by Mike Diamond for CoinWeek…
When a coin (or other die-struck object) is struck into a blank disc of metal (planchet), the incuse, mirror-image design that is formed is known as a brockage. The most desirable brockages are unexpanded, well-centered first impressions. In most cases, a brockage will cover the coin’s entire face. When a centered, first-strike brockage fails to cover the entire face, further investigation is needed.
Broadstruck Cent with an Incomplete Brockage
This broadstruck copper-alloy cent has a full, centered, first-strike brockage of the reverse design on its obverse face. As is usually the case, a newly struck cent attached itself to the retreating hammer (obverse) die and was struck into the planchet.
These errors are often mislabeled as “die caps” by leading grading services. However, a die cap requires a minimum of two strikes, and there is no evidence that this coin was struck more than once. Furthermore, a die cap, by definition, has to strike another planchet. Had this been the case, the center of the brockage would have been rendered indistinct, grossly distorted, and expanded.
The brockage is complete, except for where the letters of UNITED STATES fade out in the upper right quadrant. This is a common effect that can be due to many causes, including:
- A simple failure of the raised design on the source coin to penetrate the receiving planchet.
- Peripheral die recesses were partly filled with “grease”.
- The source coin was struck on a tapered planchet.
- The hammer die was slightly tilted when the source coin was struck. This would have left a weak die-struck design at one pole.
- The hammer die developed a tilt after the source coin was struck. This would have reduced effective striking pressure at the die’s elevated pole.
- The hammer die was slightly misaligned when the source coin was struck. Die-struck reverse elements can exhibit weakness opposite the unstruck crescent on the obverse.
- The newly struck cent dropped off the face of the retreating hammer die before the latter developed a slight misalignment. This would have reduced the effective striking pressure in the area where the hammer die moved away from.
The reverse face of this particular Lincoln Memorial Cent reveals an unexpected source for the letters’ fadeout. At least some of the fadeout may have been caused by a deficit along the edge of the reverse (anvil) die face. The die-struck letters ED STA are abruptly cut off in an unfamiliar manner. The tops of the letters were not lost as a result of metal flow—a pattern of stretching and distortion that’s well-developed around the rest of the reverse perimeter. Instead, these letters show metal flow emerging from their truncated tops.
The missing crescent of the die-struck design most likely reflects a thin crescentic cud (corner die break), although crescentic cuds seldom show such a smooth internal margin. Another less likely candidate is a die attrition error, which occurs when the perimeter of a die is worn away by repeated contact with the collar. However, such errors are only known to happen on the hammer die and develop when a temporarily misaligned hammer die bangs repeatedly against the beveled entrance of the collar. I suppose it’s theoretically possible that, as the anvil die moved and came down on its cam, the upper left quadrant of the die neck was worn away as it rubbed against the collar’s working face.
Whatever its cause, the deficit would have led to reduced effective striking pressure and a weakly impressed brockage. The fadeout of brockaged elements makes it impossible to verify that the incuse letters ED STA are truncated in the same way as their raised counterparts.
In-Collar, First-Strike Brockage on a 5-Cent Coin
Another centered, first-strike brockage with an incomplete perimeter is found on the obverse face of a Jefferson Nickel, but its cause is entirely different. In this case, the brockage was generated by an undersized coin, specifically a “wrong planchet” error. In other words, the 5-cent design was struck on a disc intended for a smaller denomination. The term “wrong planchet” is somewhat of a misnomer, as most of these errors are struck on blanks (discs that haven’t been upset). NGC failed to recognize the unusual nature of this brockage, applying the uninformative label “obverse struck thru capped die.”
While Monticello is perfectly centered, the legend UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has been cut off. Since 5-cent coins struck on cent blanks usually carry some of this legend, the blank was almost certainly a smaller dime blank. The off-metal 5-cent coin attached itself to the retreating hammer (obverse) die and was struck into the planchet represented by the subject coin. That’s why this brockage (like most centered brockages) is aligned with the die-struck reverse design. I previously discussed this specimen in the November 28, 2022, issue of Coin World, where I mistakenly identified the source coin as a 5-cent design struck on a cent blank.
South of the coin’s impression is a thin crescent of die-struck field that runs from 4:30 to 7:30. Below that is an arc of design rim that runs from 3:15 to 6:30. A conventional in-collar first-strike brockage would show a flat rim/edge junction, while a strike from an early-stage die cap would have a gently upturned “wire rim.”
