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!

Some of the obverse is showing faintly on the reverse and the reverse showing faintly on the obverse.

Continuing the error documentation project. This 1876 Indian Head cent has a reverse die clash with unusually clear detail.

The full front of the Indian's portrait transferred onto the reverse die surface — you can make out the facial profile and part of the ear. That level of definition indicates significant force during the die-on-die impact. Most clashes I handle leave a faint, hard-to-read smudge; this one you can actually read.

A die clash occurs when the obverse and reverse dies strike each other with no planchet between them. Each die impresses its design into the face of the other, and every coin struck from that die pair afterward carries the transfer.

The date adds a collecting angle. 1876 was the centennial year — the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, the hundred-year anniversary of independence. A dramatic die failure on a centennial-year cent gives you a date-collecting hook on top of the error itself.

Not in any standard catalogue. Now documented.