Hi, new and need help wondering if this is real mint error 1946 wheat penny 2 2

[jmcpenny]

Hi, new and need help: is this a striking error or pmd?

Edited September 22, 2023 by jmcpenny
added other side pic

[Sandon]

   Welcome to the NGC chat board. 

  When you post photos of coins about which you have questions, please post photos of both sides of the coin.

   Based on what I see from the photo of the reverse only, this Lincoln, wheat ears reverse cent appears to be neither a striking error nor to have post-mint damage. It is likely just a heavily circulated Lincoln, wheat ears reverse cent that has worn down to Fair condition. 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Sandon
correct typo

[Just Bob]

Welcome to the forum. May we see a picture of the obverse side?

[Coinbuf]

Thanks for adding the obv photo @jmcpenny.   Given the condition of the coin I see nothing that a diagnosis of PMD would not explain, and also nothing that could be easily explained as an error.

[powermad5000]

Thank you for the obverse pic. Interesting that I do not see the same amount of "heavy wear" on the obverse side of this cent. The center portion of the reverse seems commensurate with the amount of circulation wear evident on the obverse, so all I can think of in this situation is that the coin was struck with a grease filled reverse die, which would be a mint error for a reverse struck through grease.

[jmcpenny]

thank you so much for your insight. Maybe I will submit this one just to get it accredited.

Thanks!

[powermad5000]

On 9/21/2023 at 10:51 PM, jmcpenny said:

Maybe I will submit this one just to get it accredited.

I am not saying my opinion is totally correct, the law, or otherwise supersedes all others. I would hold off a bit and see what some of the others on here have to say about it before you go submitting and paying the $18 Mint Error fee. After all, I could be wrong. I am surely not perfect. 

Seems we already have a mixed reaction to it in this thread.

Edited September 22, 2023 by powermad5000

[Sandon]

On 9/21/2023 at 11:51 PM, jmcpenny said:

Maybe I will submit this one just to get it accredited.

    Due to the amount of wear on this 1946-D cent--the obverse is worn to Very Fine or so, with surface damage--it would be difficult to determine whether the weaker reverse is the result of a filled die--generally considered a minor error--or from damage in the form of abrasion such as the reverse having been partly planed off. Even if the weakness of the reverse originated at the mint, this would not be considered a mint error of the sort that would have anywhere near sufficient value to justify the cost of third-party certification, which, assuming that you are already a paid NGC member with submission privileges and submit it yourself, would cost a $23 grading fee (Economy tier), $18 error attribution fee that NGC would retain even if the coin is not attributable as a mint error, $10 order processing fee, and $28 return shipping fee, totaling $79, not including your own cost of shipment to NGC--for a coin worth at most a few dollars if it is an error and a few cents if it is not. See NGC Services and Fees | NGC (ngccoin.com). 

   The last thing a new collector should be thinking about is sending coins to grading services. It is essential that you first learn how to identify, grade, and otherwise evaluate coins for yourself.  From what books and other sources are you getting your information about coins?

[jmcpenny]

Thank you for your information. It is a lot to think about.

[J P M]

On 9/22/2023 at 12:43 AM, Sandon said:

The last thing a new collector should be thinking about is sending coins to grading services. 

I have been around for a long time and I have yet to send in a coin to be graded. If you shop around you can find nice coins raw or all ready graded for reasonable prices. In my opinion, the coin would have to be worth two or three times as much as the grading fee to make it work for me. 

[Just Bob]

It seems to me that if the reverse was struck through a grease-filled die, it would still have a proto rim, since that would have been formed before the planchet entered the coining chamber. Since the rim appears to be worn even with the surface of the coin around almost the entire circumference, my vote is post-mint damage. The lack of scratches or other evidence of damage could be due to the coin spending some time in circulation after the fact.

[EagleRJO]

Good analysis by Bob which I agree with.  Don't send the coin in to a TPG.

[ldhair]

I believe it's post mint damage as well.

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

Sorry to say that submitting this coin will only result in an expensive lesson.  This coin is worn/damaged, and the cost of grading would far exceed the value of the coin.  Keep in mind that you can buy this coin today in MS66RD for under $30.  Grading fees and shipping will cost you much more than this.

[Henri Charriere]

I knew the moment I laid eyes on this coin (both sides) that neither the mint a mile high in the skies over Denver, or any other, was responsible for its disheveled appearance. Seventy-seven years have come and gone. That fact alone, seemingly glossed over, must be factored into any question regarding error vs pmd. The truth is that a ground down, smooth surface can be attained with a little body English in a matter of hours.  Its present value can safely be fixed at prevailing copper melt. I urge the OP to continue exploring the many nuances of coin disfigurement and what may have caused them. You have the curiosity and inclination. Both fine attributes.  I hope your stay here is informative, entertaining -- and ultimately profitable in more ways than one.