Along the northern perimeter, E PLURIBUS UNUM is vanishingly faint. Since a dime planchet is so thin, these letters may not have struck up fully. It’s also possible that the softer composition of the dime planchet (copper-nickel cladding over a pure copper core) had difficulty penetrating the harder solid copper-nickel alloy of the receiving planchet.
Other scenarios that can explain a well-centered, perfectly aligned, in-collar, first-strike brockage with an unstruck crescent at one pole include an off-center (partial) die cap, an elliptical clip, or an elliptical strike clip (Coin World, January 17, 2011).
However, these alternatives fail to explain this specific error. For example, a three-quarters complete circle of raised metal surrounds the brockage, encompassing approximately 270 degrees. The recess created by any of the other errors would form an oval instead of a circle, with the internal margin encompassing 180 degrees or less. Also, a first-strike brockage from a partial 5-cent die cap would have generated a partial collar error, a horizontal lip, or both along the coin’s edge from 10:00 to 1:30.
Early-Stage Brockage on a 5-Cent Coin
A second 5-cent coin shown here was also brockaged by an undersized 5-cent coin, although the nature of the source coin isn’t as straightforward. NGC labeled the error as an “obverse brockage,” which, while correct, overlooks the error’s most salient feature.
All of the letters of E PLURIBUS UNUM and the UN of UNITED are cut off next to a long, thin, unstruck crescent that extends clockwise from 10:30 to 4:30. This means 180 degrees have been trimmed from the brockage’s expected outer margin.
The remaining letters of UNITED and all of STATES OF AMERICA are complete. However, the letters comprising OF AMERICA fail to climb the slope leading to the coin’s wire rim, suggesting that the impression of the source coin was trimmed here as well.
The coin was struck fully within the collar, and Monticello is perfectly centered. These observations, along with the pattern of letter truncation, suggest that the brockage was generated by either a cent design struck on a 5-cent blank or a 5-cent coin struck on an elliptical clip planchet.
The presence of a wire rim along a portion of the reverse perimeter suggests that this is likely a second-strike brockage rather than a first-strike brockage.
If so, the likely scenario would begin with a cent blank or an elliptical clip 5-cent planchet being die-struck on both faces. After the strike, the error coin attached itself to the retracting hammer (obverse) die. The attached coin was then struck into a standard 5-cent planchet. The double-struck error coin (now a die cap) remained attached to the hammer die while the underlying coin was ejected. Another 5-cent planchet was fed into the striking chamber, and the next strike generated our subject coin.
Of the two possible scenarios presented, an off-metal 5-cent coin seems more likely. The brockage crawls up the wire rim at approximately 10:00 and 5:00. The widest parts of the source coin are therefore not aligned along a common long axis, as would be required of an elliptical clip impression. Furthermore, both ends of the ellipse should have pushed up a substantial wire rim, but the wire rim at 5:00 is barely perceptible.
I appreciate the detailed work that goes into classifying error coins. I’ve become a fan of errors ever since discovering my first in pocket change forty five years ago. Thank you for explaining the classification process for these little-seen errors.
About errors and varieties, there are so many that there are out there I’m a member of CONECA. Every day I’m learning something new, I’ve come across coins that I thought, okay, there’s no way this is actually what it is, and turns out after it sees the Coin Grading Services, comes back, yes, I was right! Broadstrikes, you name it, rotated dies, clipped planchets, of course, die cracks, and cuds. And my new interesting find is a one-cent coin that is thinner on one side than the other, and the weight is different too. I enjoy roll hunting and finding some that have been overlooked and are to me a treasure during the hunt over the years, and I still come across something that gives me a shock and awe moment every few months or so h. I also posted for the giveaway but this is the topic that is always interesting and intriguing you never and I do not know what I’ll come across next.
I found this article extremely interesting and educational. So much so that, as I was reading, I found myself asking more questions that I thought maybe would add to its appeal. Where and when did this take place? What are the normal procedures for inspecting strikes? How often are investigations and how long do they generally last? Do any of these error-ridden coins make it to public circulation or do they destroy/recycle them? What value is placed on these? Again, I loved this article, and my comments are intended as quizzical, not critical.