Need Help Identifying a Possible 1982 Cent Error? 1 1

[MdArndt]

I found this odd looking cent while looking for errors but I am unsure on what has caused this odd look?

 

Appreciate any help.

Edited February 28, 2021 by MdArndt

[Lem E]

I would say it is most likely some sort of environmental damage. Possibly a metal detector find. Could also have been chemically altered or dipped. 

[MdArndt]

I thought the same thing but there is no signs of any corrosion or signs of cleaning. It really does appear unaltered even under magnification.

[ldhair]

It was damaged by something. Maybe an acid or heat. It's safe to say it did not leave the mint looking like that. 

[l.cutler]

Might have been a metal detector find that was tumbled to clean it up.  No way to say exactly what happened, but definitely was not during the minting process.

[Oldhoopster]

Ask the question another way - how could this occur during the minting process.  It can't be a planchet error because the tons of striking pressure wouldn't leave a rough surface.  How could a die be damaged to such an extent that the surfaces leave that appearance on a struck coin?

Maybe it's acid, maybe it's environmental, maybe it's something else.  In the end, it doesn't really matter what caused the damage, the coin didn't leave the mint in that condition.  

[Moxie15]

10 hours ago, MdArndt said:

I thought the same thing but there is no signs of any corrosion or signs of cleaning. It really does appear unaltered even under magnification.

Are you quite sure about what you say?

[Woods020]

Agree my money is on it being in the ground for some time, then recovered and tumbled. The pitting/stippling looks like what you see when one has been in the ground. That or Lincoln has smallpox again. 

[Sharann]

4 hours ago, Woods020 said:

Agree my money is on it being in the ground for some time, then recovered and tumbled. The pitting/stippling looks like what you see when one has been in the ground. That or Lincoln has smallpox again. 

You took the words right outta my mouth. Lol. You know I didn't KNOW, but it is what I thought.

[l.cutler]

23 hours ago, MdArndt said:

I thought the same thing but there is no signs of any corrosion or signs of cleaning. It really does appear unaltered even under magnification.

See the rough surfaces? That is a sign of the corrosion.  Notice how the rim is kind of rolled over the lettering?  This could be from cleaning in a tumbler.

[MdArndt]

2 hours ago, l.cutler said:

See the rough surfaces? That is a sign of the corrosion.  Notice how the rim is kind of rolled over the lettering?  This could be from cleaning in a tumbler.

No active corrosion is what I meant.

[Woods020]

3 hours ago, MdArndt said:

No active corrosion is what I meant.

I agree. I think the tumbling/cleaning  removed the active corrosion, but the surface damage is present form what was already done. 

[l.cutler]

5 hours ago, Woods020 said:

I agree. I think the tumbling/cleaning  removed the active corrosion, but the surface damage is present form what was already done. 

exactly!

[Modwriter]

Using the Modwriter Scale For Damaged Coins, it would grade out at U-70☆, Unsightly, but kinda cool looking, ☆=deserving of a flip.

Congratulations!

[Woods020]

3 hours ago, Coin lucky said:

forms are professionals almost everyone of them have something to say so must weed out any possibility of what anyone says because most  no nothing of coins anything about process human error or what actually happening to . coins  you can tell just by the way they answered questions and you have look at the big picture here.cool. I'll tell exactly what I see is a coin that is of a mint error verity whatever. you look at the die scracths  cracks ok then look at the rim of that coin right there .it is from the mint and it came out of the mint just like that right there and I take it as grease with other elements mix with the grease most likely. but others planchet errors are involved as well look Into the coin that seeing whats possibly and what isnt and come with the most logical solution to the equation of how why what and what could be and what isnt. Take some  these people who throw answers like they know what they are doing should have never left the   ok now what. They do not know dam thing about anything there are just kinda of  the retarded side sorry to say so you feel bad for them and take what they say and humor them but if you keep doing it they will just keep coming back and might even start there own coin site form so are these types.of people you want advice from or would you rather have advice that would mean something like the truth to what could or could not happen ? Just a thought you can always make up you owe kind on what's by anyone a word of wisdom. peace 

😂 Sure. This is post is well written and clearly we are “kind of the retarded side”.   

[Modwriter]

3 hours ago, Coin lucky said:

"....I'll tell exactly what I see is a coin that is of a mint error verity whatever. you look at the die scracths  cracks ok then look at the rim of that coin right there .it is from the mint and it came out of the mint just like that right there and I take it as grease with other elements mix with the grease most likely. but others planchet errors are involved as well look Into the coin that seeing whats possibly and what isnt and come with the most logical solution to the equation of how why what and what could be..." 

Just....wow.

