Search Results for: center

Upset Mill

Before a blank can be considered ready for coining, it must pass through an upset mill. Here the blank is squeezed to a
smaller diameter and is simultaneously provided with a low proto-rim at the outer margin of each face. In this way a blank becomes a planchet.

The upset mill consists of a rotating drum and a fixed half-ring. Each element has a series of V-shaped grooves cut into it. The blank is fed into a facing pair of grooves and is propelled (rolled along) by the rotation of the drum. The distance between the deepest parts of the facing grooves shrinks as the blank moves along the half-ring. This gradually squeezes the blank to the diameter of a planchet.

Above is a picture of an upset mill. This photo is courtesy of Rich Schemmer

US Coins With 12 Stars

Part I. Design Subtypes:

Conceptual Design Flaws:

1828 Half Cent & 1832 Half Eagle with 12 Stars

Definition: Design execution errors are primarily restricted to early 19th century coins, where much of the peripheral design was punched-in or engraved into each working die. These are errors in translating the intended design to the working die.

Design execution errors are different from conceptual design flaws. The latter affect the master hub or the master die.

Design execution errors tend to escape casual inspection, while “blundered dies” are usually quite obvious.

Only 12 stars were punched into a working die used to strike 1828 half cents. (image on left). Other half cent dies had the usual 13 stars (image on right).

Images courtesy of Heritage Auctions.

12 stars 13 stars

The same mistake can be found in the 1832 Half Eagle ($5.00) gold. One working die ended up with only 12 stars. A coin struck by the poorly-executed die is shown below, on the left. A normal coin is shown on the right.

Images courtesy of Heritage Auctions.

12 Stars 13 Stars

The Mysterious 1960 Small Date Lincoln Cent

The
Mysterious 1960 Small Date Lincoln Cent

By BJ Neff, NLG

It was a pleasant surprise to have
read the 20 November, 2006 edition of Coin World and found that Eric von Klinger had written in his “Collectors’
Clearinghouse” column about my earlier work concerning the 1960 small date
Lincoln cents. Even at that time, I had felt that there was something a bit mysterious about the less than one year change to the obverse die and the Mint’s reasoning why the 1960 small date of the Lincoln cent was discontinued.

In 2006, I had established that the 1960 small date Lincoln cent master
die was the first to be made, strengthening LIBERTY and IN GOD WE TRUST from
what was on the 1959 Lincoln cent obverse master die. The discontinuation
of the small date, according to the U.S. Mint, was a problem that arose with
the working dies chipping out in the smaller 0 digit of the date. To correct
this problem, the 0 digit was enlarged along with the 6 and 9 digits for
balance in the larger date 1960 cent. On the surface, this did sound like a
plausible explanation.

We
now move forward to the year 2010 and the conception of MADdieclashes.com. This
site, which deals with the odd and unusual die clashes, was Mike
Diamond’s brain child but was built with equal contributions
from Jason Cuvelier, Bob Piazza, and myself. This is
where the second part of the story concerning the 1960 small date Lincoln cent
began.

One
of the rarer types of die clash is the tilted die clash (vertically misaligned
die clash). This is where one or both dies are tilted relative to the
horizontal plane so that when the dies do meet, only peripheral design elements
are clashed into the other die’s field near the rim. We must remember that the
working dies are convex shaped, so an appreciable tilt must be present to
produce such a die clash. Imagine the action of the hammer die hitting a
planchet with a full transfer of its design onto that planchet. Then
imagine that same die tilted to such a degree that, in the absence of a
planchet, it transfers only a small amount of its design into a small area.
With this mental picture, it’s easy to understand why the tilted die clash is
very rare.

Vertical Misaligned
Die Clash (Conventional Type) is the
definition we use on MADdieclashes.com to define a tilted die clash. If you
look at the entries for this particular die clash type, you will find that
there are over 100 assorted clashes under this heading. That doesn’t sound so
rare, does it? However, if they are all found on just one denomination for just
one year, that does make it a bit more interesting. Now add to the fact that mostly
all the tilted die clashes have been found on the 1960 and 1960D small date
Lincoln cents makes this story into a mystery. It would seem that, the 1960
small date Lincoln cent does indeed have an untold story.

