Looking for opinions on authenticity - double struck, double dated Wheat cent
seanq
Posts: 8,675 ✭✭✭✭✭
So I mentioned in my post about the 1982 zinc Lincoln clip that it was one of only three decent coins I pulled from a lot of damaged "error" coins on eBay. The coin below was part of the same group. I believe it is an authentic Mint error, but I would like others to chime in with their opinions:
The second strike was quite weak, I do not see any evidence of a collar scar or even a rim from it. The obverse is especially odd looking because the part of the die that made the second strike was almost entirely devoid of design elements, only the last two digits of the date are visible.
I took a couple of close-up pics of the areas where the strikes overlap, shared below. The host coin is definitely genuine and weighs 3.1g. I did consider the second strike could have been from false dies. The second strike was definitely under less force than the first, as the coin is only very slightly out of round.
Please share your opinions below, I am happy to hear everyone's thoughts on the coin - good, bad, or indifferent.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Comments
I will stay tuned. I'm interested in hearing how the second strike includes the 50 AND the T from the original strike.
Isn't that the wrong piece of the reverse to go with the date?
.
i put these together kind of quick so be gentle.
That's medallic alignment, isn't it?
If you flip the cent, the "es" of states is up near Lincoln's head not near the date
Cool, even flipped me out.
Great job Lance.
“Danger Will Robinson! Danger!”
Unless the 2nd strike was from dies rotated 180 degrees I's say PMD
Except it's raised. Isn't it? It would have to be intentional.
What @CaptHenway said.
Not an error expert but isn't odd an error like that would get down to that condition before getting pulled out of circulation?
Looking at that coin, I first was thinking a post mint creation... but then I realized the numbers/letters are raised, so would have to be a die hit....Strange.... Cheers, RickO
@FredWeinberg @ErrorsOnCoins
I do not like it.
Looks fake to me.
The alignment is correct for a flip-over double strike. I just don't think that the second pair of dies were real.
Fake second strike dies- notA US mint product, imo
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
it certainly doesn't look like the standard o/c d/s but going by what little detail we can see of the second strike, the details are spot-on. i think the first thing to do besides send it off to TPG is to find any other example that has the same kind of incomplete o/c d/s.
i'm not accustomed to seeing this type of error from this time period although i'm sure there areplenty out there, so i dont' know if that adds to the variance of the look.
I believe that that would be a waste of money.
Reviving this thread to share an eBay auction for another odd looking 1950 double struck Lincoln Cent, this time both strikes were in collar ( and the mintmark is an S, not a D). The coin is being offered raw, I have no affiliation with the seller:
https://ebay.com/itm/RARE-GENUINE-1950-S-1c-Double-Struck-Rotated-In-Collar-MINT-ERROR/284002730625
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Found this in a coin roll.
Date of coin 1936 D.
Photo is from a week ago, and has been put away. Just call it a collection photo.
Reverse has the same raised area.
Hope this will help to make a clear understanding of your questions.