2 weird finds in a bag of culls...errors?

coin22lover

The large cent has a mirror image of ONE CENT and the 1917-S Lincoln is on a very thin planchet that's a full millimeter smaller in diameter than normal. Even on a Wheat that's fully worn clean would be much thicker than this.

Namvet69

PMD on the lincoln, ground done to use as a dime. Large cent since the One Cent is backwards some places a wheatie on the large and wacked it to make the impression. IMO. Peace Roy

JBK

@Namvet69 said:
PMD on the lincoln, ground done to use as a dime. Large cent since the One Cent is backwards some places a wheatie on the large and wacked it to make the impression. IMO. Peace Roy

Agree, except that the large cent was not pressed with a wheat cent - different type style. Presumably an 19th century vice job.

The Lincoln is worn from circulation, but is likely not unusually thin otherwise. We are used to seeing cents with their rims, which makes them thicker at the edge.

Namvet69

Okay then I dunno:-)

Treashunt

agreed, not a wheatie.

We'll wait for Mike to opine

ACop

That seems like a lot of detail meat still on the bone for that level of thin down on the 1917

coin22lover

@ACop said:
That seems like a lot of detail meat still on the bone for that level of thin down on the 1917

Yes this is right...believe me, it is almost thin enough to cut your fingers if you squeeze hard. Which is why it's so weird.

abcde12345

Foreighn planchets error? Check the boxes~

coin22lover

@abcde12345 said:
Foreighn planchets error?

That has crossed my mind

FredWeinberg

Not on any foreign planchet
as far as the cent goes, and
the Large Cent is a Sandwich
coin.

jmlanzaf

@ACop said:
That seems like a lot of detail meat still on the bone for that level of thin down on the 1917

People used to grind them down to use as transit tokens.

abcde12345

@jmlanzaf said:

@ACop said:
That seems like a lot of detail meat still on the bone for that level of thin down on the 1917

People used to grind them down to use as transit tokens.

Why use a wheatback cent for that? Would be cheaper to use a penny post 1959.

jmlanzaf

@coin22lover said:

@ACop said:
That seems like a lot of detail meat still on the bone for that level of thin down on the 1917

Yes this is right...believe me, it is almost thin enough to cut your fingers if you squeeze hard. Which is why it's so weird.

I saw an estate that had a whole role of them and a few still in the transit token case. It's PMD applied to cheat the turnstile.

ACop

@abcde12345 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ACop said:
That seems like a lot of detail meat still on the bone for that level of thin down on the 1917

People used to grind them down to use as transit tokens.

Why use a wheatback cent for that? Would be cheaper to use a penny post 1959.

When youre saving 98 cents, saving 99 cents is pretty close.

dcarr

The Lincoln cent is thin because it was submerged in nitric acid for a little while.
It is surprising how thin they will get while retaining most of the detail.

jmlanzaf

@abcde12345 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ACop said:
That seems like a lot of detail meat still on the bone for that level of thin down on the 1917

People used to grind them down to use as transit tokens.

Why use a wheatback cent for that? Would be cheaper to use a penny post 1959.

You're assuming that it was done post 1959. If you were doing it in 1957, you didn't have much choice.

ricko

That cent certainly is thin.... I agree with @dcarr... that is the most likely method to get it that thin and still have detail...No idea on the large cent... Cheers, RickO

sellitstore

You're assuming that it was done post 1959. If you were doing it in 1957, you didn't have much choice.

Or in the 1930s when there was widespread poverty.

JBK

@sellitstore said:
You're assuming that it was done post 1959. If you were doing it in 1957, you didn't have much choice.

Or in the 1930s when there was widespread poverty.

Or in the very late 50s or early 60s when wheat cents must have been extremely common in circulation. Especially if they were going to thin it down with acid, why not use a coin that already had some wear on it.

abcde12345

@jmlanzaf said:

@abcde12345 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ACop said:
That seems like a lot of detail meat still on the bone for that level of thin down on the 1917

People used to grind them down to use as transit tokens.

Why use a wheatback cent for that? Would be cheaper to use a penny post 1959.

You're assuming that it was done post 1959. If you were doing it in 1957, you didn't have much choice.

Even in 1957 you're using a cent from 1917 and it's the scarcer S mint too? Plus the details are strong. Look at the wheatbacks! Why use a 50c coin for a one cent purpose? if that's the case, use a half dollar instead.

jmlanzaf

@abcde12345 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

You're assuming that it was done post 1959. If you were doing it in 1957, you didn't have much choice.

Even in 1957 you're using a cent from 1917 and it's the scarcer S mint too? Plus the details are strong. Look at the wheatbacks! Why use a 50c coin for a one cent purpose? if that's the case, use a half dollar instead.

Could have been 1937 or 1927 or 1917. In 1917, that coin was not collectible.

JBK

It could also be someone who knew or cared nothing about coins.

abcde12345

@jmlanzaf said:

@abcde12345 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

You're assuming that it was done post 1959. If you were doing it in 1957, you didn't have much choice.

Even in 1957 you're using a cent from 1917 and it's the scarcer S mint too? Plus the details are strong. Look at the wheatbacks! Why use a 50c coin for a one cent purpose? if that's the case, use a half dollar instead.

Could have been 1937 or 1927 or 1917. In 1917, that coin was not collectible.

How could it be altered in 1917 when there is so much wear?

JBK

It could have circulated after being altered? It could be the nitric acid bath that wore it down?