      We should first look into the unusual
tilted die clashes found on the small date 1960 Lincoln cents. The first set of
clash marks (obverse and reverse) consists of the partial letters of ONE CENT
found protruding from Lincoln’s head.  Specifically, these clash
marks consist of the NE of ONE and the C of CENT.  On the reverse
die, a line from the top of Lincoln’s profile passes through the word ONE and
the C of CENT.

Working
clockwise, the second set of clash marks can be seen around the date and the
mint mark in this 1960-D cent. On the obverse face, a clash line
from the bottom of the letters in AMERICA can be seen from the bottom of the 6,
extending through the mint mark, and finally on to the lower portion of
Lincoln’s bust. On the reverse face, the mint mark can be clearly seen clashed
into the bottom of the ME of AMERICA. The jacket clash line as well as the
jacket fold can be seen cutting across the bottoms of the letters AM of
AMERICA.

The
third set of clash marks are the result of STATES being clashed into the area
below the bottom of Lincoln’s bust. On the obverse face, a partial
D from UNITED, plus partial letters from the word STATES can be seen clashed
into the area below Lincoln’s bust. The reverse face shows the lower line of
Lincoln’s bust clashed through the word STATES and into the D of UNITED. In
other specimens with a similar clash, the lower back of Lincoln can be seen
clashed into the D of UNITED and into the roof / cornice of the Memorial
building.

There are two less commonly seen die clashes that should be mentioned as
well. The first is caused by the roof of the Memorial building being clashed
onto the obverse die in the area of the date. It is seen as a rather short
bar protruding from the front of Lincoln’s jacket and at times it does extend
into the first digit of the date.

The other die clash pattern is created by the lower
back of Lincoln’s bust as it passes through either the D or E of UNITED. There
are just a few of these dies that show the partial letter D on the obverse die
and only one instance where the jacket line can be seen in bay 3 of the
Memorial building.

The other die clash pattern is created by the lower back of Lincoln’s bust as
it passes through either the D or E of UNITED. There are just a few of these
dies that show the partial letter D on the obverse die and only one instance
where the jacket line can be seen in bay 3 of the Memorial building.

It
is peculiar that having examined over 9000 small date 1960 Lincoln cents
from both mints, that only a few had the commonly seen die clash of the Lincoln cents. Mostly all
the die clashes are located well away from the center on both die faces. For those
of you who are not familiar with the common Lincoln cent die clash, please
refer to the picture below.

Now
that we have a concept of what is occurring with the die clashes, let us take
a look at a few more odd facts. Pick up any small date 1960 Lincoln cents and
the one feature that will be noted is the abundant die scratches, especially
in the areas where the clash marks can be frequently found. Presently, we
have listed 35 separate dies on MADdieclashes.com that have had clash events,
some having evidence of more than one clash event affecting that single die.
I have approximately 15 more dies to be added to the site on my desk, and I
am still searching rolls of 1960 small dates. If we look at the Memorial
Lincoln cent series, beginning with its start in the year 1959 and during any
of the next ten years, we will not find a single year with that many
different die clashes. Even in the early 1980’s, with the large amount of die
clashes found during that period that amount pales in comparison to what was
found on the 1960 small date

Another odd fact is that you can find coins struck with conflicting dies. A
conflicting die is one that will show clash marks from the opposing die,
while the opposing die is free of them. For example, a coin will have the
partial letters of STATES clashed under Lincoln’s bust on the obverse die but
does not show the corresponding clash mark of the lower bust line through the
word STATES. This can be explained by the removal of one or both dies after a
clash event, subsequent abrasion to remove the clash marks and then a failure
to put both back into service as a mated pair.

The
current practice of the U. S. Mint seems to involve replacing the obverse die
after anything more than minor clash, while abrading the reverse die. But
there is no period of time where both the obverse and reverse dies were
heavily abraded and kept in service.

The
next step is to go back and revisit the stories from the U. S. Mint
concerning the small date 1960 Lincoln cents. When the small date was first
noticed by coin collectors, the mint director, W. H. Brett, denied that any
changes had taken place. It was later that the Mint corrected that statement
and admitted that both a small date and large date 1960 Lincoln cent were in
circulation. As I had mentioned in the beginning of this article, the Mint
stated that the change was necessary to correct a problem with the small 0 in
the date chipping out. The 0 in the date was made larger, along with the 6
and 9 digit to balance the proportions of all the digits. In his 2006
column, Eric von Klinger had mentioned that I believed that
the 9 digit was actually an inverted 6 digit which was punched into the
master die. Since that time we have found that the digits in the date were
actually engraved into the master die and not applied through a punch.

