from the normal design.

          Originally posted by fugnchill View Post
          Hello Everyone,

          I've been watching this thread and wondering if it was a counterclash or DDR. I just want to verify my thought on counter clashes. Wouldn't a counter clash still be raised on the affected coin? A doubled die will produce an image at approximately the same height (from the field) of the original design elements.
          I want to go further into the description about a metal fragment being between the planchet and die and the pressure applied to them and the affect but will refrain.

          Thank you,
          Lestrrr
          Mike Diamond. Error coin writer and researcher.

          Comment


          • #20
            I have your nickel, Eric. I can add nothing to the previous discussions other than to reiterate how cool-looking it is.
            Mike Diamond. Error coin writer and researcher.

            Comment


            • #21
              Hello Mike,

              I just thought you would like to see one in hand.....Eric

              Comment


              • #22
                I finished photographing and writing up your nickel, Eric. I'll have it in the mail for you next week. Thanks much. -- Mike
                Mike Diamond. Error coin writer and researcher.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Thanks Mike, sounds great, how long do you think it will take before PCGS or NGC will grade these with the attribution noted on the slabs?

                  I guess they have to make the Cherrypickers guide first.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I don't know what their policy is. I mainly collect errors. As you say, it might have to make it into Cherrypickers before they note anything more than "doubled die". Of course, you could make an inquiry and see what they say. Maybe they'd note James' attribution number if you can get him to sign a letter to that effect.
                    Mike Diamond. Error coin writer and researcher.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X