1992 D Date Error?? 1 1

[Adina73]

Hello my fellow friends! 
I came across this 1992 D while going through public rolled coins. It appears to not look like the other 1992 D that I put beside it to compare. The two looks smaller to me. And it looks like the 9’s may have doubling? I could be saying it wrong but I would appreciate any insight you might have as to why it looks different. I also looked at the AM and it doesn’t look like a close AM. 

[Coinbuf]

Part of the last number 2 has been scrapped off or possibly was not fully struck due to grease or debris in the die.  If it was due to a filled die this is very common and doesn't add any value to the coin.

The silver area next to the numerals is just the zinc core showing.  This happens when the copper plated zinc core cents are struck.  The copper cannot stretch enough and splits, this called split plating.  This is also worthless.

[powermad5000]

I still see the tail of the 2 so it was struck and is not completely missing. As already suggested, it may have been struck with a partially grease filled die which is common on these cents as they were produced in amounts over 1 billion and the dies had to be maintained to extend die life.

I also think I see split plate doubling around the date numerals and the D mintmark. This is also a common issue the Mint had in the production of these cents. 

You are correct in saying the AM does not appear to be a close AM. It is in fact the wide AM which was the normally struck reverse for the 1992 D Lincoln Memorial Cent. A 1992 D with the close AM is one of the scarce varieties when it comes to the WAM/CAM of these cents and the 1992 D CAM is quite hard to find. It is possible there may still be some of these in circulation change and the CAM of this date does have some premium attached to that variety.