1982 D penny 1 1

[Krys.m]

Is this small numbering? I have others, and this one is different. But I’m not convinced. Thanks! 

[Greenstang]

If you mean a small date, yes it is.

[EagleRJO]

It gets a little out of focus when zooming in on the date, but I agree with Greenstang that it does look like a small date 1982-D cent.  I'll bet the family ranch the weight to a 0.01g accuracy is between 2.40g to 2.60g.

If you are looking for a 1982-D small date copper cent the chances of finding one are virtually zero.  Posting cropped full size photos of both sides and the date more in focus, in addition to an accurate weight to 0.01g, would be helpful if the weight is higher than the above range.

[Coinbuf]

Yep that is indeed a small date zinc cent, the Denver mint made several million of those that year.

[Sandon]

   I'd ask @Greenstang, @EagleRJO, and @Coinbuf to reconsider their responses. The coin clearly appears to be a large date to me. The coin appears to have a rough surface from environmental damage, which has distorted some of the numerals on this too enlarged photo. The shape of the "8" and the closeness of the "2" to the rim are indicative of a large date.  A photo of the entire obverse would have enabled us to check for the differences in lettering on the two varieties, as shown in the following photos. Additionally, if you draw a line through the bottom of the date touching the "1" instead of beneath it, it should show that the bottom of the "8" is slightly below the bottom of the "1" as shown on the top photo of the large date.

[VKurtB]

On 7/7/2023 at 10:52 AM, Sandon said:

   I'd ask @Greenstang, @EagleRJO, and @Coinbuf to reconsider their responses. The coin clearly appears to be a large date to me. The coin appears to have a rough surface from environmental damage, which has distorted some of the numerals on this too enlarged photo. The shape of the "8" and the closeness of the "2" to the rim are indicative of a large date.  A photo of the entire obverse would have enabled us to check for the differences in lettering on the two varieties, as shown in the following photos. Additionally, if you draw a line through the bottom of the date touching the "1" instead of beneath it, it should show that the bottom of the "8" is slightly below the bottom of the "1" as shown on the top photo of the large date.

@Sandon, I have to go along with the others. From what is shown here, I see a fairly heavily damaged small date Zincoln. I never ever EVER use the shape of the '2' as a diagnostic. I really HATE that alleged diagnostic. The ONLY one I typically use is the distance from the '2' to the rim.

But regardless, either way, @Krys.m, hunting for the bronze small date 1982-D is a fool's errand. Sorry, it just is. Do you buy MegaMillions tickets every week?

Edited July 7, 2023 by VKurtB

[Fenntucky Mike]

FWIW, it looks like a large date to me. 

[EagleRJO]

I think this one was really a toss up if it was a small or large date due to wear, damage and poor pics.  The shape of the "8" would suggest a large date.  But the alignment of the date and distance to the rim of the "2"  would suggest a small date.

It looks like everything pretty much lines up at the top and bottom, without the upper part of the "9" projecting above the others at the top, or the lower part of the "8" projecting below the others at the bottom, considering the lower part of the "1" looks like it's been damaged from a hit and deterioration.  In addition, the distance to the rim of the "2" is at least about or a little more than the width of the 2 base, also suggesting a small date.

The diagnostics for the font of the "2" seemed to be a toss up, with the overall shape seeming to match a large date, but with the missing serifs at the base more closely matching a small date.

This was an interesting one due to conflicting diagnostics.  If it went to a TPG they would probably be more conservative since all the diagnostics don't match and go with a large date, but everything seems to point more at it being a small date, so I went with that.  Better pics, including full size pics of both sides, might help.  But unless it weighs about 3.11g it's really pointless.

[Coinbuf]

On 7/7/2023 at 1:00 PM, EagleRJO said:

I think this one was really a toss up if it was a small or large date due to wear, damage and poor pics.  The shape of the "8" would suggest a large date.  But the alignment of the date and distance to the rim of the "2"  would suggest a small date.

It looks like everything pretty much lines up at the top and bottom, without the upper part of the "9" projecting above the others at the top, or the lower part of the "8" projecting below the others at the bottom, considering the lower part of the "1" looks like it's been damaged from a hit and deterioration.  In addition, the distance to the rim of the "2" is at least about or a little more than the width of the 2 base, also suggesting a small date.

The diagnostics for the font of the "2" seemed to be a toss up, with the overall shape seeming to match a large date, but with the missing serifs at the base more closely matching a small date.

This was an interesting one due to conflicting diagnostics.  If it went to a TPG they would probably be more conservative since all the diagnostics don't match and go with a large date, but everything seems to point more at it being a small date, so I went with that.  Better pics, including full size pics of both sides, might help.  But unless it weighs about 3.11g it's really pointless.

Good analysis and I agree with most of your points, but as @Sandon pointed out full obv photos (and/or a correct weight) would allow us to see the other markers and make a definitive call.   From these poor microscope photos I stand by my opinion that this is a small date.

[Krys.m]

Thanks guys. It does weigh 3.11 grams but I believe it’s a large date. Thanks for all your input! 

[powermad5000]

I believe the closeup is throwing off the perspective of the distance from the rim. I'm in the large date camp.

[l.cutler]

Large date, actually easier to see in the small picture on the scale.

[Conder101]

DEFINITELY a large date there are three diagnostics I use to identify the small dates and this coin fails all three.  The shape of the 2 is wrong, the inside opening of the top of the 8 is too large (on the small date the diameter of the INSIDE of the upper loop is only about half that of the lower loop  On the large date it is just slightly smaller the that of the lower loop.), and the distance from the tail of the 2 to the rim is too small.

[EagleRJO]

On 7/7/2023 at 11:52 AM, Sandon said:

... if you draw a line through the bottom of the date touching the "1" instead of beneath it, it should show that the bottom of the "8" is slightly below the bottom of the "1" as shown on the top photo of the large date.

Good point which I missed before.  Looking at it again I think you are right, and I overestimated the height of the "1" after a hit, and the area below that is likely just discolored.  It should be the same height as the "2".

Considering the above, I think the bottom of the "8" is slightly below the "1" and "2" as you noted, and as shown in the attached (with a large date for comparison on the right).  Now I think the alignment as well as the shape of the "8" and "2" as before appear to both indicate a large date cent.  And considering the condition, the "9" may have taken a hit shifting it down a little and the serifs of the "2" could easily have just worn off.

So the only real discrepancy left in my mind is that the "2" is at a greater distance to the rim than a typical large date.  But looking at the post with the full obverse it does not appear to be a clean strike.

Edited July 21, 2023 by EagleRJO