GBrad

Did some looking around on surface finishes on bronze coins but mainly only found info regarding newer plating issues on ‘83 and newer. Not plate blisters or occluded gas bubbles here because this isn’t a zinc. At first glance I thought I had a 1960 D Large/Small but I don’t think that’s the case. Just curious how a bronze could exhibit this cool looking texture which appears to be mint made. I don’t see any signs of ED because this coin is solid both obverse and reverse. And then the imprint above LIBERTY is very odd. Thanks.

Thanks Coinbuf. It would be interesting to look into this about being a discovery coin if this just so happened to be one.

Thanks for your response Ky. I’m not looking for grade-ability on this one. I know it has its issues with wear, PMD, etc.... Just looking for some feedback regarding what appears to be a legit RPM. Obviously for attribution I would need to send it in. But then again, I would probably be wasting money....

I heard that brother!!! Like Ronnie Stein once said on this forum, “My eyes started out MS68 but after 5,682,325 Lincoln’s my eyes are now AU55”...😁. Thank you for your comment Ray and I take you are, or were, military and if so: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY!!!!! And that goes for anyone out there who served!!! God Bless you all!!

Thanks Moxie. Yeah, he’s seen some miles for sure. But, this came to mind.... the obverse rim is almost nonexistent which is obvious no doubt. The reverse rim is a bit more visible. I then noticed the “higher” devices that are more centered on the coin which would seem to me to take the brunt of being worn down and damaged over the years and they don’t seem to be near as “flat” as the rim. For instance the nose, chin, ear... they still have decent detail for its age. The branches and leaves on the reverse still exhibit very good detail as well. It’s not FB but the flame also looks good too for its age compared to the rim and outer devices. I’m drawing a blank on the correct terminology when the actual die fails, or is overused, and leaves a flat rim which can also encroach on the letters. Just wondering if that may be a possibility as to why the outer rim of this coin looks the way it does...? Edit: Looking again, I just noticed if this could have been a deteriorated MAD die (if that makes sense) on the obverse with the thickened northeast rim and very thin southwest rim.... just an observation.

For the record, I did my research on this one that I’m posting. I’m aware there are not any examples recognized yet by any of the TPG’s, nor Coneca, due to the lack of what has surfaced for this possibly potential RPM. There does seem to be some of these floating around but like I said, nothing attributed as of yet from what I gather. Maybe I’ve been duped on this one, won’t be the first time, but it sure looks like a viable candidate based on my knowledge (what little I have... lol). My first observation was the placement of the mint mark. It’s positioned well right of the top of the date compared to numerous other same year and mint mark dimes that I have observed. One of the pics I took below appears to look tripled at the top left serif of the D, not sure but please take a look. Then again.... this could be nothing. It simply caught my attention after viewing several pics so I thought I would share it on the forum for comments and discussion. Thanks!

Here’s a pic of the FG after a little acetone cleanup to get rid of all the gunk. The obverse actually has some beautiful toning as well. Nice little Christmas present find no doubt. Thanks to all who commented on this, I really appreciate it!

Thank you Coinbuf for your comment. Thanks for the like on the photos. 👍. Merry Christmas!

Thanks Greenstang. Good to hear from you. Thank you for your input. Merry Christmas!

Maybe, just maybe, I found a neat transitional here but I don’t want to mess up. This looks very promising with what appears to be a well defined tail on the G but I’m going to need to remove the gunk for the final verdict. There’s enough showing on the initials that I think this is the real deal. Not worth a fortune but I’ve really been wanting to add this one to my collection. Should I leave it be or do the acetone cleaning thing? (Sorry Coinbuf if my pics are the size of dinner plates..... I’m still working on that.... ). Thanks!

gut ein RWB 😁

Thank you Coinbuf for pointing out what I missed on the dings. My pics and lighting are not the best at times but the green circled areas I believe are from the lighting I supplied. I will have to check out the coin in better detail when I get home. Thank you.

Absolutely great info there MarkFeld. Thank you for your insight and explanation you gave.

Thanks MarkFeld. I’m gaining here, and from research, that grading is obviously a very imperfect and subjective science. It is good to know there is not a “set” criteria for the evaluation of spots based on repeatable metrics as Coinbuf pointed out. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so to speak but yet there is no doubt a certain set of guidelines required for grading. Since we’re on the topic of spots and grading, there is one other question I would like to get some clarification on. I remember reading somewhere about the strength of magnification used by TPG’s once a certain MS threshold is possibly achieved. Would you, or anyone else, mind giving an explanation, information and/or some clarification at what point they step up the examination and magnification used to grade? Correct me if I’m wrong but I think I remember something about using the naked eye up to about MS67?? Thank you.