[l.cutler]

8 hours ago, Coin lucky said:

forms are professionals almost everyone of them have something to say so must weed out any possibility of what anyone says because most  no nothing of coins anything about process human error or what actually happening to . coins  you can tell just by the way they answered questions and you have look at the big picture here.cool. I'll tell exactly what I see is a coin that is of a mint error verity whatever. you look at the die scracths  cracks ok then look at the rim of that coin right there .it is from the mint and it came out of the mint just like that right there and I take it as grease with other elements mix with the grease most likely. but others planchet errors are involved as well look Into the coin that seeing whats possibly and what isnt and come with the most logical solution to the equation of how why what and what could be and what isnt. Take some  these people who throw answers like they know what they are doing should have never left the   ok now what. They do not know dam thing about anything there are just kinda of  the retarded side sorry to say so you feel bad for them and take what they say and humor them but if you keep doing it they will just keep coming back and might even start there own coin site form so are these types.of people you want advice from or would you rather have advice that would mean something like the truth to what could or could not happen ? Just a thought you can always make up you owe kind on what's by anyone a word of wisdom. peace 

You can't argue with logic like that!  

[J P M]

I can say that the members of this forum are very informed and always try to give you there honest opinion. And yes damaged coins do get past the gatekeeper after a long week on a Friday afternoon after a liquid lunch or we would never have error coins to collect .I see many coins with odd looking surfaces. Like this wooden Penny. People do all kinds of stuff to coins your 82 coin looks like it was glass bead or sand blasted.   Can I ask how much does it weight ??

  

Edited March 28, 2021 by J P Mashoke

[Henri Charriere]

On 2/28/2021 at 3:05 PM, Oldhoopster said:

In the end, it doesn't really matter what caused the damage, the coin didn't leave the mint in that condition.  

Begging to differ, it does matter to the OP.  He specifically asked ...what has caused this odd look?"

As the only member on the Forum who refuses to recognize errors, varieties, flavors, and the like, here's a suggestion: when you (the disparate membership) come to a meeting of the minds as to what environmental damage caused this -- if indeed you all agree that is what it is, why not assign it a hyphenated numbered suffix like you do everything else. After a diagnosis the preponderance of people who frequent this site are comfortable with, why not designate it E.D.-1, and so on.

 

On 2/28/2021 at 3:05 PM, Oldhoopster said:

Duplication excised.

 

[Oldhoopster]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Begging to differ, it does matter to the OP.  He specifically asked ...what has caused this odd look?"

As the only member on the Forum who refuses to recognize errors, varieties, flavors, and the like, here's a suggestion: when you (the disparate membership) come to a meeting of the minds as to what environmental damage caused this -- if indeed you all agree that is what it is, why not assign it a hyphenated numbered suffix like you do everything else. After a diagnosis the preponderance of people who frequent this site are comfortable with, why not designate it E.D.-1, and so on.

 

 

The problem with trying to determine the cause of PMD, is that there are so many ways it could occur. Is saying environmental damage good enough?  Is it acid?  Nitric? Acetic (vinegar)? Hypochloric? Organic acids?  An Alkali? Drano? Ammonia?  Something else?

Unless you were there when the coin was damaged, how would you know?  All we can do is speculate and give an educated guess.  So once again, if it didn't occur at the mint,  does it really matter what caused the damage?  

 

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Oldhoopster

[Henri Charriere]

3 hours ago, Oldhoopster said:

The problem with trying to determine the cause of PMD, is that there are so many ways it could occur. Is saying environmental damage good enough?  Is it acid?  Nitric? Acetic (vinegar)? Hypochloric? Organic acids?  An Alkali? Drano? Ammonia?  Something else?

....does it really matter what caused the damage? 

With all due respect, OldHoopster, it's still a little too early to arrive at a final determination as the folks most in the know, have yet to weigh in. And their comments may be of interest.

The cause of an irregularity (my term which, rightly or wrongly, embraces all errors, Mint die mishaps, metal fatigue, et al) apparently is of interest as evidenced by the hours and days members speculate on them, some disagreeing violently at times.

Your grocery list is a good start.  And there are experts here who can narrow down the possibilities.  The ultimate answer will come from someone with hands-on experience whose side-hobby is to better understand thru trial and error exactly what caused the finished product involving chemicals, time, temperature, etc.  Who knows, maybe it was pitching a coin into a beaker of Coca-Cola for an interval?  (No, not the one with corn fructose syrup; the one from Mexico containing cane sugar.) I refer to them jocularly as mad scientiists and it is they who contribute to our cumulative knowledge of damage found in numismatics much the way the National Transportation Safety Board, after poring over the wreckage of air crashes and studying the flight data and cockpit voice recorders can tell us, with a reasonable degree of certitude, what happened, why, and what the industry can do to prevent future tragedies.

We will have to give this topic time to gain traction. 

[Modwriter]

5 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

After a diagnosis the preponderance of people who frequent this site are comfortable with, why not designate it E.D.-1, and so on.

