1976 Lincoln Penny HUGE Obverse and Reverse Errors 1 1

[LizDisMe]

I don't know what to call this or what it may be worth. Can this be graded or certified as well.

[J P M]

That would be one big cud if that is what it is. The reverse having a weak strike makes me think it is the real deal. Most cuds are not worth a premium to collectors.  

Edited October 8 by J P M

[Sandon]

    Welcome to the NGC chat board.

    The large, raised area on the obverse of the 1976 Lincoln cent appears to be a "cud", which results from a piece breaking out of the die that struck the coin. The corresponding weakness on the reverse is consistent and results from a lack of sufficient striking pressure in the area opposite the missing piece of the obverse die. See https://www.error-ref.com/cuds/. Unfortunately, the small blobs on the reverse rim are damage consisting of displaced metal from hits known as "rim dings."

   Most cuds on high production coins such as Lincoln cents aren't very valuable, and this one probably wouldn't be worth the cost of certification even if it were undamaged. At NGC, assuming that you already have a paid annual membership with submission privileges, this would involve a $19 "Modern" tier grading fee, an $18 error attribution fee, a $10 per order processing fee, and a $28 per order return shipping fee, plus your cost of shipping the coin to NGC. The reverse rim damage would likely result in a "Details" grade.

  This is still a nice find that you should enjoy in a protective holder. The vast majority of coins that are posted on this forum as purported "mint errors" are either damaged coins or pieces with minor irregularities of no collector value at all.

[LizDisMe]

On 10/7/2024 at 9:26 PM, J P M said:

That would be one big cud if that is what it is. The reverse having a weak strike makes me think it is the real deal. Most cuds are not worth a premium to collectors.  

Thank you

[LizDisMe]

On 10/7/2024 at 9:52 PM, Sandon said:

    Welcome to the NGC chat board.

    The large, raised area on the obverse of the 1976 Lincoln cent appears to be a "cud", which results from a piece breaking out of the die that struck the coin. The corresponding weakness on the reverse is consistent and results from a lack of sufficient striking pressure in the area opposite the missing piece of the obverse die. See https://www.error-ref.com/cuds/. Unfortunately, the small blobs on the reverse rim are damage consisting of displaced metal from hits known as "rim dings."

   Most cuds on high production coins such as Lincoln cents aren't very valuable, and this one probably wouldn't be worth the cost of certification even if it were undamaged. At NGC, assuming that you already have a paid annual membership with submission privileges, this would involve a $19 "Modern" tier grading fee, an $18 error attribution fee, a $10 per order processing fee, and a $28 per order return shipping fee, plus your cost of shipping the coin to NGC. The reverse rim damage would likely result in a "Details" grade.

  This is still a nice find that you should enjoy in a protective holder. The vast majority of coins that are posted on this forum as purported "mint errors" are either damaged coins or pieces with minor irregularities of no collector value at all.

 

[powermad5000]

Hello and welcome to the forum! 

I agree with the others in that it appears to be a very large cud on the obverse with corresponding weakness to the opposite side on the reverse as already stated. Thanks for the good pics of this! We usually don't get reasonable photos from those posting for the first time. Also, I appreciate the closeups of the areas you want us to look at.  

Any coin can be graded, even by you yourself as well as any coin can also be submitted to a professional third party grading service for certification and encapsulation. That said, while I find this to be a very nice error (and an actual error and not just a damaged coin), I also find it to be somewhat of a shame it was circulated. While it was not circulated heavily, there is noticeable wear on both sides of the coin as well as some circulation hits and dings. Also, I see the effects of someone's skin oils on the obverse in the form of the darker lines probably from a finger print. The cud being so large would add a little additional premium, but I also think that premium would be negated by this coin's overall condition. Error collecting has evolved since I started collecting coins over 45 years ago from just collecting a coin because it has an error, to paying for error coins in excellent to pristine condition. Like most of the coin collecting hobby, more emphasis and greater premium has been placed on coins of the best condition possible. I don't think submitting this coin for professional grading would be money wise as even if this were part of a large submission of say 50 or more coins (membership fee paid with extra discount on quantity, shipping costs to and from and administrative fees all absorbed into the cost of the other coins in the shipment), I think in the end at the time of sale the cost to slab this would be a wash, or maybe even a small loss. Unfortunately, third party grading has become somewhat cost prohibitive unless the value of the coin is approaching $200. Some on this site may say $300 and others as much as $500.

While I find this to be a great coin for an error coin, it would probably be better for you to keep this in a cardboard flip, or 2 X 2 Saflip or at a minimum in an album, but the coin is definitely a keeper!

[LizDisMe]

On 10/8/2024 at 1:13 AM, powermad5000 said:

Hello and welcome to the forum! 

I agree with the others in that it appears to be a very large cud on the obverse with corresponding weakness to the opposite side on the reverse as already stated. Thanks for the good pics of this! We usually don't get reasonable photos from those posting for the first time. Also, I appreciate the closeups of the areas you want us to look at.  

Any coin can be graded, even by you yourself as well as any coin can also be submitted to a professional third party grading service for certification and encapsulation. That said, while I find this to be a very nice error (and an actual error and not just a damaged coin), I also find it to be somewhat of a shame it was circulated. While it was not circulated heavily, there is noticeable wear on both sides of the coin as well as some circulation hits and dings. Also, I see the effects of someone's skin oils on the obverse in the form of the darker lines probably from a finger print. The cud being so large would add a little additional premium, but I also think that premium would be negated by this coin's overall condition. Error collecting has evolved since I started collecting coins over 45 years ago from just collecting a coin because it has an error, to paying for error coins in excellent to pristine condition. Like most of the coin collecting hobby, more emphasis and greater premium has been placed on coins of the best condition possible. I don't think submitting this coin for professional grading would be money wise as even if this were part of a large submission of say 50 or more coins (membership fee paid with extra discount on quantity, shipping costs to and from and administrative fees all absorbed into the cost of the other coins in the shipment), I think in the end at the time of sale the cost to slab this would be a wash, or maybe even a small loss. Unfortunately, third party grading has become somewhat cost prohibitive unless the value of the coin is approaching $200. Some on this site may say $300 and others as much as $500.

