In the Aug. 13, 2012, column I introduced a die deformation error to
which I attached the name “peripheral die expansion and erosion.”
Known only among 1982 Lincoln copper-alloy cents, the several affected
die pairs show radial expansion of the peripheral field, but not the
surrounding rim gutter. As the field portion of the die expands, it is
simultaneously worn away, leaving peripheral letters truncated. An
example is shown here.
In that same column, I mentioned a related “soft die” error that
I’ve designated “design creep.” Affected dies show radial expansion of
the entire die face, including the rim gutter. In lateral view, the
die comes to resemble the battered handle of a well-used rock chisel.
If the hammer die is involved, the die face will grow wider than the
collar, leaving peripheral design elements truncated on the coin.
Design creep is also possible on the anvil die, but its growth will be
limited by the collar, within which the die would eventually become trapped.
At the time of the 2012 writing, I’d only seen design creep in
photos of some fractional euro coins. A domestic version of this error
type has now been discovered by Robert Scheschuk.
In late February of this year, Scheschuk noticed an unusually shiny
2014-P Jefferson 5-cent coin in a cash drawer at work. He later found
two more that day and a few others the next day. After finding several
more in a newly opened roll of 5-cent coins, he concluded that they
were all coming from a batch of 2014-P 5-cent rolls that had been
stockpiled by his boss. Scheschuk persuaded his boss to part with the
remaining rolls in exchange for an equal number of rolls that
Scheschuk obtained from his own bank. A search through the rolls left
Scheschuk with a small pile of these distinctive errors.
Uncertain of what kind of error he had, Scheschuk placed several of
the coins up for auction on eBay. When I saw the accompanying images,
I immediately recognized what they were and purchased two.
As expected, all of the defective 5-cent coins were struck by the
same die pair. The reverse face shows design creep while the obverse
face is normal. As with nearly all recent circulation strikes (2002 to
present), the reverse die functioned as the hammer die.
The reverse face lacks the design rim, because this portion of the
die face extended beyond the working face of the collar. All of the
peripheral letters on the reverse face are cut off where they meet the
coin’s edge. Truncation is more severe along the southern arc of the
coin’s perimeter, possibly due to a slight asymmetry in the degree of
radial expansion. This is not unexpected, as many soft die errors show
asymmetrical and localized development. In fact it’s conceivable that
a future case of design creep might involve only a portion of the
Since the flared hammer die face was wider than the collar, one
might anticipate the die pressing down upon the collar, generating a
thin partial collar flange along the upper portion of the edge.
However, no partial collar is seen on any of the 2014-P 5-cent coins.
This is not particularly surprising, given that horizontal
misalignments of the hammer die don’t consistently generate a partial
collar. In a horizontal misalignment, part of the hammer die overlaps
the top of the collar, potentially depressing it (many collars rest on
springs or air pistons). Another possible reason why the collar wasn’t
depressed during the production of the design creep errors is that the
hidden portion of the die’s perimeter may have sloped down, away from
the collar — another resemblance to the blunt end of a rock chisel.
The reverse face is highly reflective and has a peculiar cottage
cheese texture that is best developed in the center of the coin. Here
the details of Monticello are indistinct. The odd surface texture is
simply another indication that the die was experiencing abnormal
Scheschuk reports that all his coins show approximately the same
amount of letter truncation. Any slight differences in the cut-off
points can easily be explained by slight variations in striking
pressure or planchet upset. It therefore seems that there was no
further expansion of the die face during the time period encompassed
by his sample. This is unsurprising, because many soft die errors
develop quickly and then stabilize, perhaps because of progressive
work-hardening during the press run.
The total number of coins produced by this die pair is unknown. They
could turn out to be common or they might be quite scarce. It all
depends on when the reverse die was pulled from service.
More from CoinWorld.com:
Proof 68 1968 Roosevelt, No S dime realizes $31,102.50 in
your U.S. coins: Morgan dollar
users recommend the Mint make no changes to the copper-nickel clad
quarter dollar composition
Mint records sales of 344,423 Proof 2015-W American Eagle silver
dollars through April 12
show labels no longer bring huge premiums
Keep up with all of CoinWorld.com's news and insights by
up for our free eNewsletters
liking us on Facebook
following us on Twitter
. We're also on