 

 

I really like your idea of the E.D. designation. Can I add it to my scale for damaged coins?

[Henri Charriere]

1 minute ago, Modwriter said:

I really like your idea of the E.D. designation. Can I add it to my scale for damaged coins?

It would have to be universally recognized and adopted. Mint damage is too broad. Environmental damage narrows down the field. Subsections, if approved, cannot be too far behind. My ignorers who are my most devoted [closet] fans and [undercover] followers, will object because they didn't come up with the idea first.

[Modwriter]

2 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

It would have to be universally recognized and adopted. Mint damage is too broad. Environmental damage narrows down the field. Subsections, if approved, cannot be too far behind. My ignorers who are my most devoted [closet] fans and [undercover] followers, will object because they didn't come up with the idea first.

The MQA Scale For PMD COINS? My highest grade is U-70 Unsightly, add ED, then a ☆ for deserving of a flip. I have yet to grade below #2 D-60 Disfigured yet.

 

[Henri Charriere]

20 minutes ago, Modwriter said:

The MQA Scale For PMD COINS? My highest grade is U-70 Unsightly, add ED, then a ☆ for deserving of a flip. I have yet to grade below #2 D-60 Disfigured yet.

 

I must say, you never cease to amaze me with your breadth of knowledge.

[Modwriter]

45 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I must say, you never cease to amaze me with your breadth of knowledge.

Lol, what started off in jest, this is becoming fun. Also, all MQA coins must fall below the Sheldon/TPG grades of PO-P1 (Poor). Currently, valuation is at face value, but may change in the future.

[Woods020]

Why would time and energy be spent to, at best, create a system for educated guesses on causes of environmental damage? It’s damaged. It’s not like acid damage will be seen as better than corrosion damage. Other than you fulfilling your need to over orate is there really a point to this at all?

[Oldhoopster]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

With all due respect, OldHoopster, it's still a little too early to arrive at a final determination as the folks most in the know, have yet to weigh in. And their comments may be of interest.

The cause of an irregularity (my term which, rightly or wrongly, embraces all errors, Mint die mishaps, metal fatigue, et al) apparently is of interest as evidenced by the hours and days members speculate on them, some disagreeing violently at times.

Your grocery list is a good start.  And there are experts here who can narrow down the possibilities.  The ultimate answer will come from someone with hands-on experience whose side-hobby is to better understand thru trial and error exactly what caused the finished product involving chemicals, time, temperature, etc.  Who knows, maybe it was pitching a coin into a beaker of Coca-Cola for an interval?  (No, not the one with corn fructose syrup; the one from Mexico containing cane sugar.) I refer to them jocularly as mad scientiists and it is they who contribute to our cumulative knowledge of damage found in numismatics much the way the National Transportation Safety Board, after poring over the wreckage of air crashes and studying the flight data and cockpit voice recorders can tell us, with a reasonable degree of certitude, what happened, why, and what the industry can do to prevent future tragedies.

We will have to give this topic time to gain traction. 

Agree to disagree.

I understand the curiosity factor, but what are the experts going to bring?  Unless they did a controlled experiment to simulate potential environmental conditions, they are just offering an opinion.  If you are interested in experts narrowing down the possibilities, maybe you should tag them so they can respond.

Once again, does it really matter if the coin was damaged by a strong acid, weak acid, or base.  It's damage.  If you want to do a controlled experiment and report the results, knock your socks off.  While I think the results will be interesting, I don't believe it will add much to the body of scholarship regarding the minting process

As for your comment regarding members spending lots of time discussing the exact cause if PMD, thats my point,  does it really matter? It's PMD.

BTW:  did a number if "informal" experiments in the chem lab during grad school. Clad coins don't play well with nitric acid.  Also, if a quarter is hydraulically pressed into a thick aluminum oxide substrate, it will completely melt at 2800F (could never prove which production operator did that experiment, but it ruined about $1000 in parts and high temperature kiln fixtures)

 

[Modwriter]

33 minutes ago, Woods020 said:

Why would time and energy be spent to, at best, create a system for educated guesses on causes of environmental damage? It’s damaged. It’s not like acid damage will be seen as better than corrosion damage. Other than you fulfilling your need to over orate is there really a point to this at all?

Can we agree on if it is either environmental or machine/human damaged? A coin is MQA graded either UED☆-70 or D☆-60. Unsightly with environmental damage or the lower grade Disfigured (Machine or Human Damage)😎

Edited March 28, 2021 by Modwriter
Typing error.

[Woods020]

1 minute ago, Modwriter said:

I dont care what EXACTLY caused the PMD. The coin is MQA graded either UED☆-70 or D☆-60. Unsightly with environmental damage or the lower grade Disfigured (Machine or Human Damage)😎

Oh no I didn’t mean you. You’re grading comments are just for laughs.