After looking at the 9000+ small date cents from the year 1960, I
found none with a chipped out 0 digits — the supposed problem that ceased
its production! Yes, there were a few dies with chipped out 6 digits and more
dies with chipping in the R of LIBERTY. However, that is not the area that
the Mint had stated was the problem. So, exactly what was the malfunction
with the 1960 small date Lincoln cent?

While
we will never know exactly what did happen at the U. S. Mint  to
make it  abandon the use of the small date on the 1960 Lincoln
cent, but let us look at what we do know. The 1960 small date cent master die
was made sometime in 1959, from which was then made the various working hubs
and working dies. After the working dies were completed, the Denver mint mark
was applied to the allotted amount for service to that mint. The production
began in the beginning of the year with the Denver mint making the first of
that year’s Lincoln cent a coin press. There are two  obvious facts
that the small date Lincoln cent was odd; first, the location of the die
clash marks seen where they had never been seen before and the frequency of
the die clashes that did occur on the small date cents.

Let’s
examine the first fact. With the majority of the die clash events being the
tilted die clash variety (the reason I say majority is that I am sure one or
two will be found with a die clash marks found in the center of the die), the
hammer die may have had a different mounting system in the coin press than
seen in previous years. This tilting of the hammer die could have been a
designed feature to lessen the impact of the dies when they did clash, which
in turn would reduce the number of the obverse dies discarded after a
clash. Alternatively, it may have been just an unusual effect of
the way the hammer die was mounted in the coin press.

The
second fact points to a problem in the planchet delivery system. With the
extremely large number of clash die events occurring with the small date Lincoln
cent, it did indicate there was a problem. With each clash event, the coin
press would have to be stopped, the dies examined for damage and then either
replaced or abraded to remove the clash marks. Exactly why this problem did
occur cannot be pinpointed. However, this problem may have doomed the small
date Lincoln cent. But why make another complete set of new working dies from
scratch?

We
know that the large date and small date working hubs for 1960 were the same
physical shape. This is evident in the four working dies (3 proof dies and
one Denver mint die) that were hubbed with both a small and large working
hubs (Class III doubled dies). After the master die had completed the working
hubs and the working hubs the working dies of the small date 1960 Lincoln
cent, it may have been deemed that the master die and working hubs were too
worn to produce working dies. This would necessitate the making of a new
master die, working hubs and working dies. But why switch to the large date
version of the Lincoln cent in that same year, which duplicated the work that
had previously been accomplished on the small date Lincoln cent? Was there
some other factor that made the small date Lincoln cent uniquely different
that the previously manufactured working dies for that version of the Lincoln
cent were unusable? Again, we can only guess what that difference may have
been, but surely it was not because the digits in the date were chipping out
as the mint stated.

Another
odd phenomenon has been observed in connection with both versions of the 1960
Lincoln cent. In the making of the master die for the year, the previous
year’s master hub (or a preceding year’s master hub) was employed to make
that new master die by abrading the last two digits (in some cases the last
three digits) of the date from that master hub. The new master die was made
and the last two digits were engraved into the newly formed die.

However, it appears
that the small date 1960 master die was made from a previous year’s master
hub that had all design elements removed except for Lincoln’s bust. This is
also true for the large date 1960 Lincoln cent as well. If we compare the
word LIBERTY in a 1959 cent to the same word in both the 1960 small date
and large date cent, we can see obvious differences in the lettering.
Look at the picture to the right and while the word LIBERTY does appear to be
the same in all three examples, closer scrutiny reveals a difference in just
about all the letters.

We can also see similar differences
in the motto IN GOD WE TRUST pictured below from the two dates and the large
and small date 1960 cent.

Why did the mint
go to the extra effort of making a new master die without LIBERTY and IN GOD WE
TRUST only to have those two design elements reengraved into that new master die?
We can see that the motto had not yet migrated to the edge of the die for the
positioning of LIBERTY and IN GOD WE TRUST appear the same for 1959, 1960 small
date and 1960 large date. It has been noted by both James Wiles and me that the
1960 large date master hub was used without change up until the year of change
in 1969. In 1968, the master hub from its continuous use to make master dies
had spread Lincoln’s bust outward to a point that the motto had merged with the
rim. But that does not explain the mint’s actions in 1960 and still leaves us
wanting a better understanding of just what went on at the mint in that year.
Could this have been a situation similar to what the mint experienced with the
web note [1]?

