l.cutler

Your coin has definitely been plated. See where the plating is wearing off the rim exposing the copper underneath?

Welcome to the forum. Can you point out where you see the doubling?

Welcome to the forum. Looks like die deterioration to me, as well as a little split copper plating.

Just a normal, worn 1970 D quarter.

I never saw the need for it until I realized I just didn't want to come here anymore because of one member. I did the block, and I have to say I enjoy it much more!

ITALY8686, I see these are your first posts, so welcome. As the others have stated, start a new post, with one coin, and ask clear concise questions.

No, that would be environmental damage. Dug coins found metal detecting typically look like this.

The nickel itself is not thicker, the edge is peened in, rolling it over, the rim is flattened out, the nickel itself is not thicker. Nothing abnormal about it, just damaged.

The edge has been altered. Much like a spooned coin, except instead of the entire edge being affected it is just one side and done on an angle. It appears thicker and deeper on that side because the edge has been flattened and somewhat folded over. The lettering following the inside curve of the area is absolute proof of post mint damage. How could a flat die strike in a curved arc? It could not, hence, it was struck normally first, then altered afterwards. Maybe only the person who did it could say how it was done, it is an odd one, but nothing in the minting process could account for it.

If your scale is correct, then the coin may have been slightly underweight to begin with and wear reduced it further. The color looks like it is from a cleaning with some kind of metal polish.

It looks like it had some corrosive substance on it. Do some studying up on the minting process, what you are suggesting isn't really even possible. Both sides show the same discoloration/staining, the coin so the coin was pretty much immersed in the stuff.

It is a British George II either farthing or halfpenny, the size will tell which of the two.

I agree with GBrad, clear signs of zinc corrosion. No way this is a copper cent.

.

Sorry to say that is nothing but damage. No way anything like that could happen in the minting process.

That is a large, really easy to tell them apart. I always look at the shape of the 2 and the distance of the 2 from the rim first.

It's normal, you see that quite often. Just speculating, but it may be marks from when the blank is punched from the sheet of stock.

As stated, this is completely wrong, there were huge numbers of business strikes in 1964.

Welcome to the forum. Your coin is a small date, but the copper coated zinc small date 1982 D cents are very common. You can certainly weigh it, but not much chance of it being copper.

Yep, face value.

Definitely post mint damage!

Certainly collectable, but worth anything, just face value.

Welcome to the forum. Sorry to say I believe that is a spot of corrosion, not a mint mark.

Definitely not, there are some pretty heavy hits on there. To get a grade like that, you can't have those.

You could also check with any local boy scout troops to see if anyone is working on a coin collecting merit badge.