DWLange

The 1982 Small Date cents represent a new hub to replace the deteriorated one with its Large Date.

Cents were also coined in bronze-clad steel with the 1974 date during 1974-75, but nothing came of this experiment.

Die erosion doubling only.

Among the primary missions of the ANA is education, and its annual Summer Seminar is held on the campus of Colorado College each June. While the college has been making things a little more difficult for the ANA in recent years, it's still a viable setting for this popular event. I've been going since the early 1980s and instructing there since 1995, and I can attest to its popularity and usefulness. As for the ANA's numismatic holdings, many of its coins and notes are teaching tools in the various classes. The grading and counterfeit detection classes in particular sell out way in advance, and the coins utilized are almost entirely those in the ANA's possession. It would be challenging to conduct these classes without them. Many of the instructors are coin dealers, rather than collectors, and they can't afford to retain hundreds of coins simply for their annual classes. Even if they did have these coins in stock at the right time, it would be burdensome to travel with them and might discourage further participation. Having a standing array of teaching tools is essential to the ANA's educational mission.

Single letter counterstamps are usually just someone testing the punch before using it for some other purpose. It's doubtful that it has any significance with respect to the coin.

Roger is correct about the relative meanings of matrix and hub. Unfortunately, the term "matrix" is not well understood on this side of the Atlantic. It is used correctly within British numismatics.

It's not any kind of variety---just worn and a little beat up.

The sad thing is that people do submit coins like that for grading---paying extra for mint error and variety attribution!

It's too minor to be noted as a mint error by NGC.

I believe Conder101 hit the mark.

There is some logic to that scenario, but I believe most of the contact marks suffered by Morgan Dollars occurred after they'd been bagged. These coins were moved frequently during the audits that typically resulted from a change of superintendent every few years. In later decades the bags were relocated to other facilities, prompting more contact between coins. Once entering the coin market, many bags remained intact, being traded and physically moved time after time. I believe the obverse bore the brunt of this abuse because it provided more exposed area, while the reverse has a much busier design which tends to resist marring, spreading the force of contact over many design elements. This seems to be true of most coins featuring obverse portraits and is not limited to USA issues.

It's a modern replica.

There is something like 60 RPMs for this date/mm, none are worth much more than a couple of bucks. There are well over 100 for 1960-D, though most are quite minor. I believe this is more than for any other date in the series.

No further photos are needed. It's just environmental damage.

Just strike doubling---not a variety.

Modern counterfeit...

This was my take on the woodgrain effect in copper and bronze coins. Bear in mind that it was written 18 years ago and may not be absolutely current in some respects (the photo of me certain is not!). https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/726/

Yes, the graders look for 5FS and 6FS automatically when grading raw Jeffersons. This is true of all coin Strike Characters, such as PL, DPL, FH, FT, FBL, CA, UC, etc.

That is strike doubling, aka machine doubling. It's fun but carries no premium value.

There's no DDO visible. It appears to be just a coin that's worn.

It's a modern fake.

You didn't ask a question, but here's an answer just the same: No, it's not genuine. It's a modern fake made of base metal.

I don't see any sign of double striking. It appears to be just a badly abused coin.

All kidding aside, that does appear to be a legitimate delamination mint error.

It's within legal tolerance, and mints were not so particular about base metal coins, so it may be considered normal in numismatic terms.