GBrad

Welcome to the forum @jm20thengr! Glad to have you. I second everything that @Woods020 commented above.

Hello RJoe. You have a normal Lincoln Cent here. There were not any major varieties associated with this year or mint. There are some RPM's for this year's Denver mint but I cannot tell about the MM from your pictures, they are extremely blurry. All of your arrows and circles are pointing to nothing more than post mint damage. The green spot under LIBERTY is nothing more than corrosion on your copper Cent. I don't see anything of value here or any type of variety at all. Basically just a well circulated penny.

It just hit me. Linc has a hearing aide!! My 88 year old mother has the same type. Discussion settled.........

Welcome to the forum garak9! There's a lot of good information here.

@JAnsley here is a starting point for understanding what worthless doubling is compared to true doubling. There isn't anything related to doubled ears though. file:///Users/ga/Desktop/Other%20Forms%20Of%20Doubling.webarchive Another good website is coppercoins.com There are a few year Lincoln Cents that have doubled ears. The best know is the 1984 Philly Lincoln Cent. Plug that into the search engine on this website and it will give you a better understanding of ear doubling.

Looks like that ear took a hit from something also. I am not at home but when I get there I will try to send some links for you to use as references so that you will have a better understanding of true doubled dies vs. worthless doubling.

Without a doubt it very well could be what @Coinbuf said above. There is a lot of discoloration in that area. Are you sure it's not a stain? A clearer pic would help. Hard to tell from this pic.

I totally agree with both @Lem E and @DWLange comments above. One other observation here, if I may add, is that the coin at the top is a copper 1956 Cent. The other two coins pictured look like 2020 and 2006 Lincoln’s, best I can tell from your pic, which have a zinc core and a very thin layer of copper coating. The mint switched over to a completely different alloy for Lincolns in 1982. Solid copper cents (meaning solid for the most part without goin into all of the details) will tend to darken in color over time versus the zinc cents (even though they can darken as well). Another plausible explanation as to the lighter color for a cooper Cent is that it has been polished in some type of way which equates to damage. I have found numerous Linc’s that look like yours that didn’t appear to be plated but more like highly polished. Any of the above could be the culprit here.

Definitely right on the money for the correct weight of a copper Linc. That helps tell me that nothing has been taken away from, or added to, your Cent which is a positive note.

You are not seeing anything abnormal. The bow tie is normal. Looks a bit shiny probably from circulation wear which may appear odd to you. If you are taking about the small “line” directly above the bow tie, it may be a slight form of MD or most likely a lighting issue. To my knowledge, there has never been a Linc doubled die that solely included just the bow tie. However, with that said, certain known doubled dies do exhibit slight doubling of the bow tie but it is always in conjunction with several other hub doubled devices on the coin.

Thanks @J P Mashoke for the plug about @Coinbuf and I. Coinbuf is way ahead in the ballgame than I, but I hope one day to be up there with his intellect as well as other professionals here on the forum. @JAnsley, your Cent had definitely taken a hit to the earlobe, no questions about it. Like JP said, this is a very prominent area on Linc’s and are prone to taking hits from other coins in this exact spot which does sometimes resemble a partially doubled earlobe. One way to tell if you have doubled ear (which yours is not) is to look at the entire design element of the bottom of the ear, in this case the lobe. All Lincoln ears have a curvature at the bottom of the lobe where it turns back up and into the neck and onto the profile of the head. You can see on your coin what I am talking about. This is part of the intended design. Unless there is an additional small earlobe under the originally intended earlobe, as I described above, then you basically have a case of just simple PMD. Hope this helps.

Once again, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you just said Woods. I think it is mint error but just not sure which one it would exactly fall under. Getting outside of my lay grade here. If this is a “homemade job”, which I don’t think it is, this would be at the top of the list IMO. However, stuff like this I believe helps us all in the learning process which we all enjoy. I would be interested to see what an error expert would say about this one.

