Error-Ref.com

You are here: Home / Search for "die break"

Search Results for: die break

Cuds

Part IV. Die Errors:

Die Breaks:

Cuds

Definition:  A cud is a die break that involves the rim and at least a little bit of the adjacent field or design.  The vast majority of sizable die breaks are cuds.  Cuds can assume a wide variety of shapes including ovoid, crescentic, and irregular.  Most cuds represent spontaneous brittle failure.  A small minority arise as the result of impacts.

A large cud is seen on the reverse face of this 1988 cent.  The obverse face shows a featureless pucker where coin metal withdrew from the obverse die and bulged into the void in the reverse die face.

Many cuds maintain a consistent size and shape through a production run.  Some cuds grow larger through a production run as additional pieces of die steel break off.

69707299 69707301

69707303 69707308

Shown above is a three-stage cud progression in a 1982 cent.  In Stage 1, the cud is ovoid.  In subsequent stages the cud grows larger and more irregular.

69707452 69707494 69707499 69707519

Shown above is a three-stage cud progression on the reverse (1062 Flud) of an 1863 Broas Pie Baker store card token from the Civil War era.

CHIPPING




CHIPPING


Definition: A weak part of the working die breaks off. This creates a die chip which appears on the coin as a raised fault on the coin’s surface.



Circumferential Cuds

PART IV. Die Errors:

Cuds: 

Circumferential Cuds

Definition: A circumferential, or 360 degree cud, occurs when the entire perimeter of the working face of a die breaks away.  This can occur incrementally, as chunks of the die break off at different times.  A circumferential cud is thought to occur when the outside of the die neck is unusually brittle and when there is a sharp transition zone between the brittle exterior and a softer interior.

Circumferential cuds are extremely rare and are unknown among U.S. coins.  A few examples are known from other countries.

This 1918 Serbian 20 para shows a 355 degree cud

MD-6

Retained cud diagnostics sometimes leave room for

doubt

By Mike Diamond – Special to Coin World | Jan. 10, 2011 9:00 a.m.Article first published in 2011-01-24, Expert Advice section of Coin World

 

Close-up image depicts the obverse face of a 2010 Millard Fillmore dollar with a retained cud at 7:00.

Mike Diamond

Dies are subject to brittle fracture, and this occasionally leads to a piece of a die face breaking off. The general term for such errors is “die break.”

The corner of the die (where die face meets die neck) is particularly vulnerable to breakage. A die break that carries off the rim gutter and at least a little bit of the adjacent field is called a “cud.” Coin metal flows into the resulting void, leaving a lump on the coin’s surface that is also called a cud.

Occasionally, a loose fragment that breaks off the corner of a die does not fall away but is instead held in place. It is then termed a “retained cud.” In the case of the anvil die, the die fragment is held in place by the collar. In the case of the hammer die, the die fragment is held in place by the bolts or clamp that secures the die shaft. Retained cuds of the hammer die are quite rare.

Despite the frequency with which retained cuds occur, misidentification is frequent both in and out of “slabs” (grading service capsules).

In order to diagnose a retained cud, there must be clear evidence of movement. The two key diagnostics to look for are vertical displacement and horizontal offset.

Vertical displacement is more commonly encountered. A retained die fragment will usually sink below the level of the intact portion of the die face. This leaves a “step” on the surface of the coin at the site of the break. The portion of the coin struck by the retained die fragment is consequently elevated above the rest of the coin.

The illustrated 2010 Millard Fillmore dollar shows a retained cud in which the letters e tru (of we trust) sit on a low plateau. Vertical displacement is evident all around the break. It is one of two examples struck by the same broken die sent to me by Fred Weinberg. Remarkably, each example also lacks an edge inscription — a completely unrelated error since the edge device is applied after the coin is struck.

More severe vertical displacement is seen on a retained cud that bisects the obverse face of a 2001-P Roosevelt dime illustrated here. The left side of the break also shows the second diagnostic — horizontal offset. Contiguous portions of the design are out of register with each other, documenting sliding movement on the part of the loose die fragment.

The reverse face of a 1985 Lincoln cent shows a large cud in the southeast quadrant and an arcing, rim-to-rim die crack in the northwest quadrant. Also called a “pre-cud” die crack, it shows neither vertical displacement nor horizontal offset. It simply shows lateral spread. The tenuously connected portion of the die splayed outward, producing a wide crack into which coin metal flowed. This left a jagged raised line on the coin. When the crack is even wider, it is designated an asymmetrical split die.

Arcing rim-to-rim die cracks and asymmetrical split dies are often mistaken for retained cuds.

