Assisted
and intentional errors are not always obvious
By Mike Diamond-Special
to Coin World | Nov. 05, 2011
10:00 a.m.
Article first published in 2011-11-14,
Expert Advice section of Coin
World
This Canadian 1977 5-cent coin was
overstruck by 1978 cent dies. There is no question that this is an intentional
error.
Images by Mike Diamond.
Contrary
to suspicions occasionally voiced by novice collectors, most minting errors are
purely accidental. But there’s no denying that some errors have gotten a human
assist somewhere along the way.
“Assisted
errors” are those that had help in either their production or their release
from the Mint (or both). Error coins created expressly for the hobby trade can
be termed “intentional errors.”
It’s
not always easy to distinguish assisted and intentional errors from those that
arise by accident. The key to discriminating between these two populations lies
in an informed assessment of pattern and process. Does the coin violate the
constraints imposed by the minting process? Is the sequence of events so
improbable as to beggar the imagination? Do relative abundance, raw abundance
and the presence of unexplained spikes of highly unusual errors point to human
intervention?
It
is generally acknowledged than any oversized or misshapen Proof coin had help
getting out of the Mint. Proof coins are only released in Proof sets sealed in
plastic. Each coin occupies a tightly-fitting hole in a common mounting plate.
A coin unable to fit into its respective hole could not have been released in a
Proof set. While some of these Proof errors may have been made-to-order, others
are probably accidental products of press malfunction. It’s the manner of their
release which marks them as assisted errors.
Some
errors impossible
Some
errors are considered impossibilities from the standpoint of normal press
function and design. A planchet or coin struck with a design intended for a
smaller denomination has traditionally been considered a “forbidden” error. An
oversized coin or planchet could not fit into the feeder tube or feeder finger
and therefore could not be fed into the striking chamber.
Illustrating
this “forbidden” error type is a 1977 Canadian 5-cent coin struck a second time
by 1978 cent dies.
I’m
not fully convinced that all such errors are impossible. After all, such an
error can be produced accidentally if press operators fail to change the feeder
assembly when switching dies from a larger to a smaller denomination. A coin
left in a hopper or conveyor from the earlier press run could then make its way
to the striking chamber unassisted.
Even
so, I’m quite confident that the Canadian coin is an intentional error. Two
different dates on an already improbable error are a bit hard to swallow. More
importantly, the year 1978 produced a bumper crop of cent designs struck on
larger planchets and coins, far too many to be accidental. I’ve heard from
several independent sources that the Royal Canadian Mint actually set up a cent
press that would strike visitors’ coins at the end of their tours of the RCM
facility.
In
1981 the Philadelphia Mint produced its own rash of similar errors. They
include a Lincoln cent struck on a 5-cent planchet, a cent design struck over
an Anthony dollar and a dime design struck over a cent die cap. In each case,
only the obverse is die-struck. All of these errors are uniface — struck
against an underlying planchet.
Sometimes
a coin is so bizarre that it is impossible to conceive of it as an accident. A
prime example is the illustrated undated dime, which was struck slightly
off-center on a burnished Proof planchet. A small circle of die-struck design
occupies the center of the reverse face. It was delivered by a
circulation-quality (“business strike”) die. The die-struck circle lies opposite
a deep pit on the obverse face. Whatever object generated this pit provided the
resistance necessary for the reverse die to leave an impression. Elsewhere on
the dime there is no trace of die contact on either face. It therefore would
seem to be a unique manifestation of an “invisible strike.”
An
invisible strike occurs when the dies are too far apart at their closest
approach to leave any design on the planchet. However, when another planchet, a
previously struck coin or a foreign object intrudes into the striking chamber,
it takes up the excess space between the dies and permits an area of die-struck
design to form opposite the respective brockage, indent or struck-through error
(see Collectors’ Clearinghouse May 3, 2010, and Sept. 20, 2010).
The
pit is bowl-shaped in cross-section and carries a peculiar knurled texture. The
right side of the pit appears to show a brockage (incuse mirror image) of the
lower of the two acorns that adorn the reverse face.
This
coin invites rampant speculation concerning its nature and origin, speculation
that is given free rein in the November/December 2006 issue of Errorscope.
Coin
World’s Collectors’
Clearinghouse department does not accept coins or other items for examination
without prior permission from News Editor William T. Gibbs. Materials sent to
Clearinghouse without prior permission will be returned unexamined. Please
address all Clearinghouse inquiries tocweditor@coinworld.com or to
800-673-8311, Ext. 172.