I agree totally with what was said above. A very early stage capped die will produce a brockage. This will result in a mirror like impression of the reverse on the obverse of the next coin, or coins struck in succession (once again referring to the hammer die here which the cap stuck to). As you said, the capped die will eventually erode away and, as a result, start revealing the obverse design elements on the actual hammer die itself on successive strikes to new planchets, still with diminishing distortion, as the now “metal foil” continues to wears away. Now…….(pheww….) with that said, here is an excerpt from Mike Diamond from error-ref.com which may help sum up our question here about the op’s coin. One caveat though: The last paragraph copy and pasted below, leaves me with this question. Mike clearly states that once the cap wears away that all that is left is a ghost image of the obverse. If this is the case, how can we also see a faint ghost image of the Memorial while at the same time there is also a very faint ghost like image of Lincoln’s silhouette? Maybe the capped die just happened to be at the exact point of diminishing return to have caused this of in fact this is a mint error…🤔 I think the more I study this, and relyon “what I thought I knew”… the more confused I have made myself….. By Mike Diamond: “Still other obverse die caps have no design at all on the working face. These “uniface die caps” strike coins that carry no design on their obverse face. Theoretically, any sort of error coin can stick to a die and form a cap. Thus the kinds of designs left on the planchets struck by a cap can be quite diverse and complex. Regardless of what design (if any) it carries, the working face will eventually be worn smooth from striking a succession of planchets. Thereafter the cap will only strike generic capped die strikes with no design on the obverse face except a raised ghost of the obverse design that bleeds through the thin floor of the cap”

Hello Woods. I may be mistaken but I thought a late stage die cap would actually show more detail of the obverse images/devices as opposed to an early stage die cap (assuming the cap stuck to the hammer die). I see some odd things on this coin (first one pictured) the more I look a it. It looks to have the “cupping” effect you mentioned associated with a struck through cap but the surface of the coin looks weird to me, very grainy. Zooming in on the pics on my cell phone I can see what maybe looks like metal flow lines around the periphery of the obverse which I believe would be consistent with a coin stuck to the hammer die but only in a later stage strike I believe….. There does look to be extra stress points on the reverse in the form of numerous rim fins which once again would be indicative of a capped die strike. Extra pressure would be applied to the newly introduced blank planchet due to another coin being stuck to and taking up space on the hammer die, thus causing stress issues on the reverse. I do see the ghost images of both the Memorial and Linc’s silhouette you also mentioned. I’m leaning more toward a mint error here but the obverse surface still looks odd IMHO. I hope the @Rick621 will give us a .00 decimal weight on this one. Just my take here…..

Hey James. On my cell phone and don’t have the best of pics on this small screen but I am going to have to agree with Mike in that it looks like an interior die break. Looks like the die was close to imploding if the die crack on the forehead is pointing at the die break.

I'm going to have say this is a result of die deterioration doubling. It looks promising but this is not an RPM. Machine doubling would detract from the affected devices, or mint mark in this case, and cause the all too famous 'shelf like' appearance. The original D mint mark is completely intact, best I can see from your pic, yet there is an outline of another D that we can see. The original D mint mark does not look like it has been detracted from, or 'cut into', therefore I don't believe it is MD, but it is die deterioration doubling. Die Deterioration Doubling (DDD) will, for the most part, affect the devices in a fashion that shows in an outwards manner, or towards, the rim of the coin. I can see this in your pics in the letters of IGWT which also exhibit this same issue in particular the G and O of GOD, the E of WE and the R in TRUST which show the deterioration going towards the rim of the coin. When comparing possible doubled dies, RPM's, etc..... with the pics supplied online from numerous reputable websites, look at the mint mark position in relation to the date. This is one of the best key factors in matching a coin to a known example. Your coin is not RPM-015 because the mint mark position, in relation to the date, is not in the same position. Hope this helps.

WELCOME to the forum Charles! I

Man.... if only that chart of yours contained the "8th" almost unattainable example....... for $6.95 that would have been a heck of a bargain!!!!! Seriously though, that is a great teaching tool to have for new folks to learn the differences of the 1982 transitional types of Cents, that is, if you are a Lincoln type fanatic (like me). Very neat and I believe well worth the $7 bucks (got to add in the shipping cost though...) for newcomers to have in their hands to see the differences. Thanks for sharing James!