When horizontal offset or vertical displacement is present and involves the entire margin of the break, the long-standing assumption has been that the die fragment was fully detached. But this conclusion may not always be correct, especially when the signs of movement are modest. Die steel is subject to bending, compression and distortion. This can produce some degree of vertical displacement or horizontal offset even when the die is still in one piece.

Vertical displacement within an intact die can be seen on the illustrated 2007-P Roosevelt dime. It shows a long, curved bilevel die crack on the face struck by the obverse (anvil) die. A later die stage has the same crack connecting with the rim at 6:30 to form what we would ordinarily diagnose as a retained cud. But is it really?

At least seven 2007-P Roosevelt dimes with presumed retained cuds of the obverse (anvil) die are known. Are all of them fully detached? I have my doubts.

Since we can’t directly observe the condition of the die that strikes any coin with a presumed retained cud, we must admit to an element of uncertainty in all but the most severe cases.

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 to cweditor@coinworld.com or to (800) 673-8311, Ext. 172.

 

http://www.coinworld.com/articles/retained-cud-diagnostics-sometimes-leave-room/

Copyright 2012 by Amos Hobby Publishing Inc. Reposted by permission from the March 22, 2012, issue of Coin World.)

MD-8

Lump on Jefferson’s head signifies a collapsing die face

By Mike Diamond | March 26, 2011
10:00 a.m.Article
first published in 2011-04-11, Expert Advice section of Coin World

 

This 1988-P Jefferson 5-cent coin shows a sizable lump at the top of Jefferson’s head that represents a die subsidence error.

 

Image courtesy of Mike Diamond.

 

Collectors of minting errors and die varieties frequently encounter coins with one or more featureless lumps in the field or on the design. Determining the nature and origin of such lumps isn’t always easy.

 

The two 1988-P Jefferson 5-cent coins selected for this week’s column present such a diagnostic challenge. Each shows a large swelling with a smooth surface at the top of Jefferson’s head. The border of each swelling is fairly well-defined. The outlines of the two elevations are similar, but not identical.

I initially thought that the two lumps represented two stages in the growth of the same defect on the same die. One example shows modest development of die flow lines consistent with a middle-to-late die state. The second example has heavy radial flow lines consistent with a very late die state.

However, a close comparison of the outlines of the two lumps revealed differences that could not be reconciled with progressive growth. Some fingers that extend out from the main body of the lump grow smaller from the earlier to the later die state. The border is also less clear in the later die state example. There are no common die markers; instead distinctive die markers on each example show that they were struck by
different dies.

The lumps certainly weren’t interior die breaks. Although the border of each elevation was fairly well-marked, they didn’t show the clean, jagged lines of a die break.

They clearly weren’t die dents. It’s virtually unheard of for two near-identical die dents to form on two different dies (the “extra leaf” 2004-D Wisconsin quarter dollars are a notable exception). Die dents this large are exceptionally rare, and finding two of this size is highly improbable. Finally, we find emerging from each lump several narrow fingers that merge with the waves of Jefferson’s wig. A die dent would not coincide with or merge with the hair pattern.

The lumps are too large, too tall and the surfaces too smooth to represent die erosion pits. The latter sometimes form in late die states, leaving small “patches” or “blebs” on the coin’s surface. Die erosion pits are very flat, with a rough surface and highly irregular boundaries. They usually form in the field. They may be related to loss of carbon (“decarbonization”) from the surface of the die face.

These lumps clearly do not represent trapped gas bubbles (“occluded gas bubbles”). Such planchet defects tend to be quite small and the distribution pattern will be different on every coin.

The one remaining possibility was a “die subsidence” or “sunken die” error. Here portions of the die face deform and sink in as the result of defective die steel or faulty die preparation. Sometimes the design fades out or disappears completely in the affected area, an effect readily apparent on our two 5-cent coins.

Perhaps the wrong type of steel was accidentally selected and extruded into a rod from which the working dies were cut. Perhaps the steel wasn’t forged properly, producing abnormal levels of carbon in the alloy.

If the steel was of the proper type and was properly forged, then a flaw could have arisen during any number of steps in die preparation. Improper annealing, tempering and quenching can alter the crystalline structure of the steel so that localized soft spots are left just beneath the surface. These only become apparent after the die has been placed into service.

Since two different dies from the same Mint and the same year developed two nearly identical zones of collapse in the same area, this would point to a problem more widespread than a single working die. Perhaps the dies were cut from the same defective rod of die steel, or were prepared by the same technician under the same faulty conditions. Since the lump is well-developed in a die that doesn’t show particularly heavy wear, it’s
clear that this abnormality represents something other than normal die
deterioration.

Sunken die errors are highly variable in shape, size, relief and location. While usually localized, the problem can affect the entire die face. In many cases the margin of the sunken area develops cracks, and some of the best examples straddle split dies.