We
now have a somewhat clearer picture of what may have happened in 1960 to the
Lincoln cent. Of course this information is all based on conjecture. Would the
Mint tell the real story? I am not too sure that they would since they did not
readily admit to the small date / large date change at the time, and then they
provided some misinformation concerning the reason for that change.

So,
the next time that you are searching those small date Lincoln cent rolls from
the Denver mint looking for RPM’s, also look for those unique die clashes. You
may be presently surprised at what you can find.

[1] The
web note was printed on a high speed printing press that did not live up to the
expectations of the Mint. The one dollar bill was the only limited note printed
on this press type.

Thick Plating

Part V: Planchet Errors:

Plating Errors:

Thick plating

The existence of this 2007-D cent raises an immediate question. There are several heavy zinc cents known (both business strikes and proofs) with one weighing in at 3.5 grams. It has always been assumed that these were struck on rolled-thick planchets that were normally plated. Now we have a second possibility – that they were struck on normal zinc planchets that received an unusually heavy layer of copper. Unless such a coin is struck out of collar, it’s unlikely the heavy plating will be detected. Inside the collar, the heavy copper plating is not subjected to the same tensile forces as a broadstrike, so it’s conceivable that the plating would not crack.

2007-D Lincoln cent which fortunately suffered a close double strike in conjunction with a major broadstrike. This error weighs a hefty 2.98 grams, far exceeding the normal weight of a zinc cent of 2.5 grams. The thick plating shows reduced ductility and increased brittleness. It cracked and split open along the edge from the 3:00 to 8:30 clock position.

Coin courtesy Fred Weinberg

Thinning And Loss Of Design Elements

PART IV. Die Errors:

Die Damage:

Intentional Die Abrasion:

Thinning and Loss of Design Elements

Definition: The die has been abraded to a point where there is a thinning or loss of some design elements.

The image below shows the loss of low-lying features of Lincoln’s bust on a 1972-D cent. This is caused by over abrading the die.

The image to the left shows a 1984-P Jefferson nickel with thinning of numerals 8 and 4 and almost complete removal of the P-mintmark from over-abrading of the die.

The “Two Feather variety of Indian head nickel was created by abrading the die. The small portion of the third feather, which is seen to the right of the large feather and behind the neck, was lost during the removal of a clash marks. The image to the left (1916 Indian head nickel) shows the “Two Feather” variety, while the image to the right (1918 Indian head nickel) shows the normal 2½ feathers.

Images courtesy of Heritage Auctions.

The 3½-legged 1936-D Indian head nickel and the 3-legged 1937-D Indian head nickel both were created by die abrasion. The top image below shows the 3½-legged 1936-D Indian head nickel, while the lower image shows the 3-legged 1937D Indian head nickel.

Images courtesy of Heritage Auctions.

Tilted Mintmark

PART II. Die Varieties:

Tilted Mintmark

Definition: This die variety would be more accurately termed a “tilted mintmark punch”. If a hand-held mintmark punch is not perfectly vertical, the letter will be punched into the die face at an angle. The result is a letter that is strong on one side and weak or absent on the other. The portion of the letter struck by the elevated side of the punch will also be thinner than normal. Most tilted mintmarks were corrected by a second punch and are therefore repunched mintmarks as well.

The S-mintmark on this 1950-S cent is strong at the top but fades out at the bottom. It may be the result of a tilted mintmark punch. It’s often difficult to distinguish between the effects of a tilted mintmark punch and the effects of uneven, intentional die abrasion. The latter can also result in a letter that thins out and fades out on one side.

This 1987-D cent has a repunched mintmark that is listed by coppercoins.com as 1987D-1MM-003. Both times the letter punch was driven in at an angle. The partial mintmark on the left side fades out toward the right, while the partial mintmark on the right side fades out toward the left. Together they make for a respectable composite letter. Photo courtesy of Charles Daughtrey and Coppercoins.com.

