I'm new and need an opinion on an unusual U.S. penny. 0

[BilboB]

I have a Wheat Penny with a die break that caused 1) a partial missing date (195? -last number is missing completely), 2) a flattened partial missing rim edge (from a clipped disk? or perhaps a 'tapered' planchet?) on right side from adjacent the date up to the edge adjacent Lincoln's nose, and 3) there's a cud on the reverse covering the upper 2/3 of the right wheat frond. It's in really excellent condition (as if it was struck yesterday) with all letters and numbers being very crisp, and it has darkened - more on the reverse than the obverse. I'm seeing descriptions of coins with only one of these three features, but nothing with all 3 of them. Can anyone give me an idea of the possible value of this coin? I want to send it for authentication, grading and sealing, but want to know if it's worth it. Thanks! 

[JKK]

I don't see good reason to believe this is a mint error. I do see reason to believe that side of the coin was compressed at some point after it left the mint. I also don't think it looks like it was struck yesterday; looks like a high VF except for the damage, but there is very clear wear on the high points of the design. In short, I think it is highly likely that if you send it in, you will pay $60 or so to learn that it is VF details, damaged.

[JT2]

looks like it may have been hit with a hammer

[Just Bob]

Welcome to The Forum. It sounds like you have been doing some studying on errors, Etc, and that is a good thing. Unfortunately, in this case, I have to agree with the others. It looks like your coin was damaged sometime after it left the mint, probably back in the 1950s or 60s, given the dark toning.

[Coinbuf]

Welcome to the forum, I have to agree that the area that you are calling a clip does not look like any clipped error that I can recall seeing.  As for value error coins like this are a rather thin market so determining any value is difficult and that assumes that we are wrong and this is a true clipped error coin.  Whatever happened to the date happened when the coin was damaged at the rim, and the cud (which is really not a cud as those are only around the rim, this would be called a die chip) would not add much if any value.  I personally would not spend the money to send it in as I think its a damaged coin, but if you do decide to please update this thread with the results.

[BilboB]

WOW! This is a great forum! I didn't expect responses so quickly, and I truly appreciate all of your replies. As a recent retiree who is taking a new interest in numismatics and coins in particular, yes Just Bob I have been reading furiously about minting errors and just wanted to make correct reference to what I'm seeing on this coin. And JKK, the pics taken with my phone camera do not do it justice, as the lettering is in pristine condition and very sharp as if it were nearly new. I think it must have been sitting around somewhere not in circulation, and gained that dark patina over the years. I've never seen an old coin in what appears to be very good condition other than what looks like a straight clip, and wondered what could have caused it. I also noticed something else, and have two questions: 1) there's also slight damage to the left-side rim and a smudged or missing "i" in Liberty. Could this have been caused by a grease-filled die? (just trying to get answers guys); and 2) are there collectors who might be interested in having a coin with such damage anomalies? I'd rather that somebody have it who can appreciate it, rather than it just sitting around gathering dust.

[JKK]

Please take a good look at Abe's cheekbone, jawline, collar, and hair. There's where you will see the obverse wear, which is made very obvious by the patina's having worn off in those areas. On the reverse, look at the light wear on tops of the surviving wheat lines, the grains, and the lettering. Plus the rim, lightly worn everywhere it has not been damaged. The wear is light, but to think of it as appearing like it were struck yesterday suggests that you would gain knowledge by comparing it to some uncs, even those with fully brown patina.

Never glad to bring more bad tidings, but I saw the left side's damage and do not think that's a grease-filled die. I think it's just more PMD. I do not think that any collector who understands errors would consider this coin worth more than its metal value, because anyone could reproduce such damage on their own with practice. To do this one, I'd find some sort of flat-faced pincers or pliers of the right size, pinch the coin's edge in them, then give it a good shot with a hammer. Maybe a flat-headed punch on top of an anvil or the pounding spot on a vise. Bluntly put, there's nothing for collectors to appreciate or enjoy, because most of us don't fundamentally want to see coins abused, and this one has been.

But if you like it and find it interesting, there's no reason you should not hang onto it and enjoy it yourself. Not every collector collects everything. I have zero understanding of the collecting interest of tokens, for example, but our club has so many token guys that half the presentations are about them. I try to stay awake. With the club meeting on zoom, I read a book where the laptop cam can't see it, so as not to be disrespectful. I presume some of them will do the same thing when I present "Arabic on coinage."

