GBrad

32 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

There does appear to be a clear split in the bottom serf and a loop inside the D, I think its a possibility that you have an OMM.  But as the coin displays some odd wear/striking anomalies I am not certain that it would be attributed.  The tripling that you see looks to be just some strike doubling to me.  I'd be tempted to send it in just to see, even a low graded discovery coin is cool if it turned out to be one.

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

2 hours ago, KyCoinKollektor said:

Seems to be tripled to me, I’m no expert by no stretch, but I couldn’t imagine even if it did have a variety attribution available that it would be gradable due to the environmental damage (green spots). I would just flip it up and keep it. Who knows maybe 5-10/20 years down the road more will surface and a variety will become available. 

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....

19 minutes ago, Ray, USMC said:

My eyes are not what they used to be.

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!!

36 minutes ago, Moxie15 said:

that is interesting, With the wear and damage on that coin it makes it difficult to think that it would be worth much even if it is deemed to be legit

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!  

2 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

I agree you have found one.  Some acetone should remove the green and you will be good.  And btw I love your photos. 

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

4 hours ago, Greenstang said:

No maybes about this one Greg, you got it. That is a 89 Reverse on a 88.Both the F & G verify that.

Never hurts to clean coins in acetone, it may remove the gunk or at least loosen it where you could remove it.

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

14 hours ago, RWB said:

RE: "...there look to be quite a few rim ticks/hits on each side."

This can be prevented by getting a flea-market and tick collar for your rolls of coins. The collars are adjustable,and will last through many coin shows -- even the AKC New York show.

gut ein RWB 😁

5 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

Sure, again the size of the photo makes these stand out more and in hand I'm sure they are somewhat less noticeable.  I've used black circles to show the hits on the protrant and a couple of the rim nicks that Mark pointed out.  Green for the color change areas which may be lighting or could be a slight stacking friction.

 

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.  

15 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I haven’t worked as a grader since 1998 and won’t try to speak for others. As for myself, however...often, I didn’t use magnification, other times I used 5x and on rare occasions, stronger. My decisions weren’t typically based on any particular contemplated grades. But rather, they were based on factors such as the size of the coin, whether the surfaces were noticeably toned, when I was having difficulty determining whether a flaw was man-made vs. mint-made and potential value of the coin. Again, nothing approaching a formula.

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

10 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

As Coinbuf stated, there is no formula. Among the considerations, however, would be the size, location and number of spots. Then add to that, a bit of subjectivity and inconsistency.  

Based  just on the pictures you posted, the coin looks 67RD to me. But in addition to flaws already mentioned, there look to be quite a few rim ticks/hits on each side.

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. 

47 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

Your photos are as big as a dinner plate so it magnifies the imperfections and makes the spots look very horrible and massive.

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!

6 minutes ago, RWB said:

pickled beets fan.....

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

49 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

Its great that you have been able to learn and benefit from the help and information that is available here. there is indeed a plethora of information on the net it just takes time to sift thru the chaff to find the wheat. 

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!

23 hours ago, RWB said:

Here is the final 5-inch galvano for FDR dime reverse. Note that detail is much better than on the 1946 coin photo, above. [Photo by Army Quartermaster Corps, Philadelphia.]

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

On 12/5/2020 at 12:43 PM, RWB said:

A "plethora" is not necessarily a good thing; ask anyone standing in a plethora of locusts.

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

10 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

Our hosts also recognize the variety, and provide a side-by-side comparison picture and a short explanation on the Variety Plus page.

This reverse die was taken from the hub intended for proof dies of 1968-70 and not used routinely for currency strikes until 1971-80

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. 

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. 

15 minutes ago, RWB said:

Can you describe the differences for us?

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. 

Here’s a pretty neat find. I’m pretty sure this is a reverse of ‘68 but this one also looks to be a greaser too. This is the second 1970 Rev. of ‘68 I’ve been lucky enough to find. Not worth a whole lot but still a neat find nevertheless Just thought I’d share it. Thanks.