GBrad

I’m a bit confused on this one. I can see how a few flattened devices on a coin would be considered PMD but the reverse of this Cent is very questionable in my opinion. I would have written this one off as PMD except the fact that this coin’s rim, both obverse and reverse, are still intact with no noticeable signs of “road rash” or considerable PMD. The Memorial itself still has good definition compared to the flattened lettering. As you can see, all of the letters on the reverse are completely and uniformly flattened and are very consistent. There’s no doubt this Cent does have some PMD on other areas but nothing stands out on the reverse letters positioned around the rim. Please take a look and give your opinion on how this may have occurred. Thanks!

Here’s the entire coin. The obverse devices look to me to be pretty well struck and aside from some PMD it still has pretty good detail. The reverse looks to show signs of polishing but the obverse strike is pretty good and in my humble opinion it does not show any significant signs of die deterioration, breakage or damage.

Thank you RWB for your comment. I completely agree and understand about defective dies and hubs and throwing them out once they are considered defective. With respect, I’m not quite sure what you are referring to by comparing 68’ and 69’ cents with this coin. Each year, obviously due to a new date, calls for the creation of another hammer die. Whether or not they use the preceding year’s anvil die for subsequent years is something that I am unfamiliar with unless it is a transitional year reverse design which would require a replacement. The pics I submitted I just thought were very odd due to the thickness and misshaped devices and then further taking the overall condition of this cent into consideration as well. As I stated earlier, I know there is not a comparable example of this year. I have seen numerous other year Lincoln’s that exhibit true and confirmed doubling by virtue of only thick and misshaped letters and/or numbers and nothing else (maybe a 1966 DDO if I’m thinking correctly, as an example) . I agree that worn out hubs could produce some confusion but I believe there would be other indicators associated with a dilapidated hub or die that are not present on this coin. Sorry to get so long winded and I hope what I explained makes sense... lol. Thank you.

You are absolutely correct that certain years have thick lettering, especially the late 70’s and early 80’s. This is actually a 1981 Philly but I didn’t want to say anything about the date as I’m not trying to say I’ve found a “first” as so many have in the past. Most all 1980-1982 Linc’s seem to have thick lettering. What I see on this one, unlike the other thousands..... of 81’s I’ve looked at, is inside the B and R of LIBERTY and then the O in GOD is really out of shape and very thick at the northeast position. WE looks to be very thick with a possible notch on the bottom of the W and several indents are visible on the E. I compared this cent to all of the PCGS photos and this one just looked different. Even though this is an 81’, I’m still wondering how the strike process produces these distortions. However, the problem here is that there is nothing out there to compare this cent to. Thanks Greenstang.

I have a question that has been on my mind for quite awhile so I thought I would throw it out for discussion and clarification. I have been somewhat perplexed regarding a type of doubling. With that said, I am very well aware of all of the “non-real” doubling such as Mechanical Doubling (MD), Die Deterioration Doubling (DDD), etc...... True hub doubling has always seemed to, and rightfully so, come in the form of split serifs, notching and indentations. That brings me to my question, Fat, Thick, Distorted and Mis-shaped letters and numbers (devices) where there are none of the classic indicators of doubling as I outlined above. Where is “the line drawn” so to speak when trying to determine if this is true doubling. If these type of device variations are not considered doubling then I ask; what are they and how are they caused? I understand that some of this may be caused by overused and worn out dies. However, when you find a coin that does not exhibit die deterioration or over polishing and the devices are round, robust and sharply struck.... is this a true form of doubling?? Please see the pictures below for examples of what I am referring to. Any information is greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

I know this thread is a week old but I wanted to thank Greenstang for his great explanation regarding the efforts to determine and distinguish between Mint errors from Post Mint Damage. As Greenstang mentioned, very good pics. When pics are that clear it REALLY helps in determining the subject at hand.

Yeah Kurt..... but you and the others on this forum are so diligently accommodating to newcomers! I was one myself awhile back and I have learned a tremendous amount from all of the gracious educational comments given to me by you and so many other members here. Thank you. This Linc is no doubt PMD unfortunately even though I know the OP does not want to hear that. I’ve been in their shoes..... been there done that...... and with the outstanding support on this forum I have become a very knowledgeable person particularly on Lincoln Cents. Thanks!

Totally agree with Greenstang. A great indication is to look at the A in STATES along with the designer’s initials, FG. A close AM will show the A in STATES much closer to the second T in ST ATES (maybe the gap I just typed will give you an idea). The FG will also be struck a bit further away from the Memorial for a close AM as opposed to a wide AM (Sort of a backwards thing but once you look at 100,000 Lincoln’s you will recognize what I’m talking about....) Wish I had some pics for you but I don’t at the moment, sorry.

Just saw your post Brad. Nice find there no doubt. A 1998 WAM was actually my very first Lincoln find of any value so I guess I have a soft spot for this transitional. Good pics too. 👍

Absolutely!! 👍. That’s the beauty of this hobby, or profession for some, in that we can all learn something from those involved. Nothing more I would like to do than quit my job and just look at coins all day long.......... maybe one day...... just maybe......

