Lincoln Cent Brockage/Counterbrockage/Capped Die Strike

[AKexpat]

Hello to all of you error coin folks!

I just joined this forum today, but had been heavily involved in this type of error from 1987-1995.

Back in the day, while searching through my huge coin stash (as well as "penny" jar collections from many other friends) for nice older Lincoln cents for my standard coin collection, I came across an odd 1971 P (NMM) with a "rippled" obverse and a high "wire" obverse rim. The reverse was normal and the coin was probably AU and bright red-brown.

Curiosity finally got the best of me and after some research (years before the WWW online), I found that it was a late capped-die strike. I was hooked! I joined CONECA (no longer a member), subscribed to Arnie Margolis' Error Trends magazine, and must have bid in any and every auction (Len Roosmalen's, among many others) by mail.

My wife thought I was insane spending $5-$10 for a 1 cent coin, but after acquiring over 300 of these type errors and poring over them nearly every evening, I learned a lot about different stages of these errors.

I finally burned myself out on it and sold a collection (275+ pieces) to a guy in Illinois for $2500, and he got a smokin' deal. I even had a series of 1970 capped-die strikes that were absolutely identifiable as a progression by unique reverse die scratches. Arnie even photographed them and put them in Error Trends sometime in the early/mid '90's.

I am retired and yesterday dragged out the remnants of my collection (about 30 coins). All are related to this type of error, but some have O/C, DS, Blank Planchet indents, cuds, and other combinations. I also saved a 1981 capped-die strike 9-coin progression (ID: reverse die scratches).

I get a kick out of many posters who think they have an error when it is usually just a mistreated coin or a bad striking job. Not making fun of them: I was there at one time, also. Once one gets to see REAL striking errors in their own hands, there will be very little doubt as to real errors vs. perceived errors.

I have a digital camera, but normally shoot it on the "Auto" setting. This does not make for good coin pics, so I will have to dig out the camera manual to learn how to use the Macro settings.

This one of my favorites. It's still in the plastic so the view is not so good, but one can get an idea. Bought it years ago for $10.





As I learn how to use the camera in Macro mode, I will post pics of other coins I have in this thread when I can.

I live in the boontoolies here in SW WA State and no coin dealers within 100 miles are even interested in Lincoln cent errors.

As I post the pics later on, if anyone is interested in purchasing any or all of these pieces, PM me.

Jim

[diamond]

Welcome to the CONECA Forum, Jim.

[AKexpat]

I believe this to be a very late stage capped-die strike, struck when the very thin partial cap shifted toward the 12 o'clock position. The cap also appears to have a strike clip from earlier in its life, either from a blank planchet or a struck coin.

Jim

[AKexpat]

A mid-stage counterbrockage identified mainly by the "RTY" and secondly by Lincoln's enlarged/spread ear and nose. Curiously there is no trace of the first digit "1" for the date. (It is a 1973: large "FG" designer initials on the reverse.)

Jim

[AKexpat]

I'm not 100% sure of this one. I believe it to be a late-stage capped-die strike with an ~35% indent caused by a blank planchet between the cap and the coin, but that does not seem to explain the high rim at the indent.

Any other ideas?

Jim

[diamond]

I believe this to be a very late stage capped-die strike, struck when the very thin partial cap shifted toward the 12 o'clock position. The cap also appears to have a strike clip from earlier in its life, either from a blank planchet or a struck coin.

Jim

You are correct that the extra set of normally-oriented incuse design elements are due to the shifting of a late-stage die cap prior to the strike that generated this coin. The concave deficit is something I've not seen before in a shifted cap strike. I doubt it represents any sort of strike clip, although I can't entirely rule out the possibility. Perhaps the cap itself started out as a cent with a curved clip.

[diamond]

A mid-stage counterbrockage identified mainly by the "RTY" and secondly by Lincoln's enlarged/spread ear and nose. Curiously there is no trace of the first digit "1" for the date. (It is a 1973: large "FG" designer initials on the reverse.)

Jim

I'd characterize it as a late-stage counterbrockage.

[diamond]

I'm not 100% sure of this one. I believe it to be a late-stage capped-die strike with an ~35% indent caused by a blank planchet between the cap and the coin, but that does not seem to explain the high rim at the indent.

Any other ideas?

Jim

I believe you are correct that an off-center planchet insinuated itself between a late-stage die cap and the planchet represented by your coin. Hence the indent. The "rim" at the outer margin of the indent is no mystery. This is a typical feature of any in-collar indent. You get development of a "wire rim" and usually some horizontal lipping as metal squeezes over the top of the collar. -- Mike Diamond

[AKexpat]

This is a capped-die strike with a base-of-bust cud. Looking through a loupe, the date appears to be either 1983 or 1988.




This is a 1988 base-of bust cud that appears smaller and very similar, but no where near an exact match. Could it be a degeneration (additional die breakage) between the two coins if the dates are the same? No apparent die scratches on either of the coins reverses.

[AKexpat]

Late-stage brockage (1973: large designer initials) with what appears to be a large die crack showing through the cap/strike starting at 11 o'clock.

Comments?

Jim

[AKexpat]

While I do not for one moment think that this is a BR, CB, or CDS, it is interesting as a struck-thru error. It appears to have been struck thru a blank planchet ("ghost" of Memorial in 2nd photo), the coin is thin and weighs only 23.5 grains with a very thin wire rim.

Q for Mr. Diamond:

If this is the case with the blank planchet causing this error, why do we not see many errors on the reverse, vis-ŕ-vis the blank planchet? I would think that it would be a die-struck obverse, probably a broadstrike or partial collar, with a "ghost" of Lincoln on the reverse.

Please comment.

[diamond]

This is a capped-die strike with a base-of-bust cud. Looking through a loupe, the date appears to be either 1983 or 1988.




This is a 1988 base-of bust cud that appears smaller and very similar, but no where near an exact match. Could it be a degeneration (additional die breakage) between the two coins if the dates are the same? No apparent die scratches on either of the coins reverses.

Because of the distortion created by the die cap, I have no way to determine whether this is the same cud.

[diamond]

Late-stage brockage (1973: large designer initials) with what appears to be a large die crack showing through the cap/strike starting at 11 o'clock.

Comments?

Jim

While I suppose it could be a die crack, other die cracks I've seen struck through late-stage die caps have been much more sharply defined. I'll have to be non-committal as to the cause of this faint ridge.

[diamond]

While I do not for one moment think that this is a BR, CB, or CDS, it is interesting as a struck-thru error. It appears to have been struck thru a blank planchet ("ghost" of Memorial in 2nd photo), the coin is thin and weighs only 23.5 grains with a very thin wire rim.

Q for Mr. Diamond:

If this is the case with the blank planchet causing this error, why do we not see many errors on the reverse, vis-ŕ-vis the blank planchet? I would think that it would be a die-struck obverse, probably a broadstrike or partial collar, with a "ghost" of Lincoln on the reverse.

Please comment.

Assuming the reverse shows a normal die-struck design, this would be an in-collar uniface strike (full indent) on a split or rolled-thin planchet.

I enjoy your posts, but please start a new thread for each coin. Thanks.

[AKexpat]

I believe these are struck-thru cap fragments. I have no proof other than observation.

The first is a capped-die strike with a struck cap fragment.




The second one is a normal strike with a struck cap fragment.