1940 penny with unusual feature

[Varietalis]

Hi all,

please have a look at the photobucket link (assuming it works!). The coin, which is obviously a 1940 double exergue line penny, has an unusual raised feature that tracks along the underside of the third wave (above the 4 in the date) before bridging down to the top of the exergue line. Broken die? grease on flan? I've not come across anything like it before, has anyone else?

http://i1364.photobucket.com/albums/r731/George_VI_and_Elizabeth_II_coins/1940pennywithunusualfeatureonexergue_zpsba85d9a2.jpg

[Rob]

Hi all,

please have a look at the photobucket link (assuming it works!). The coin, which is obviously a 1940 double exergue line penny, has an unusual raised feature that tracks along the underside of the third wave (above the 4 in the date) before bridging down to the top of the exergue line. Broken die? grease on flan? I've not come across anything like it before, has anyone else?

http://i1364.photobucket.com/albums/r731/George_VI_and_Elizabeth_II_coins/1940pennywithunusualfeatureonexergue_zpsba85d9a2.jpg

Just a die flaw. It looks like the edge of the incuse detail on the die has come adrift and left a larger depression.

[Accumulator]

It does look like a die flaw. The raised areas under the curl of the third wave are missing too. On further inspection, the entire area between the upper exergue line and the base of the waves is disturbed.

[Varietalis]

Thanks for your insights. I agree that a die flaw seems the most likely cause as a raised area on the coin would tend to suggest metal missing from the die. This only makes me wonder why I've not seen or heard about any other examples. One possibility is that the die flaw occurred, presumably due to metal fatigue, at the end of the die's life. Therefore there may only have been a very limited number of coins minted with this flaw before the die was then retired. Even so, varieties are recorded that only have a couple or three specimens known so you'd think that, if it were a die flaw, there ought to be at least one or two others out there.

[Peckris]

Thanks for your insights. I agree that a die flaw seems the most likely cause as a raised area on the coin would tend to suggest metal missing from the die. This only makes me wonder why I've not seen or heard about any other examples. One possibility is that the die flaw occurred, presumably due to metal fatigue, at the end of the die's life. Therefore there may only have been a very limited number of coins minted with this flaw before the die was then retired. Even so, varieties are recorded that only have a couple or three specimens known so you'd think that, if it were a die flaw, there ought to be at least one or two others out there.

It's a good spot. The difficulty might be getting significant interest in it, even if other examples came to light. Two other G6 penny varieties might illustrate the point better :

1. The 1940 'single/double exergue line' are deliberate die varieties, i.e. a slight change of design, with one type notably scarcer than the other, though still readily available, but quite rare in BU. Because it's a change of design, and because one of the two is 20x scarcer than the other, it raises quite a degree of interest.

2. The 1946 'die flaw' penny - the flaw is an obvious raised mark after the ONE on the reverse. It can be easily spotted as a separate feature, and again, it attracts a certain amount of interest, and is rare in high grades.

Your flaw - while of interest to variety collectors - is not immediately noticeable in that it is a slight extension to the 'fussy' part of the reverse design, i.e. the waves immediately above the exergue line.

Having said all that, it is a nice addition to the collection and is obviously high grade too.