2000/00 1C- Dbl Strk-BrdStrk-w/Obv Indent

[1sgret]

This is a 2000 Lincoln Cent with multiple errors and not all are listed on the Tag. It has been graded as MS-66 Red.

This coin is Double Struck/Broadstruck/with Obverse Indent and Clashed Dies. It has minimal rotation between the double strikes and the date actually shows as 200000.:tinysmile_hmm_t:

There is alot of detail that shows on this error coin on both the reverse and obverse including lots of zinc showing on the reverse and a starting of a split planchet. It is to bad that it is not a "WIDE A M":( Reverse.

[dvn]

Very nice multiple error type.

I have a 2000 cent broadstruck with Wide AM reverse ANACS MS-65/Red.

[1sgret]

Very nice multiple error type.

I have a 2000 cent broadstruck with Wide AM reverse ANACS MS-65/Red.

Thanks Billy for the nice comment.
Here is another one with a "Wide A M" out of my albums. It must be close to the mate of your BS. I collect these wrong reverses.

http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/album.php?albumid=116&pictureid=970

[dvn]

That's a super nice one!! Congrats!

Below is the one I have. Not as large but still broadstruck and it's the Wide AM reverse. Edited to add: I also wanted to add that I have seen a few examples of the 1999 cent broadstruck with Wide AM reverse. However, at least speaking only for me, I have not seen any 1998 cent broadstruck with Wide AM reverse. I sure there are probably some out there but I have never seen one.

The next one is nothing major but I still think it's a nice example of the error type. Missing Cu plating layer but still has just a little Cu left showing which gives a nice comparison.

Bottom one is a coin I received from pocket change at a Hess station. I remember looking at the coin and it looked strange to me. I took another cent and flipped it the same way side-by-side with the 1994 and bingo, I noticed it had rotated dies error. I did a lot of study on the 1994 cent rotated dies error and after extensive examinations with other collectors examples I found the exact same die markers but with different degrees of rotation. This proved that the culprit die was loose in the press and freely rotating during the heavy vibration of striking coinage.

I even examined one 1994 cent with the exact same die markers and it was not rotated but perfect normal alignment. This also proves that it may not be the reverse die is the one loose. It could very well be that it is the obverse die that is loose and is freely rotating. That why the correct term for these is "rotated dies" mint error even though some collectors refer to them as rotated reverse errors which actually is incorrect terminology.

http://www.dvnmagazine.com/2000anacs.jpghttp://www.dvnmagazine.com/1993pcgs.jpghttp://www.dvnmagazine.com/1994ngc.jpg

[1sgret]

Now that is Kool Billy. If you ever decide to part with the 2000 BS with the wrong reverse let me know.:tinysmile_hmm_t:
It would look nice in my collection.:LOL_Hair: I like the partial unplated also.

[Brad]

Cool coin Joe.

Billy, every 1994 Rotated Dies Error I have seen has been 165 degrees.

According to http://www.rotateddies.com/ the are all 165 degrees. Perhaps a new obverse die was added at the wrong rotation.

[dvn]

Cool coin Joe.

Billy, every 1994 Rotated Dies Error I have seen has been 165 degrees.

According to http://www.rotateddies.com/ the are all 165 degrees. Perhaps a new obverse die was added at the wrong rotation.

Both the obverse and reverse had the exact same die markers. That proves it's that particular die pair.

Now, of course, and I highly suspect there are other totally different die pairing on a totally different quad press and one of those dies becomes loose or rotated and therefore would be striking rotated die mint errors.

What I am saying, is the example I shown above in the NGC slab I have examined other 1994 cent die pairings with the exact same die markers (for both the obv. and rev.) with each exhibiting various degrees of rotation. That proves it's loose die, whether it's the obv or the rev, or for that matter both being the culprit dies, who knows. One would have to be there and witness it happening on the press to know which is/are the culprit die(s).

[Brad]

Gotcha. Is it possible that the loose die rotated freely, but then got stuck at 165 degrees for an extended period of time?

[dvn]

Gotcha. Is it possible that the loose die rotated freely, but then got stuck at 165 degrees for an extended period of time?

Sure it's possible. I examined one with the same markers as mine and it was rotated 90 degrees. I examined another one and it was 48 degrees, but with the same markers. It also depends on geographical areas. Some with around 165 degree will be released in a particular area while another one that was around 90 was released in a totally different geographical area. A still yet again, another one that ended up rotating back into correct (normal alignment) was released in still another different area of the U.S.

It's these things that make our hobby interesting. Die markers never, ever, tell lies. They tell the true story of a coin. Die markers proved that the 1999 1c Wide AM reverse was produced at the very end of the 1998 production year. I found a 1999 1c Wide AM reverse with the exact same die marker on another Wide AM reverse but it was mated with 1998 obverse (not 1999 obv!) This was published and illustrated in Coin World Collectors' Clearinghouse quite a while back.

[RWBILLER]

Joe:
Nice coins and good reasearch.
thx
Roger

[Brad]

I found a 1999 1c Wide AM reverse with the exact same die marker on another Wide AM reverse but it was mated with 1998 obverse (not 1999 obv!) This was published and illustrated in Coin World Collectors' Clearinghouse quite a while back.

I remember reading about that.

[fugnchill]

Ok Billy, I have to chime in on this post now that you said that geographical location can determine which degree of rotation a certain coin may have. Uh! How?

If the coins being referenced have the same die markers, this indicates that they were produced from the same dies at the same mint. Are you saying that the suspect die rotated whichever degree and produced whatever amount of the production run and the mint bagged them and sent to a certain fed bank and then the die rotated again and produced whatever amount, bagged & shipped to a different location... so on and so on?

That comment just got me thinking... I guess it just depends on how the mint bags & ships that days production.

Thanks for your input and insight,
Lestrrr

P.S. - It's great to hear from you! I had wondered what was happening with DVN. Also looking forward to your CD.

[1gtsfan]

wow you guys have some serious coins.

[dvn]

I remember reading about that.

http://www.dvnmagazine.com/1999wideamarticle.jpg

"If the coins being referenced have the same die markers, this indicates that they were produced from the same dies at the same mint. Are you saying that the suspect die rotated whichever degree and produced whatever amount of the production run and the mint bagged them and sent to a certain fed bank and then the die rotated again and produced whatever amount, bagged & shipped to a different location... so on and so on?

That comment just got me thinking... I guess it just depends on how the mint bags & ships that days production."

Yes, that is correct.

[Brad]

One of the 1999 Wide AM dies was capped at some point. Do you have any info about this Billy?

[DWK]

Thanks Billy for the nice comment.
Here is another one with a "Wide A M" out of my albums. It must be close to the mate of your BS. I collect these wrong reverses.

http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/album.php?albumid=116&pictureid=970

Hi guys. Food for thought. Since we cant tell if a rotated die is a rotated obverse or reverse, then technically speaking we might not be able to tell a "wrong reverse" from a "wrong obverse". For example, if they started using the 1999 obverse early by mistake with the wide AM reverse then it would actually be both a wrong obverse and a wrong reverse.:tinysmile_hmm_t:.

Also, a 1959 wheat cent is probably a wrong reverse, but a 1958 memorial would probably be a wrong obverse. Hmmm?

Maybe Billy could figure it out by die pairs but is a 1992D close AM a wrong reverse or a wrong obverse?

Verry interesting.

My head hurts.

Dave kearns

[Brad]

Never thought about it that way Dave.

[1sgret]

Food for thought and let the big boy's figure it out. Matter of fact they proably (one of them) have already done research on it. I'm like you guys too much for the brain!