1982 3.1gr L-DVery beat up I know

acadien

I know he had a very turbulent life and he's all beat up. However, that is not the reason I post this coin. The coin weight 3.1 gr therefore copper, but I don't have to tell you that you all aware of that. I understand if the coin was made with zinc - copper plated a large dot or bubble between the thin layer of copper defying and not holding up because of the impurity left on the cent during process.

This one is copper and has a big dot between the shin and the mouth

,

Hemispherical

Damge posted

giantsfan20

PMD you have been told that so many times you should be an expert by now,!

Do some research or reread your previous posts should help you?

291fifth

What is your point in posting large photos of obviously badly damaged coins like this?

giantsfan20

giantsfan20

Ugh another PMD posts.

acadien

I guest the error and varieties dont have the same credential between Canada and USA. This is a 1964 Canada 1 cent with a DOT above the 9 of the date. Die error end Varieties #1005 Zoell #B88q - Minor Coin Varieties - 4th Edition - 1968.

This is and error wort $3000 in MS 66. I Post the 1982 mentioning that I new it was PMD. But that is not why I posted. I simply wanted to know if a large DOT in the US was consider has a error.

Before getting upset over me Did you at least read the reason I post this coin. Funny but, no one has mention the DOT.

I know the coin is face value, compare to the MS 66 Canadian penny, just want to know if the US consider Dot on copper an error.

Hemispherical

@acadien Thanks for the explanation. That was very informative about Canadian penny. Wish you would have put that in the OP.

The issue with the cent is that if the “dot” had any numismatic value the damage would have negated it.

Edit: Brokken spel chexer.

jesbroken

@acadien I saw and understood your question, but had no answer as I have not seen one with a dot before and yes the coin you showed had so much damage the average person would not have even noticed the dot. Good eye to see this, but maybe have stated the question to where the damage was not a concern.
Jim

jmlanzaf

I think there are some 19th century meaningful dots but i'm not aware of any intentional dots on 1982 coins

acadien

@Hemispherical said:
@acadien Thanks for the explanation. That was very informative about Canadian penny. Wish you would have put that in the OP.

The issue with the cent is that if the “dot” had any numismastic value the damage would have negated it.

Yea I no, It would had a negative value because the PMD. Please forget abot it. I didn't posted to get any PMD analysis. THE QUESTION WAS, IS A DOT ON US CENT OR ANY OTHER CONSIDER A MINT. ERROR IN THE USA.

P.S. What the abbreviation OP stand for

acadien

@jmlanzaf said:
I think there are some 19th century meaningful dots but i'm not aware of any intentional dots on 1982 coins

Here in Canada they are consider Mint error, as long that there are dated before they the copper and nickel coating.

Hemispherical

@acadien said:

@Hemispherical said:
@acadien Thanks for the explanation. That was very informative about Canadian penny. Wish you would have put that in the OP.

The issue with the cent is that if the “dot” had any numismastic value the damage would have negated it.

Yea I no, It would had a negative value because the PMD. Please forget abot it. I didn't posted to get any PMD analysis. THE QUESTION WAS, IS A DOT ON US CENT OR ANY OTHER CONSIDER A MINT. ERROR IN THE USA.

P.S. What the abbreviation OP stand for

OP = original post/original poster.

A dot can be considered an error if it occurs during the minting process.

jmlanzaf

@acadien said:

@jmlanzaf said:
I think there are some 19th century meaningful dots but i'm not aware of any intentional dots on 1982 coins

Here in Canada they are consider Mint error, as long that there are dated before they the copper and nickel coating.

I'm not sure which dots you are talking about but the 1947 Canada dot coinage are varieties NOT errors as the dots are put there intentionally.

The 1964 cent is an error.

A US coin with an accidental dot would be an error.

ricko

@acadien.... OP means Original Post....I do not believe that dot is a mint error.... It would have to be evaluated by an expert in such things...Cheers, RickO

acadien

@ricko said:
@acadien.... OP means Original Post....I do not believe that dot is a mint error.... It would have to be evaluated by an expert in such things...Cheers, RickO

Hello ricko, The picture is just for visuel. > @jmlanzaf said:

@acadien said:

@jmlanzaf said:
I think there are some 19th century meaningful dots but i'm not aware of any intentional dots on 1982 coins

Here in Canada they are consider Mint error, as long that there are dated before they the copper and nickel coating.

I'm not sure which dots you are talking about but the 1947 Canada dot coinage are varieties NOT errors as the dots are put there intentionally.

The 1964 cent is an error.

A US coin with an accidental dot would be an error.

Not referring to the 1947 DOT or Maple Leaf which his a variety and located after the date.,

This is a 1964 Canada 1 cent with a DOT above the 9 of the date. Die error end Varieties #1005 Zoell #B88q - Minor Coin Varieties - 4th Edition - 1968.
The value can go up to $3000
.

The reason I have posted a photo of the 1982. I simply wanted to know if a large DOT on US coins is consider has a error.

acadien

@ricko said:
@acadien.... OP means Original Post....I do not believe that dot is a mint error.... It would have to be evaluated by an expert in such things...Cheers, RickO

Thanks ricko, I just want to know if DOT on US coins are consider error or variety.. Seem like a photo send with my question confuse everyone., is it or is it not consider and error that is the question. I know this one is PMD and an it's wort face value.
Thank ricko A+

ricko

@acadien.....A mint struck dot, that is not part of the original design, could indeed be considered an error... if it was somehow made part of the die (intentionally or unintentionally) such as die polish marks, but a dot instead. It may or may not command numismatic value... depending on placement, size and commonality. Cheers, RickO

acadien

@ricko said:
@acadien.....A mint struck dot, that is not part of the original design, could indeed be considered an error... if it was somehow made part of the die (intentionally or unintentionally) such as die polish marks, but a dot instead. It may or may not command numismatic value... depending on placement, size and commonality. Cheers, RickO

Yes ,,, thank you very much you have answer my question. A+