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.

 

 

http://www.coinworld.com/articles/lump-on-jeffersons-head-signifies-a-collapsin/

Copyright
2012 by Amos Hobby Publishing Inc. Reposted by permission from the March 22,
2012, issue of Coin World.)

 

Catastrophic Collar Failure

Part VI. Die Errors:

Collar Breaks (Collar Cuds):

Catastrophic collar failure


Definition: A collar’s brittle failure captured in time by a coin struck during the crack-up.

Since collars fail far less often than dies do, it’s no wonder that the catastrophic failure of a collar is almost never documented by a coin struck at the moment of failure.


This 1964 5-cent proof mated pair records the breakup of the collar on the second strike. A 5-cent planchet was struck normally and attached itself to the hammer die. A second planchet was fed in beneath it and the two coins were struck together within the collar. The increased effective striking pressure generated by the two stacked discs proved too much for the collar, which split apart at five points.

Deformed Collar

Part IV. Die Errors:

Deformed collar


Definition: A collar that has undergone plastic deformation. This could leave it wider than normal (a subtype of wide collar error). It could leave the collar with a sloping working face instead of a vertical working face. Reeding (if present) might be obliquely oriented instead of vertical.












A group of 1982 500 Lira coins struck by the same dies and within the same collar display a deformed collar that also rotated between strikes. A large collar chip located on the edge of the coin occupies a different position relative to the design in three representative specimens.

Although struck fully within the collar, the edge of the coin is beveled, reflecting the fact that the working face of the collar had a sloping cross-sectional profile. The intermittent reeding, which should be vertically oriented, is instead obliquely oriented.

Deformation of the collar also produced a coin that is slightly out-of-round and wider than normal. Width is about 0.8 millimeters greater than normal, while the coin’s north-south diameter is 0.5 millimeters greater than the east-west diameter.

Collar deformation this severe is rarely encountered because the collar is ordinarily harder than the dies. A collar is much more likely to break than deform. This collar did both.

Images courtesy of Cosimo Manisi, with the assistance of Andrea Del Pup.

Struck Through Floating Encrustation

Part IV. Striking Errors:

Struck-Through Errors:

Struck Through Floating Encrustation

Definition: A floating encrustation is a piece of compacted die fill or caked-on grime that enters the striking chamber and is struck into a coin.  Stiff, caked-on grime can come from the bowels of the press.  The lubricated joints and rods are a magnet for dust and dirt.  This material can stiffen over time and then break off.  Die fill (“grease”) is a compacted layer composed of lubricant, dirt, and metal dust that accumulates on the die face.  Pieces can break away to form nondescript struck-through errors.  In either case, the resulting struck-through error resembles a conventional “grease strike”.

The impression left behind by a floating encrustation can be expected to show:

  1. Soft or indistinct margins
  2. Variable depth (reflecting variable thickness of the foreign material)
  3. Variable topography (potentially smooth to rough)
  4. Occasional gaps or thin areas that allow the design to emerge.

There are only two practical ways to distinguish a floating encrustation impression from a grease strike:

  1. Assemble a progression (defined by die markers) that shows the sudden appearance of a struck-through area.
  2. Find a double-struck coin in which the first strike is unobstructed and the second strike is partly or fully obstructed.

floating_encrustation_Argentina_10c_obvfloating_encrustation_Argentina_10c_rev

This broadstruck 1994 Argentina 10 centavos shows an unobstructed first strike.  The second strike was almost fully obstructed on the reverse face by what seems to have been a floating encrustation.  The reverse face was struck by the hammer die.  First-strike elements are flattened, but retain sharp margins.  The only second-strike element to emerge is the C of CENTAVOS.  The irregular texture and indistinct margins of the struck-through area are consistent with a floating encrustation.

floating_encrustation_India_2003_1rupee_obvfloating_encrustation_India_2003_1rupee_rev

This double-struck 2003 India 1 rupee coin shows an unobstructed first strike.  The second strike was fully obstructed on the reverse face, which was struck by the anvil die.  The minimal flattening of the first-strike elements and the variable depth and topography of the impression are inconsistent with a uniface strike against another steel 1 rupee planchet.  I suspect a dollop of stiff grime entered the striking chamber and somehow found itself between the anvil die and the off-center coin on top.  The subsequent strike flattened the crud deposit into a disc-like shape.

