Oldhoopster

8 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I don't suppose anyone here is interested in knowing why the Hindenburg zeppelin burned and crashed at NAS Lakehurst, New Jersey or why the Trade Towers fell, or why the dinosaurs became extinct, but none had anything to do with the Mint. Fair enough.

What I would like to know, is to what end are cents with larger diameters and missing their copper plating made and used? What is their purpose or practical application? Why? That's all. Unless I know that, I have nothing to add to the "body of knowledge" you reference.

I originally interpreted your question as "I don't understand how this damage could occur, so I still think it's an error".

Thanks for the clarification. 

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[I am painfully aware it is considered bad form to inquire but there is still that mischievous part of me that would like to know upon whose experience this observation relied on.  To be blunt... who posted a comment based on direct personal experience and who was relating a comment heard second-hand anecdotally?

The characteristics of this type of deformation have been posted numerous times upon many coin forums.  While I have never performed the actual experiment, the explanation makes a lot of sense.  The coins have a larger diameter than a normal cent and appear to be missing the copper plating.  

If you believe this isn't post mint damage, why don't  you propose a theory on what part of the minting process could produce such an error.  If you do agree that it's damaged but think it was caused by some other method, that's ok.  Since there are so many ways for damage to occur, I tend to avoid debates on what caused the damage.  IMO, as long as I'm convinced it couldn't occur at the mint, it doesn't really matter what caused the damage.  

Maybe you could try to make one and add to the body of knowledge.  It would make a great post.

As others have said, your coin was damaged after it left the mint.  It wasn't struck on a feeder finger (easy to confirm by weight and composition), nor struck through one.

Here us link with an explanation.  Compare your coins to the pics.

http://www.error-ref.com/stk_thru_feeder_finger/

It looks like a dryer coin.  Got stuck in the gap between the rotating drum and outer wall.  Frequent tumbling and bumping around deformed the metal

http://www.error-ref.com/dryer-coins/

Error-ref includes a link to this excellent explanation 

https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=143863

Your coin looks like it is corroded and stained.  It doesn't look anything like a missing clad error.  Missing clad errors aren't common and it's incredibly unusual to have missing clad on both sides.  Also, most coins with a missing clad layer are lighter than standard.  

6 hours ago, GHOSTGIRL said:

if thats the case then why is the back of his head design warped

 

Whatever caused the dents in the rim also hit the back of the head.  Sorry but it's damaged.

If you take a cent and pound it between 2 pieces of leather, you'll achieve that effect.  Sometimes they're called Texas Cents because they're bigger.  This occurred after it left the mint, so it's PMD

Agree, the coin is a large date

I believe it's damaged, not an error.

The mint doesn't supply rolled coins.  They ship them out in 2500+ lb ballistic bags to outside contractors who supply rolls to banks. I believe that also use contractors to supply the rolls sold by the mint to collectors (although I'm not 100% certain)

Your coin doesn't look like something that could have occurred during the minting process IMO.  It may have gotten stuck in some machinery at the rolling company.  

I think it looks like the mm took a hit and what your seeing is displaced metal.  Just my opinion.

As others have said, the watch wasn't made from metallic radium.  It appears that metallic radium will react with air to form a black coating if radium nitride on the surface.  Not something that would be desirable on a watch chain.  I agree with the others that said the radium stamp refers to the watch dial and not the chain

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium

https://www.chemicool.com/elements/radium.html

http://www.chemistry.pomona.edu/Chemistry/periodic_table/Elements/Radium/radium.htm

FYI. The area on the wing is not a cud.  Cuds involve a die break associated with the rim area.  (yeah, I think it's silly to have a different name, but it's been called that since I started collecting nearly 50 years ago). The mark on the wing is an internal die break, but most of us still call it a die chip or die break

For a copper 1983 cent to be accepted by the numismatic market, it needs to be authenticated by Experts at a TPG.   Without authentication, you will never be able to sell it for it's true value and that's going to cost you some $$.

There are many knowledgeable members on this forum that can help you decide if it's worth spending the money.  As @Greenstangsaid, the probability of finding one of these is incredibly low.  If you post some pics on the scale and clear shots of both sides, you'll get an accurate answer.  Members love nothing more than when somebody makes a great find, but also realize the odds are stacked against it.

BTW. If your pics look fuzzy, they won't be much help.  If you can't see them clearly, we can't see them clearly

Die chips seem to be common on recent dimes as well as the ATB quarters. It looks like a minor MAD along with a minor collar clash on the top left

I'm not an ancient specialist, but there are many contemporary counterfeits known.  Looks like yours may have a base metal core with a silver wash or foil surface.  They are also called Fourees or Limes counterfeits.  There are articles that propose some of the fourees are actually official or semi official issues.  Hopefully, others with more knowledge can fill in the details.  Assuming you don't have a problem with slabbing ancients (I'm not a fan, but that's just my opinion), there shouldn't be a problem with slabbing fourees

Here are a few links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourrée

https://coinweek.com/ancient-coins/bad-money-ancient-counterfeiters-and-their-fake-coins/

https://coinweek.com/ancient-coins/collectible-or-not-a-study-of-ancient-coin-fourees/

50 minutes ago, AverageStacker said:

Bringing this from the dead! I've been searching for info on this exact scenario for a couple months and came across this thread. I have a 1972P Kennedy Half that has a consistent weight (averaged over 10 times and other clad halves weigh normal) at 10.3g. It does not appear to have any excessive wear and the diameter and thickness appear to be within tolerance. I've found a few references to this on the 72P and the 79P but no clear answers. For now, I have just put it into a 2x2 and set it aside as an oddity but would love to know if anything further has been found. 

 

The only thing that would be close is a half dollar struck on nickel stock (circled in red).  Since nickels aren't clad, you should be able to easily confirm this by looking at the edge.

(I saved a pic of the following table from a post on another forum and don't know the original reference.)

Can't see anything based on the pics.  Did you check

Www.doubleddie.com

Www.varietyvista.com

If you're looking for doubled dies in change, those should be the first sites you check.  Plus, there is a lot of good info on how doubled dies occur

Did you use a gas or electric oven?

Agree.  It's a linear plating blister.  It's not unusual to see these on the copper plated cents of the 80s

It appears to be a lamination error, but the condition is pretty bad. Cool for a buck +/-, big mistake at $50 IMO

Here is a list of the varieties that NGC will attribute.  I don't see any 2009-D Cents on the list.  

https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/

I’m active on CT and IMO, there is a lot less Moderation than PCGS/CU (haven’t been here long enough to have an opinion).  One thing I noticed on CT, however, is you’ll be instantly banned if they discover you open a second user account.  No questions, no appeals, POOF!  This is what may have happened to the people complaining about CT being unfair.