Hey James. Yeah, I agree about the surfaces being different. But... This coin is in really good condition and I don't see any evidence at all of acid being applied to this quarter. Anything is definitely a possibility but I really believe I have to rule this out brother. The discoloration of the coin is just way too consistent on both the obverse and reverse and the edge and reeding is not affected in any way at all, all the way around its circumference, and the edge clad layer is as shiny as possibly despite the age of this coin. All of the devices are also just way too nice looking IMO to have been tampered with. One last thing, which to me is odd, is that you can't see the copper hue looking straight down on the surfaces. Only when viewed at a slight angle does the copper color appear and it is consistent as well on both sides. My theory is this: It may very well have been an IA planchet at the time is was struck at which point both sides were a nice copper color. Over time, the surfaces took on the elements and have now formed a slight patina on the copper surfaces which now can only be seen when viewed at an angle. I'm not a scientist here but to me this is a plausible scenario...... Who knows.....

I believe it is a relative of PLINKO...... (if anyone remembers "The Price Is Right" game....) Ok..... I couldn't resist, we still like to have fun here on the forum.... totally kidding and I too would like to know how @Conder101 knows these things! He's a pretty smart cookie when it comes to these type issues.

@Tridmn, I.cutler is correct. 1982 was the transitional year for the Lincoln Memorial Cent when the Mint switched alloy compositions for this series coin and you will find both copper and zinc core Cents with their respective weights as I.cutler pointed out above. However, and a BIG however....., is that the Denver Mint was only supposed to produce zinc cored 1982 SMALL DATE pennies. A Denver minted 1982 LARGE DATE copper is perfectly normal. Only a few examples of a copper 1982 SMALL DATE Denver minted Lincoln are known to exist and are obviously extremely rare. Just FYI.

Thank you Coinbuf for your reply. I agree that being the age of the coin may be a bit more difficult to confirm since it's not one of those really prominent sintered planchets that I have observed while researching. That's the reason I said I was "on the fence" about this one because it is an older coin (nowhere near as old as me though ) but it just struck me as a bit odd with its uniform color from looking straight on but once tilted you can clearly see the color of copper. Being that it is not a very worn coin at all..... well..... that's all the more reason I posted it. You guys know me by now and I feel I am "lightyears ahead" of the ballgame from whence I started on this forum. I owe a tremendous amount to people like yourself Chris, as well as many many many others that got me to where I am today whom I would mention but I am afraid I would leave someone out but you guys know who you are! (ok.... I'm getting emotional now..... time to stop and go take my nightly meds....). I have looked at a lot of Fred Weinberg's info, and Mike Diamond's too, regarding IA planchets. I haven't clicked on your link you supplied but I definitely will in just a moment. I know these errors can be very hard to distinguish due to numerous variables that affect the surfaces of coins both pre-strike and, more often so, post-strike. I will see if I can get anywhere with Fred about looking at my pics. I'm not betting on it but it would be neat to have finally found one. Thanks!

Yes!!! Where are my manners??? Welcome to the forum Vero86!

Weight tolerances per the U.S. Mint for copper Cents was +/- .13 grams. If I had to bet, your coin pictured on the right in your first picture would be the 3.00 gram Cent. Looks like it has seen a few more miles of circulation and could just be worn down a minuscule amount which would cause the weight difference. But,,,, then again, I may be wrong about which coin weighs less..... that's why I don't play the lottery even if I had a 50/50 chance....... Both coins are normal and within tolerances.

Going through some bank rolls and this one stood out to me. I think this is the 3rd post for me regarding what I 'think', from my own research, is a possible IA planchet flaw (I give up after this one). I've seen my fair share of metal detecting finds, environmental damage, toning, etc...... but I am on the fence with this one and don't believe it is any of the former. It weighs 5.55 grams on a calibrated scale. The silver edge, or this part of the clad layer, is a decent shiny color apart from the obverse and reverse color, and I am simply seeing what appears to be outright copper showing on both sides. I took some pics at an angle to show the copper color and then overhead pics to show the off-color of the coin. Another observation is that the coin is in pretty darn good shape for its age, a good strike with extremely minimal wear if any at all, so that would rule out the lighter weight discrepancy from it being circulation wear IMO. I know it's not worth a house note even if it is an IA planchet but I'm almost heck bent on finding one...... Thanks!