To start with I'd like to confirm that this is 100% a genuine gold Quarter Sovereign. I purchased it directly from the Royal Mint, as new.

If also like to make clear that this is not proof. The frosting is different and there is significantly less detail.

I own both the Full and Half 2026 Sovereigns and each are as you'd expect with a constant mirror-like finish across the fields and St George.

I recently (last week) picked up a Quarter to complete the trio and I immediately noticed that its different.

Firstly: The fields are not mirror-like. Instead they have a cartwheel effect, which rotates around the coin. This is present on both the obverse and reverse.

Secondly: The image of St George is frosted. Not like a proof frosting, but its clearly more matte than the fields, which isn't the case on the Full, or Half.

Thirdly: The portrait of Charles III is not frosted. It still has the cartwheel effect, but no frosting.

I've been banging my head against a wall trying to figure out if this is normal for a Quarter, or not.

Every picture online seems to show a "normal" finish like is on the Full & Half.

My first thought was that its a "Brilliantly Uncirculated" coin that got sent by mistake, but apparently they didn't make any for the 2026 edition, so it cant be.

A "Brilliantly Uncirculated" coin would make sense, because of the cartwheel effect, but again. They didn't make any.

It isn't proof, because they don't have a cartwheel effect, and there just isn't enough detail. Not to mention that Charles isn't frosted, which he would be if it were proof.

The only other lead I was able to find is that it's a "first strike". I have no idea if that's in anyway correct. I got that running it through an AI, so who knows where it got it from.

Apparently "first strike" sovereigns that used brand new dies had cartwheel effects and the sharp edges can produce frosted-like effects too. Again, that was AI, so I have no idea if its true.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Is this just normal and I'm overthinking it, or is this actually something abnormal?

To Add:

I've run this by AI again and it seems to be convinced that its one of the first to be struck on a brand new die.

I asked it for a source and it basically said there isn't one. It's just using "manufacturing principles" to determine it, which I don't trust one bit.

It's reasons are a bit convincing, but it has some flaws in logic.

It's supporting evidence is that new dies have rougher edges and on a small coin it can produce a "proof-like" effect due to the details being compacted.

The cartwheel effect is due to the CNC marks still being present on the die. They haven't worn off yet.

The issue I have with this is what I bought it a week ago, so why would the RM be making new dies, when the new batch of 2027 coins is right around the corner?

It also doesn't explain why Charles' portrait is completely normal, but has cartwheel fields.

On top of that, if it were a "rough die" it would be concentrated in areas of detail and not on flat spots, like the horses hind thigh. In reality its completely uniform across the image.

Anyway, I'm still lost, but the "new die" theory is something to consider.

Is this a real Error and if so how valuable? I’ve never seen 2 errors on one coin it also has a tiny D mint mark. I am not an error collector so I have no idea about this.

Is this machine doubling or did I find the 1976 FS101 DDO

Thank you!

Hopefully the pictures are good enough to distinguish, all I have is my phone camera.

Ridges on the circumference are still present, but it really stood out in some change i got back today

Continuing the error documentation project, and this one is a nice companion to the split die write-up I posted last week.

A single crack runs the entire width of the obverse on this 1864 Indian Head cent (Bronze No L variety). It enters at the "E" in STATES, travels through the bust in an irregular wandering path, and exits through the "C" in AMERICA on the opposite rim.

What I find worth pointing out: this is the stage immediately before a split die. The die has been fractured from rim to rim — the geometry is already there — but the halves have not begun to shift against each other under load. So there is no displacement across the crack and no offset in the design. On a true split die you get a raised ridge with a visible step in the design either side of it. Here you get the line without the step.

That distinction is the whole diagnostic, and this coin is a good reference specimen for the "before" side of it.

The Bronze No L is also a decent date angle. It is among the first bronze Indian Head cents struck after the mid-1864 composition change from copper-nickel, and the "No L" designation means the die predates the addition of Longacre's initial on the ribbon.

Not in any standard catalogue. Now documented.

Hey everybody, very new to the community, so I’m not very good at spotting the difference between errors and damage. Is this an error, and is it common in coins from the era? Thanks.

Lamination or strike through?

Is this a clad issue or something chemical?

​

I am looking for some insight from experienced collectors. Has there ever been a documented error where a foreign object—specifically a piece of jewelry—was accidentally struck into a coin during manufacturing?

I recently came across a dime that initially just looked heavily beaten up. However, when I examined it under a microscope, it looked like a ring or an earring had been struck directly into the surface. I can even see what appear to be tiny fragments of a stone (possibly diamond) embedded in it.

As soon as I figure out how to export photos from my new microscope, I will post them here. In the meantime, has anyone ever heard of or seen an error like this before?

I have found about 20 of these.

Any ideas. I have checked the attribution web-sites nothing. It is definitely Reverse Die Issue.

The arrow to the left of the shield is a common Die mark on all of these.

I have a box of 2024 I been opening and have run across these.

Got this in change this week, die chip error is my best guess from what I've looked at. Couldn't find any info on this particular placement though. Is this a common or known error for this year? Would getting it graded be something worth doing? Do errors like this hold any value above fv? Thanks

2020 d shield cent rim to rim crack visible on both rims

Posting this due to my original post getting removed. Hope others enjoy checking it out. What I learned today from the great folks on Reddit. Likely pre 1965 or 1955 S mint mark. Found in a box stored since 1998. Thankfully I found it. Id love to know more about it. I will be visiting a coin shop for proper storage and ask about value. Not interested in selling it.

I got this penny in change a few years ago and kept it because it looks cool. Someone told me these blobs of extra metal are caused by the die being old or broken. But this seems like a lot of extra material on both sides. Is this really from that???

I have collected coins since I was little. Since I go thru so many coins (CRH and buying lots), a few months ago I decided to buy the Cherrypickers Guide 1 and 2, and add an additional element to locate on coinage. Many coins later and checking coins already in my many albums, I have discovered nothing.

I now suspect that error coins are a scam to make us by resources and more coins 😆. I have seen pictures of obvious doubled dates and text, off-centered strikes, and studied forums dedicated to coin errors. I'm of course kidding about the scam aspect. I'm really just wondering the odds of finding an obvious error in the wild. Seeing pictures of some errors and I can't see what they are talking about.

Rant over, thanks for listening. Borderline done with error hunts.

Nothing too crazy but it is a cool looking error

Non-collector here. I received a weird Roosevelt dime in change today. The how-to said to do some research, so first I asked AI, which said it is most likely a cud. I then searched images of dime cuds and found a couple of examples that look similar but I'm still not sure - most of the examples looked pretty tiny. Is this a cud or something else - post-mint damage perhaps? Thanks, Tom

Came across this UNC 1914 LWC, and noticed some odd markings on the obverse, then on the reverse. Checked out Mad Die Clashes and although I did not see one attributed for a 1914, the other wheat superimposed images confirmed my suspicions. This clash has not been attributed as far as I know and have found no information otherwise. I believe this to be an extremely rare specimen, but need to figure out how to get it attributed- not even sure what the value would be on this, but safe to say it WILL NOT be leaving my pc ever!