 

Weak Strikes

PART VI. Striking Errors:

Weak (Low Pressure) Strikes

Definition: A weak strike results from two proximate causes, inadequate ram pressure or insufficient die approximation (excessive minimum die clearance). Ram pressure is the tonnage applied to a planchet of normal thickness. Insufficient die approximation refers to the minimum approach the dies make to each other in the absence of a planchet.  In many cases it is difficult or impossible to assign proximate cause.  However, when a weak strike is accompanied by another error, or a weak strike progression can be assembled, the most common proximate cause appears to be insufficient die approximation.  The dies simply don’t approach each other closely enough to leave a strong impression.

Ultimate cause is virtually impossible to determine.  A weak strike could be due to a loose or cracked press frame, a loose or broken knuckle joint, a mistimed anvil or hammer die, a broken cam associated with either die, a jam-up in the guts of the press, a jam-up associated with an adjacent die pair, a broken circuit breaker, or simply dies that have fallen out of adjustment.  A weakly struck coin could also be a test piece, otherwise known as a “die adjustment strike” or a “die trial”.  Many weak strikes are labeled as such.  But unless you were there the moment it was struck, there is no way to know.  Therefore the terms “die trial”, “die adjustment strike”, “test piece”, and “set-up piece” should be abandoned.

Most, if not all weak strikes available in the marketplace appear to be the result of spontaneous equipment malfunction.  The evidence for this is abundant and manifold.

  1. These errors are far too abundant to represent escapees from a test run.  Test strikes are supposed to be set aside and consigned to the furnace for melting.  You wouldn’t expect many coins to escape this fate.
  2. If these were test pieces, then you’d expect the greatest number of weak strikes to involve the denomination that is produced in greatest abundance – cents.  However, weak strikes occur most frequently in dimes.  That’s what you’d expect of weakness caused by spontaneous equipment malfunction.  Dies that strike thin planchets have a very narrowly constrained minimum die clearance.  If the clearance grows just a little bit, the strike will be weak.  If the clearance shrinks even slightly, the dies are likely to clash.  Thicker denominations have a much more generous clearance range.  It is among these denominations that you’d expect to find fewer weak strikes, and this is indeed the case.
  3. Weak strikes can be found in association with a wide range of errors – double strikes, triple strikes, saddle strikes, misaligned die errors, clashed dies, indents, partial brockages, full brockages, struck-through errors, etc.  Given how rare escaped test pieces are projected to be, multi-error test pieces should be as rare as unicorns.
  4. On multi-struck coins, a weak strike can immediately follow a strong strike and a strong strike can immediately follow a weak strike.  Such rapid changes in die clearance (or ram pressure) would not be expected in a test run.
  5. Weak strike progressions can move in either direction – from weak to strong or from strong to weak.  Such a progression can also show an erratic pattern of strengthening and weakening.  That’s not what you’d expect of a test run.
  6. On saddle strikes, one off-center strike can be strong and the other weak.  With respect to saddle strikes on previously-struck coins, the first strike can be weak while the two off-center strikes can be strong.  The reverse situation has also been recorded.  A weak first strike can then receive a saddle strike in which one of the off-center strikes is weak and the other is strong.  None of these patterns is consistent with a test run scenario.

Weak strikes are sometimes confused with grease strikes – coins that are struck through a heavy layer of compacted die fill.  It’s actually quite easy to tell the two errors apart.

  1. A weak strike will show a poorly developed or absent design rim.  A grease strike will show a very well-developed design rim.
  2. A weak strike will retain some, most, or all of the planchet’s original proto-rim.  The proto-rim is erased in a grease strike.
  3. A weak strike will retain the beveled rim/edge junction of the  planchet.  The bevel will be lost in a grease strike.
  4. The edge will be weakly struck and relatively narrow in a weak strike.  The edge will be tall and vertical in a grease strike.
  5. Reeding will be weak or absent in a weak strike.  Reeding will be very strong in a grease strike.
  6. In a weak strike, extent and pattern of weakness will be essentially the same on both faces.  Uneven weakness is a hallmark of most grease strikes.

The photo below shows a weakly-struck 2007 Montana quarter.  It was struck on a Schuler press, a model that doesn’t even require ram pressure and die clearance to be adjusted by means of a test run.  The design rim is fairly well formed because state quarter dies have a relatively flat die face (very little die convexity).

Shown below is a 1983-D 5-cent coin with a weak second strike delivered by a rotated (25 degrees) and misaligned (26%) hammer die.

This quarter dollar was struck three times by the same die pair. The first strike was normal while the second was 40% off-center and exceedingly weak.  The third strike was 75% off center and forcefully delivered.  This specimen also illustrates the self-correcting nature of some malfunctions responsible for weak strikes.

This 2008-P Andrew Jackson dollar coin did not receive a full strike. Insufficient ram pressure (applied tonnage) or insufficient die approximation are the culprit in this case. This error is often  erroneously called “a die adjustment strike”.

Images are courtesy of Heritage Auctions

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.