Thank you for your thorough examination of my pics. I pulled up VV FS-802 pics, as well as coppercoins, and looked at them in depth. Nowhere did it show anything about a die crack on the left of the memorial as you mentioned. I now see the die crack in the pic I posted on the left of the Memorial, thanks. My coin does look to have a die crack on the lower right of the Memorial but it does not extend to the edge as shown in VV (see new picture attached). I am still learning about all of the PUP’s and markers associated with varieties in EDS, MDS, and LDS so please bear with me, I am still learning. Your helpful insight and knowledge are greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Thank you Coinbuf for your comment, greatly appreciated. Hopefully you, and several others, know me by now and I am not going to argue or disagree with someone of your caliber. I have to ask though, did you happen to see the D in UNITED? (My downloads were very slow today... and may not have come through) I completely agree that the N of ONE has no indication of doubling. Neither does UNITED which should be there, especially in the UN but the D is what really caught my attention. That to me looks like real doubling along with the O in OF. I will admit that my pics on this post were not the best. I will try to do better in the future. Thanks again for your comment Coinbuf.

Here’s a little better picture of the O in ONE.

I guess I’m just in a posting mood today. In the same bag of spare change I found the 1970 D with a 1968 reverse earlier today, I also found this. Unfortunately it’s not the FS-801 but Im thinking the 802?? The D in UNITED really stood out as well as the O in OF. The thickness in both of the S’s is very apparent. There’s depressions in the A&M of AMERICA along with some other apparent doubling on the O in ONE. It is a zinc..... (darn it). If this is MD or DDD then I give up... The second T in STATES may appear to have some MD but it is counter clockwise from all the other doubling on the coin. I have compared it to other 83’ DDR’s and strongly feel this coin does show true doubling. There’s really nothing going on in UNITED as an 802 shows predominantly in the U & N. Not sure why but this may be a LDS example??? even though the devices look pretty good. As always, thanks for your input!!

Thank you! Not monetarily worth much due to its poor condition but nevertheless a really neat find for just reaching into a bag of change. Beginners luck I suppose 😁. I’m about to post another pretty good find (a Linc) from this same bag of change I just went through. I believe this 83’ Lincoln I’m about to post is a DDR but not the 801 variety, dang. Can’t find much more than it may possibly be an 802??? I’ll post it soon. Thanks Greenstang.

Looking through a bag full of pocket change this morning and figured I’d start looking at, and learning more about other coins, other than Lincoln’s...... (trying to broaden my horizons.....😁). Obviously, anything with a bit older date on it draws my attention more than newer stuff but not to say there’s not valuable newer coins too. Looked up this year and mint and saw that there are a few die variations. I know the condition of this coin is not stellar but if it is a reverse of a 68’ then it would be cool just to own one. The torch flame has definitely seen some use over the years but I believe you can still discern the deeper grooves “higher relief” of the flame that are associated with the 1968 reverse die. Just looking for some confirmation and your thoughts as I am completely new to dimes. Thanks!!

No worries at all my friend and apology taken. Thank you. By no means at all am I an expert (maybe one day..... Lol). Good pic too👍

Point taken and I agree sir. Thank you for your response. I know you are an extremely knowledgeable numismatic expert and I highly respect that. But...., if you are ever in Georgia, US....... please let me know. It would be a true pleasure to meet you and discuss numismatics with you!! Thanks VKurt. Take care.👍 -Greg

(I could have responded to this comment 1,000 different ways but I have chosen to be polite) Hello VKurtB and thank you for your reply. BEFORE I say anything else.... can I buy you a cup of coffee to put a smile on your face? Just asking. 👍

Yes sir. Thank you for your post. I do my best at learning from experience and research as we all have, and should do, for the sake of knowledge. I am still learning no doubt, especially the deeper I get into coin hunting. If not, I would not have made this post I no doubt learned something here. Thank you Coinbuf and I hope my experience with this cent will be a learning experience for others. I’m all about helping anyone with a need and that extends to numismatics. Just take the time to research and do what’s right and knowledge will follow thereafter. Thanks!

Thank you Greenstang for all of your polite help you have offered to me. Thank you as well for your support!!

Thank you Just Bob for your comment and continued support!! It is truly appreciated.

First of all, I would like to say to you Mr. Modwriter, that I can’t believe you would so outlandishly and blatantly post the comment you did. I have to say I am a bit stunned that you would even take the time out of your day to say what you said. Am I offended, no sir. I realize that some individuals believe themselves to be better than others. I come from a line of work in which I dealt with comments such as this, on a daily basis, so I let them “roll off of my back”. You have politely commented on some of my other posts which I do appreciate. But...... your latest comment on MY thread was absolutely uncalled for. As Greenstang and Just Bob pointed out (whom I consider both to be excellent teachers and very helpful to EVERYONE on this forum and I will even go so far as to call them my friends) I DID correct myself and I admitted to the fact that I made a mistake and even apologized. Had I not taken it upon myself to correct myself, and if I would have pushed the subject further of the Cent I found, then yes........ you “may” have had the appropriate grounds to respond in such a manner but WITHOUT using vulgar language. WOW! MUCH appreciation to both Just Bob and Greenstang for their comments. I really appreciate their support. -Greg