2010 Proof Lincoln Error

[kshuma]

Hello All

I found this in my US-mint 2010 proof set. Lincoln cent has clear double chin slight indent on nose and forehead. I snapped a few pictures.


What do you think?
Ken

[diamond]

I suspect it's machine doubling, but a close examnation would be required to confirm this suspicion.

[wavysteps]

This could be a case of isolated machine doubling that only affected the chin area of Lincoln.

BJ Neff

[kshuma]

Thank you Mike & BJ for your expert opinions. I am unfamiliar with the procedure for close examination, additionally if the coin was deemed worthy of slabbing could Coneca send it in for me?

Ken

[diamond]

BJ would be the individual best equipped to evaluate this specimen. CONECA does not send in coins for grading and encapsulation. The individual collector has that responsibility.

[kshuma]

Thank you Mike!


BJ are you interested in the evaluation of this coin?

You may reply directly
kshuma@live.com

Ken

[jcuve]

MD would certainly seem to be the most likely culprit, but it would still seem to be somewhat unusual. That said, it isn't the type of error one would submit for encapsulation anyway. Maybe BJ can take a look...

[kshuma]

MD would certainly seem to be the most likely culprit, but it would still seem to be somewhat unusual. That said, it isn't the type of error one would submit for encapsulation anyway. Maybe BJ can take a look...

Thanks Jason..

[19Lyds]

I've seen something similar to this on Proof IKE Dollars from 1971.

[kshuma]

19lyds, looks fairly close to me. So it is machine double...

Ken

[19Lyds]

19lyds, looks fairly close to me. So it is machine double...

Ken

Let's just say that "This is what I've been told".
Not that I don't agree as much as I just can't seem to get my head around what would have caused it other than a slight offset during subsequent strikes. Something caused the full round separation, I just don't seem to understand what.

One difficult aspect with double striking and doubled dies is that if the coin gets coupled with machine doubling then the usual path is to simply declare it "machine doubled". Unless, of course, there is undisputable evidence to the contrary.

On your Lincoln, the chin and nose certainly are quite dramatic but its the area on the forehead which led me to post my IKE as that most closely resembles what you've posted. My IKE also has clear machine doubling on some of the letters and PCGS declared it Machine Doubled.

As for your coin, send it to BJ and have him look. Maybe he'll see something.

Edited to add an after thought: Perhaps the initial strike suffered machine doubling and the second and subsequent strikes "filled" in the shelves leaving the separation lines? Again, I just do not know for sure.

[kshuma]

Thank you for your very informative response 19LYDS. I have seen a few machine doubled coins, I just do not see any other areas. however the coin is still in the holder which may be hiding the rest of the story. I will contact BJ for shipping info.

Thanks again
Ken

[jcuve]

Machine doubling is very hard to make logistical sense out of the direction of doubling; how it can be so painfully localized or even how cases of multi directional MD are possible I don't know. By contrast, hub doubling follows a understandable and largely logical pattern. I would suggest that collectors try to not overanalyze MD as it probably will lead nowhere...

[19Lyds]

Machine doubling is very hard to make logistical sense out of the direction of doubling; how it can be so painfully localized or even how cases of multi directional MD are possible I don't know. By contrast, hub doubling follows a understandable and largely logical pattern. I would suggest that collectors try to not overanalyze MD as it probably will lead nowhere...

While I agree that MD sometimes doesn't make any sense and once MD is identified, then yes, further analysis could be minimized. However, the doubling on the two coins pictured above should warrant more than the typical MD dismissal to, at the very minimum, understand what could have created the end result. The existance of MD on Proof Coins can be compounded by the multi-striking manufacturing process and the additional stresses suffered by the equipment due to the higher striking pressures.

The above pictured conditions are almost exclusively associated with proof coins although certain multi-struck business strike coins can carry the same general appearance.



Further detailed examination and discussion is the only recourse as important clues could be overlooked which could offer futher explanation for exactly what has occured.

For example, on the above motto, the MD is obvious, however, the tight lines within the G and O demanded an explanation.

Further examination revealed a double struck coin with a close overlap.





Once that diagnosis was indisputable (as shown by the top of the R from the initial strike), then the obvious MD could be called into question. Was it really MD? Or, is it something that resembles MD but was actually the end result of metal flow (or the lack of metal flow) caused from the second and/or subsequent strike(s)?

Yes, obvious MD is easy to identify with its Flat shelf-like doubling. It's the rounded doubling that can ONLY be explained as MD which has my curiosity peaked.

[jcuve]

My advice was for collectors, not necessarily someone with a 60x scope such as you or myself who can go through the motions and dig further. Suggesting that a common coin with MD could in fact be a in collar double struck coin could prove nightmarish if the wrong person is holding the coin and prone to over analysis - we know how many people fit this criteria.

Further, most MD is MD; I am not a fan of naming slight variations different names. I am a proponent of studying it further both to aid collectors so they can make proper determination of their finds but also as I feel there are unanswered questions which could be explored.

I have a 1960 someone sent over for me to look at. It has double sided bi-level MD on IN; totally flattened MD on the upper portions of LIBERTY with some lateral movement pushing toward the letters and then somewhat milder MD on the rest of the motto but the opposite side from LIBERTY. I photographed it and will keep it in my files and see if at some point it links up to another coin. Maybe one instance of MD came on one strike and the other MD came from the second?

I do find the phenomena displayed on your IKE and the Lincoln interesting and if the coin wasn't going to BJ I would have been happy to have photographed it and tried to generate a hypothesis. I do think your earlier statement: "Perhaps the initial strike suffered machine doubling and the second and subsequent strikes "filled" in the shelves leaving the separation lines?" fits into my line of thinking that proof coins with MD could suffer the MD on an earlier or later strike (depending on how many times that denomination is struck) thereby masking or altering what would normally be easily identifiable. I will add that I hesitate to call them separation lines even though they look similar to separation lines found on hub doubling as I would not want to confuse a newer collector - maybe "division lines" would be better...