Totally Separated Mintmarks

PART II. Die Varieties:

Repunched Mintmarks:

Totally Separated Mintmarks

Definition: This entry is rather self-explanatory. In this rare form of repunched mintmark variety, two mintmarks representing the same letter are so offset from each other that they do not overlap. They are still relatively close to each other, though. When one of the mintmarks is very distant from the other and is well outside the normal zone in which mintmarks are punched, we call this a misplaced mintmark. A few examples of the latter are known, including a Lincoln cent in which an extra D-mintmark is seen protruding from the front of Lincoln’s coat.

A somewhat related die variety is the “dual mintmark”. Here two mintmarks representing two different letters are punched in so that they do not overlap. The controversial dual mintmark variety, Lincoln cent 1956-D & S no.1, belongs to this category and can be found HERE.

The two 1956-D Lincoln cents shown above have totally separated mintmarks. The image to the left shows a faint D mintmark south of the main mintmark. The image to the right shows a faint D mintmark in the tail of the 9.

Trails

PART IV. Die Errors:

Defects Related to Die Polishing:

Trails and Wavy Steps

Definition:Trails or Trail Lines are raised tendrils that extend from affected design elements and gradually narrow and fade out. They reflect the presence of grooves in the die face. Trails most often extend from the corners of letters and numbers. This affect can be seen on all modern U. S. Coins (as early as 1921) as well as foreign coins.

Trails are generated by clumsy die polishing. Wavy steps are a form of trails.

Trails are produced when a rotary polishing or buffing tool is applied to the die face. Felt fibers or soft bristles are gathered together within the die’s recesses and further concentrated at the corners of design elements. The spinning fibers erode a gully into the field portion of the die face.

In the July 17, 2017 issue of Coin World, Will Brooks and photographer Ray Parkhurst provided multiple lines of evidence in support of the die polishing theory. Later, Sean Moffat experimentally reproduced trails by taking a finished die and applying a fine diamond grit to the die face. A rotating polishing tool swirled the grit around for 20-30 seconds. When the grit was cleaned off, a faint set of trails was exposed. The experiment was filmed and can be seen at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw4Q1NCUjY_aeUFsNUtSMlpLdU0/view.

For more information concerning this anomaly type, visit this site: click HERE

The images below show trail lines affecting E . PLURIBUS . UNUM . on the reverse of two different Lincoln cents.

1999P-1DER-033T

1994P-1DER-023T

The two images below, show trail lines affecting Washington quarters. The image to the left is an obverse die on a California statehood quarter with trails from the words UNITED STATES. The image to the left is on the reverse die of a Wyoming statehood quarter with trails affecting the words THE EQUALITY STATE.

2005P(CA)-25DEO-001T

2007D(WY)-25DER-001T

Transitional Reverse 1939 Jeff W 1938 1940

Part III. Die Installation Errors:

Transitional Reverse (Minor temporal mismatches):

1938 Jefferson nickel with reverse of 1938 or 1940

Definition: Subtle differences in design details can differentiate
dies used in different years. Whether accidental or purposeful, obverse
dies are sometimes mated with a reverse die meant for a previous or subsequent
year. These are often called “transitional reverses”. Well-known
examples include 1992(P) and 1992-D Lincoln cent obverses mated to a 1993
reverse.

Shown below is the reverse style found in 1938
nickels (left) and the reverse style found in 1940 nickels
(right). The reverse of 1938 is often designated “Type 1” and
shows poorly-defined stairs that are somewhat uneven. The reverse of 1940
is often designated “Type 2” and shows better-defined stairs with straight
sides.

Nickels carrying the date 1939 can show either
reverse.

Transitional Reverse 1964 D Quarter

Part III. Die Installation Errors:

Transitional Reverse (Minor temporal mismatches):

1964-D quarter with reverse of 1965

Definition: Subtle differences in design details can differentiate dies used in different years. Whether accidental or purposeful, obverse dies are sometimes mated with a reverse die meant for a previous or subsequent year. These are often called “transitional reverses”. Well-known examples include 1992(P) and 1992-D Lincoln cent obverses mated to a 1993 reverse.

Shown below are the three reverse styles found among 1964-D quarters: Type A (normal), Type B (meant for proof dies), and Type C (meant for use in 1965). Type C is the only transitional reverse. Types A and B are included for reference purposes, as they represent a different type of die swap.