I Don't Know Exactly What To Call This One?

Okay, before anyone does what I initially did looking over this coin, look at all the pictures closely.

When I first looked at this, I immediately thought vise job. Then I noticed the capped die details and that the proper reverse is almost pristine showing no signs of any damage or deformity. I cannot however make out a date but know it ranges from 59-82 weighing 3.1g.

I went to Error-Ref.com and looked at the capped die details which led into the brockage details and there was my coin in their graphics I even went over to my local coin dealer with this for him to look at. While he doesn't generally deal in errors, he's confident this is a mint error.

Now I'm asking those of you with expertise in this area to give me your thoughts. BTW... the orientation is 180 degrees off.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Capped die would be my guess if it is an error but I'm going with vise job.

 

Vice job. The design is backwards and incuse. POST MINT DAMAGE IMHO

 

Agreed.

 

Yes, this appears to be a brockage. The orientation of the design (backwards and incuse) is exactly correct for a brockage. I don't see any signs of yours being altered - it appears genuine from the pictures.

For those who are unfamiliar with brockages, take a look here: http://www.error-ref.com/first-strike-brockages/

http://www.error-ref.com/brockage-full/

A brockage is related to a capped die, because one is necessary to create the other. One coin sticks to the die after it is struck, and then this coin strikes the next planchet to enter the chamber. After a few strikes, the details become distorted as the OPs coin shows. The coin stuck to the die begins to expand out and makes a "bottle cap" type shape around the die, until it falls off or is removed. The coins which were struck through the capped die exhibit brockages.

 

When I first looked at it, I thought someone ruined a perfectly good capped die by doing a vise job until I saw the raised rim on what used to be the obverse. Glad I looked a little harder and didn't just go with my initial thought.

 

I'm with @physics-fan3.14 has the capped die/brockage look about it, . Nice find @Double Die

 

I agree with Brockage mint error.

 

Early stage struck through capped die. The obv die was capped.

When a coin sticks to the hammer die the first few coins struck afterward will be brockage strikes On side normal and in relief, on the other side the design will be incuse AND NORMAL IN SIZE with all details showing.

During these first few strikes the coin stuck to the hammer die is spreading, capping over the die, and the design on the face striking the planchets is enlarging and the peripheral details start spreading off the striking surface but the central features still look pretty good, but still incuse. That is the case here, the OP coin has been struck but one of these early stage capped dies. Once the coin starts spreading off the striking face I no longer refer to them as brockages but rather as capped die strikes.

In mid stages the design spreads more, becomes more vague and the features of the hidden die face start to show through.

In late stage the design that WAS on the striking face is so large and distorted it is almost gone and the "hidden" design shows fairly well.

In Very late stages the "cap" has been pounded so thin it is pretty much just a layer of foil and the coin will have one side normal and the other looking nearly normal with just some slight distortions from being struck through the "foil".

 

Definitely a brockage, IMHO. And a very neat one.

 

If I had come across one like this, I would have completely thought it was a vise job, because of the reverse image & lettering. I didn't think there was even a reverse image & lettering mint error possible.

 

Yep, Brockage.

 

Nice find.

 

Very interesting. Nice find.

 

I have some questions please:
1. When there's a brockage, both sides of the coin are of the same design, yes?
2. When coins were struck vertically, can I assume that the coin sticks mostly to the anvil die, rather than the hammer die?
3. Now that coins are struck horizontally, is it still the stationary anvil die to which a coin sticks?
Thanks.

 

I hopefully can give some answers:

1. Short answer - yes. The "brockage" will be an incuse and inverse example of the other side, as shown on the OP's coin.

Long answer: Let's think about what is actually causing the brockage.
- A planchet is struck to form a coin. Obverse and reverse have the image they should have.
- That now-struck coin, instead of being ejected from the coining chamber, instead sticks to a die.
- A new planchet enters the chamber
- As the hammer comes down to strike another coin, instead of the die making contact with the planchet, the previously struck and stuck coin makes contact with the planchet
- The previously struck coin has raised details. Let's say for argument that the facing side is the reverse (the obverse is stuck to the die). In that case, the planchet comes in and the bottom rests on the anvil die (usually the reverse.) The hammer die comes down to strike (which would normally be the obverse). However, because the previous coin stuck (the obverse side stuck to the obverse hammer die), now the "face" of the "hammer die" is actually the bottom of the previous coin - the reverse.
- When the hammer die comes down, the reverse of the previous coin is now the "die" on the "obverse" of this next planchet.

2. For this reason, a brockage will *always* be an incuse, mirror image of the other side. Most of the time, the obverse is the hammer die - and we know this because almost always, the planchet will stick to the hammer die, not the anvil die.

The planchets stick to the hammer die simply due to the way the machine works. The anvil die moves very little, and the feeder fingers serve to push the coin out of the coining chamber. Any planchet stuck to a hammer die would be mangled quickly. However, coins are much more likely to "cup" around a hammer die.

Think about taking a literal hammer and hitting a softer piece of material. There will be a compression where the strike occurs, and the rest of the material will bend up around the hammer. This is exactly what's happening in the case of the capped die and brockage we're talking about.

3. The horizontal vs. vertical aspect really doesn't change anything in this discussion. There is still a hammer (usually the obverse) and there is still an anvil (usually the reverse). The advantage of a horizontal alignment is that gravity will drop the struck coin out of the coining chamber instead of needing a mechanical feeder finger to do the job. Because of this, there are less mechanical malfunctions of the type which lead to die caps and brockages - making these sorts of errors less common on modern coins. These presses work lightning fast, striking hundreds of coins a minute. As far as I know, these presses started coming online in Philly in the early 2010's. I don't know about the other mints.

 

Appreciate the very thorough explanations. Thank you!

 

After re-reading your explanations (thanks again), I've got another question on terminology/definition.
A. A "Capped Die" is the term given to the die when a struck coin is stuck to it.
B. A "Brockage" is the term for the resulting effect on subsequent struck coins.

Is that correct?

Are you the author of The Art and Sciernce of Grading Coins? Thank you.

 

Correct, and the coin that is stuck to the die is called a die cap.

Either die can become capped but in the case of the anvil die the cap doesn't really spread (the collar restrains it) the exposed design just gets beaten to mush over time.