[BilboB]

Thanks again JKK for your input. It is much appreciated by this newbie.  If the coin has no value, then I would rather even just give it away to someone who might collect coins with anomalous errors. Regarding the wear on the coin, as I said the lens on my phone cam is not the best and does not do the coin justice. All the lettering on the coin sits high and in relief, and it just seems strange that the tops of the wheat sheafs on both sides appear worn (from whatever cause) while the lettering between is hardly even worn. Also, if it had been struck with a hammer, for example, it seems to me that that would have also changed the shape and stretched it out a bit, and it does not appear to be stretched. I hit a new coin with a hammer just to see, and that coin stretched out, changing its shape and the edge was also thinned from being struck. That is not the case with this coin, as it seems to have retained its shape. However, I presume that under a microscope and with microscopic measurement it very well might reveal a change in the shape. So it seems that whatever caused damage to the right side of this coin also simultaneously caused similar, albeit less, apparent damage to the left side. Question: What would cause a coin to gain the almost dark brown patina that it has? Well, anyway, being new at this I'm certainly enjoying it very much so far, since I very much like investigating anomalies and enigmas. And reading about the plethora of minting errors that can occur has been illuminating as well as enjoyable. So, on to finding more numismatic strangeness!

[JKK]

It's a valid question how this happened. I think your basic sense of the effects of an impact is sound. The strongest argument against this being mint damage would be that most of the edge impacts of a planchet in the way, etc. result in slightly arced edges consistent with the edge of a die or planchet. Same with clipped planchets, where the arc is a cut rather than a bulge. This one presents with a very straight impact, the kind you might get if you whittled down a flathead screwdriver and rounded its edges just slightly, then banged its impression into the coin and produced a flat rather than an arced edge.

You wouldn't need a microscope to measure the deformation, just a good set of calipers. It's what the savvy numismatist wants for Christmas. I have to have them because I like ancients, which are often irregular, and where the main cue to the denomination is often the diameter. Also good for thickness.

If you find errors fascinating, you will be glad to know there is a whole club about them, called CONECA. A number of our guys are in it and it has a great rep. That's where you can really learn a metric *spoon*ton (which is equal to 2.2 English *spoon*tons) about how errors occur, how the minting process happens, how to tell doubled dies from machine doubling (our most common forum question), and all the other ways a mint can botch its job. Considering how many coins they mint, it's rather amazing how few they ruin and how few of those get past inspection, but for them looking at CONECA has to be like NFL quarterbacks watching a Football Follies show about all their fumbles and pick sixes.

*(*spoon* used to be the forum's auto-replacement for naughty words. I just decided to start using it myself that way on the forum. If anyone interprets that I actually meant a bad word, well, I have plausible deniability.)

[BilboB]

Plausible deniability heh? ...lol... I love that! Let me first thank you for welcoming this newbie so cordially and providing me with honest feedback and opinions. I'm learning a lot of terminology and specifics from you JKK, such that I feel that I'm in class (which I love!)! And thanks for the heads-up on CONECA, which I will check out shortly. 

[JKK]

1 hour ago, BilboB said:

Plausible deniability heh? ...lol... I love that! Let me first thank you for welcoming this newbie so cordially and providing me with honest feedback and opinions. I'm learning a lot of terminology and specifics from you JKK, such that I feel that I'm in class (which I love!)! And thanks for the heads-up on CONECA, which I will check out shortly. 

Glad to help. It's a lot easier when someone is willing to learn. You would be amazed how many bad threads begin with a post like yours, a number of people politely pointing out the misperceptions, and the OP casting Summon High Horse for a big argument. You can learn a lot more terminology here from the very many forum members with different or deeper experience than me. Some might have gruff moments, but nearly all of them who take time to respond are hoping to help you.

Numismatics are a very diverse hobby. Our club had a quiz on identifying the error type and I got about half of them wrong. It had a club on identifying coin nation of origin and I only missed one out of twenty-five. If they'd had one on tokens I'd have been flailing in ignorance. The hobby works well when we contribute our knowledge specialties and share them. I'm only our club's second deepest ancients guy, and the deepest (my mentor) can just crush it on anything from Ionia to the fall of Byzantium, but he doesn't read as much Arabic as I do (which isn't that much in the first place), so we help each other on those. This is why this hobby is fun, and not just for a bunch of old wealthy Aspies using their bullion to build defensive perimeters around their home fortifications.

[BilboB]

You're funny too.  It turns out that I had already found CONECA, which unknowingly when I responded previously is the site that I found the numismatics glossary of terms for minting errors. I was up until 3:30am and ready all of it, of course not absorbing or remembering all of it but at least i know where to go for definitions of terminology. And I particularly like that they have a Variety/Error Index that shows the many different types and varieties of errors that can occur within a particular type. And I see that they have a forum in their Attributions and Examinations area that you have to join by paying an annual fee. I haven't yet decided whether or not to do that, but it does seem to be a valuable resource even if only for the extensive Glossary they provide.  

[Henri Charriere]

[Never knew what all that *spoon*g was about and was already referring to the deformation as a case of pinched nerves. Very helpful input and instructive thread.]