Thanks Coinbuf and Good one..... still laughing at that statement:) I can’t argue that those are definitely some large pics. The magnification does exacerbate the imperfections on the coin for sure but I wanted to give as accurate of a pic and representation of this Cent as I could. With coin in hand things are not near as obvious like you said. The info regarding the spots is good knowledge in how TPG’s approach them. You really can’t even see them with the naked eye. You answered my question about spots. Thanks! (Not to bother you, but you mentioned two hits on the obverse.... I don’t have the best vision in the world but I can’t find them. Would you mind pointing them out?) Thanks again.

Hello to all and an early Merry Christmas. This Lincoln about blinded me when I opened up a normal ol’ bank roll. The luster is phenomenal and their is barely any resemblance of PMD aside from the one tiny ding on a column on the reverse. As far as I can tell, the fields are as immaculate as any Cent I’ve come across. My question: There are some minor carbon spots on this coin as you can see. Not that I’m going to send this one in for grading, I’m just reaching out for some info on how much these small spots detract from the final grade on a zinc in the event I come across a coin in better condition than this one. I have however compared this coin and it’s overall condition to other pictures and in my opinion it may actually be on up there on the scale without the spots (but then again I may be way off base). Still a beautiful modern Linc. though in MHO. It would have to hit 68 to be worth sending in. Not asking for a “grade” on this post, just curious about small spots in the grading process. Thanks!

HATE THEM!!! Pickled eggs and pickled okra...... LOVE EM’!!!!

Thanks Coinbuf. There’s definitely a host of experts right here on this forum that offer their time and knowledge, to so many, without expecting anything in return. That goes for you and the other Professional Numismatics here that spend countless hours answering so many questions, kudos to you all!! You’re exactly right about sifting through the net to find good reliable information but it’s there to be found. You just have to spend the time, look, research and learn. And..... with that said..... I’m sure I will no doubt throw something up on the boards in the future that I’ll look back on and scratch my head for posting😁...... but...learning from your mistakes and taking the advice of experts is paramount. Thanks!

Thanks RWB for the photo. From what I can see, there are three distinguishable design elements within/on the torch flame amongst these examples.

Good point...... unless you are starving to death 😁.

Thank you Just Bob for this comparison. That’s great and a very good explanation👍. For the record, by no means whatsoever did I intend on downplaying NGC, NEVER would. These guys are absolutely great! I am more than grateful for their expertise and commitment to numismatics and hosting this wonderful forum and chat board for us all to take part in. It’s just that I have always used the other TPG’s pictures and info since I started collecting and it’s simply second nature to me to quickly scroll through and find what I am looking for. And not to say, with time, I couldn’t do the same thing here (guess it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks....😁). Thank you for your response and posting that info.

Let’s face it. We were all “Newbies” at one point in time trying to decipher all of the countless different errors, varieties, etc.... I simply felt compelled to share something that may be of value to new comers. I found this excellent Jefferson Nickel example today of what IS NOT a doubled die. In some arenas it may be referred to as strike doubling, ejection doubling, mechanical doubling, die deterioration doubling, etc.. depending on each individual example at hand, respectfully. When I first started out in collecting, and joined this forum, I would have thought WOW.... I just hit “bank” in finding this Nickel (surely this is a doubled die reverse I would have thought)...... unfortunately, not the case. There are so many knowledgeable experts on this site that have helped me learn what to look for, what to look at, and more importantly, to try to figure out how something didn’t happen as opposed to how it happened. But, the bottom line is this: You have to put in the time and effort researching and learning, period. The experts on this site do a tremendous job accommodating all of the newcomer’s questions and they should be commended for that. I thank you all! There is an absolute plethora of information online for new collectors and for learning all of the different intricacies surrounding this incredible hobby and, ultimately, a profession for some. Whomever would like, please feel free to take these pics and share them with anyone who may need guidance and knowledge on the ever so asked question,”Is this a doubled die....”. I am overly appreciative to those who have so graciously helped me in the past on this forum by answering my questions and who have supplied me with a wealth of information. But, like I said (and by NO means am I an expert), you will become more educated, experienced, and ultimately turn into a better all around informed collector by putting in the time, effort, and energy to arm yourself with as much knowledge as possible. Take care.

Two pics for comparison. The drawn on coin is mine, the other is a screenshot of the normal reverse die of the 1970 D Roosevelt.

Here is a quick screenshot from PCGS showing they recognize this variety. (with all due respect and rights of course). One moment and I will attempt to upload pics of the difference.

The difference is on the reverse and deals with the flame of the torch. The normal 1970 P or D mint die did not exhibit the much more defined flame atop the torch. You can see the much more incuse design detail on the flame as apparent by the deeper “groove”. The normal die did not have this detail and the flame was more robust without this deeper design element. I will find pics to compare and post them. PCGS recognizes and has photos of this die variety.