While I find this to be a great coin for an error coin, it would probably be better for you to keep this in a cardboard flip, or 2 X 2 Saflip or at a minimum in an album, but the coin is definitely a keeper!

Thank you, I like to do things the way I would like to see those good images that are clear. Thank you for all the information also it is very helpful and appreciated. 

[Henri Charriere]

Q.A.:  ERROR?  Did someone say ERROR???  

🐓  :  Relax, Quintus!  This coin is immune from your wished-for statute of limitations.  None other than @powermad5000distinguished numismatist-in-training, has rendered the diagnosis.  It is indeed an ERROR, co-signed by the illustrious @Sandon . 

Q.A.:  Man, I love this place!

Speaking of which, you, our hosts, are in our hearts, thoughts and prayers.

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

Nice cud!

[RWB]

Can someone explain the two beveled indented arcs? They seem inconsistent with a chunk falling from the obverse die.

[VKurtB]

On 10/9/2024 at 1:31 PM, RWB said:

Can someone explain the two beveled indented arcs? They seem inconsistent with a chunk falling from the obverse die.

Bad cropping. They do not show on the OP’s pics.

[RWB]

On 10/9/2024 at 2:45 PM, VKurtB said:

Bad cropping. They do not show on the OP’s pics.

This is the OP's photo. It's been rotated to a normal position and the background cropped. (The straight line cropping is on the original.)

[VKurtB]

On 10/9/2024 at 6:26 PM, RWB said:

This is the OP's photo. It's been rotated to a normal position and the background cropped. (The straight line cropping is on the original.)

The clip near GOD does not show on the OP’s pic. 

[powermad5000]

On 10/9/2024 at 1:31 PM, RWB said:

Can someone explain the two beveled indented arcs? They seem inconsistent with a chunk falling from the obverse die.

Are you referring to the two what now look to be "curved clips" in your photo? Those are in your photo because you rotated the original and in the original, the coin is not properly centered and those parts are cut off by the frame of the photo.

If you are referring to the two crescent lines in the large cud itself, it would be possible for a part of a die to fall off not in one large piece but several smaller pieces. The end result would be a "jagged" appearance if the large cud was formed after say three smaller chunks fell out of the die with varying depths. Tons of pressure can do strange things to metal sometimes.

[RWB]

On 10/10/2024 at 12:12 AM, powermad5000 said:

f you are referring to the two crescent lines in the large cud itself, it would be possible for a part of a die to fall off not in one large piece but several smaller pieces. The end result would be a "jagged" appearance if the large cud was formed after say three smaller chunks fell out of the die with varying depths. Tons of pressure can do strange things to metal sometimes.

Agreed, however they seem oddly smooth to have come from a metal fragment. I'm having difficulty visualizing the mechanics of this. The arc/crescent shape would have to be retained in the die (at least for this strike) while the rest fell out.

Edited October 10 by RWB

[Henri Charriere]

🐓  Your comment, Quintus?

Q.A.:  The coin [with rotating original mint luster  🤣 ] commands no premium for "Now-you-see-it, Now-you- don't" baby shark bites inflicted without malice aforethought.

[Mike Meenderink]

On 10/9/2024 at 11:31 AM, RWB said:

Can someone explain the two beveled indented arcs? They seem inconsistent with a chunk falling from the obverse die.

IMO the marks were left by a small portion of thicker die metal that chipped off the shoulder detail area and migrated into the field where it was impressed as it fell out. Evidenced by the cud encroachment into the shoulder area of the die which is deeper and the edges sharper. There is also a die crack just outside the cud which forms a similar shape to the other marks. See Pic.

Edited October 10 by Mike Meenderink

[Redline68]

The cud cent appears to be CU-1c-1976-04 as noted on this page:  https://cuds-on-coins.com/lincoln-cent-cuds-1970-1979/

Congrats on the nice find.  I would save it in a 2x2.

[powermad5000]

On 10/10/2024 at 9:58 AM, RWB said:

I'm having difficulty visualizing the mechanics of this.

It can be hard to tell this especially when these things are happening at speed. Also, you have to take into account the flow of the metal of the planchet at the time of the strike. That area would require a lot of the metal to flow into it and may not have flowed into the cud area evenly with some trying to fill the relief on the reverse at the same time, the cud could have taken on what may be best described as a "non standard" shape from the typical cuds we normally see. That is a lot of metal flow to make that large of a cud which explains the overall slight weakness of the design post striking (not to be confused with the slight circulation wear). Then, combine all of those elements with the fact that this coin unfortunately circulated and suffered some wear in the process to once again change the overall visual look from what it was when it was first struck. There are too many variables to be able to try to dissect this and and say exactly what happened at high speed when it was struck other than the die broke and lost a large chunk unevenly or several chunks after several strikes. Being this happened at high speed, we can only surmise whether this coin was struck as one of the last ones of many before the press operator shut the press down, or if there was a quick catastrophic die failure and only a handful of coins were struck with a cud on them and this is one of the few and they all look like this one. I can only imagine there was some amount of irregular noise that the press operator heard when this happened which caused there to finally be a stoppage of the press.