Zinc rot
Jderyke
Posts: 11 ✭
So checking out pcgs 1982 large date zinc photos, ms 69 graded coins have a ton of zinc rot. Can someone explain to me how this is acceptable?
0
Comments
Need to see pics of what you call zinc rot. Can't just make a guess..
bob
I think you may be confusing occluded gas bubbles with zinc rot.
Yes the bubbles, a lot better pics on pcgs than I can upload here.
Perhaps the "rot" occurred after they were slabbed. Can you show us a few pics that show this "rot"?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Here, nope this is pcgs photo grade top pop ms 69 taken at grading.
The pimples all over the coin are gas bubbles.
Ok.....still the question why isn't this knocking it down a grade?
Looks like it may have had some die issues. Look at the center of the obverse, around the bowtie and the same general opposite location on the reverse. Some serious die polish lines on the reverse as well behind the ONE CENT. As stated above, the bubbles (if they are bubbles and not the result of a rusty die) likely formed after slabbing?
Jesus.....
I completely agree this coin is over graded besides the bubbles, weak strike etc. These are photos of coins at grading. My question is why isn't bubbles counted against the grade?
Super common on zinc cents, 82, 83 & 84 were really bad years for it.
"My question is why isn't bubbles counted against the grade?"
The bubbles happen during the striking process and are not post mint damage to the coin.
They could/should keep a coin from grading a MS-70
Gotcha, thanks for the help.
A lot of problems with zincolns don't affect the grade.
The most disturbing to me are the ugly uneven surfaces underneath the bubbles and plating breaks on the 1984-P. People mistakenly believe nice gemmy '84 cents are common because of this. I believe they are "scarce" even in MS-64.
If you don't like the bubbles then YOU should deduct from the grade even if the TPG does not. Make your own decisions.
To me, the examples shown above should be no where near MS-69. Marks are marks, whether they're slight contact marks from dropping into a bin directly after minting, or bubbles. And, those bubbles are ugly and should drop the grade well below MS-69, IMO. Caveat: I am not a Lincoln collector, so my comments are only opinions.
But, personally, I wouldn't pay $1.00 to own those examples. To buy and flip for a profit, that's a different story.
Rocking my "shiny-object-syndrome"!!!
This gets into the question of how mint production issues affect the grade of a coin. To me a very high grade coin, like an MS-69, should be almost perfectly made. Very high grades should connote exceptional preservation and execution of the coin.
100% agree.
That's fine for buyers but what does a seller do with rare Gems when there are less attractive coins with high grades? With some dates like the '83-P and especially the '84-P there are almost no attractive coins out there.
If there are no attractive coins then there are no attractive coins. For the sellers who are looking to make big bucks ... tough luck.
It is very clear that a large portion of the market will pay up for what the little tag in the holder says vs what the coin looks like. Not an ideal situation but sellers know that it is just a matter of time before a registry player will break down and buy in order to stay on top.
This is not just an issue with the zinc cents, it is also true for other series like Morgan dollars. There are years and mints that simply did not produce well struck coins, many of the NOLA dollars are plagued with weak strikes. In the beginning these were graded lower, as they should be, but now with market grading and gradeflation many of these weakly struck examples which may not have been economical to grade in the past are now being given higher grades.
I'm sure that you will say it is up to the buyers to not pay the higher prices for those new higher grades, which is all fine and dandy, except if you want to complete the series you have little choice but to pay the inflated prices. It is just the cost of being a series collector in this day and age.
Circling back to the zinc cents, if you are waiting to find a pristine example with no bubbles or flaws you will be waiting for a very long time, as in you are likely to never find one for the early years of production.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
In many areas of collecting there are people with more money than sense.
If only the Mint had gone with Aluminum rather than Zinc, they'd all be worth 500K
Collect what you like, pass on that which you do not like. Makes life a lot easier. Cheers, RickO
I have seen "zinc rot" for real. When I was shopping for a 1983 doubled reverse die cent in the mid 1980s, I saw one that had a hole in the copper coating with the zinc exposed. The spot where the zinc was exposed was deteriorating. I could see a time when you could put this coin in an envelope, forget about it for a few years, and come back to find a pile of dust in the envelope. The copper coated zinc cents are delicate. They need proper storage like the white metal tokens, which are subject to "tin pest."
I know of two that really stand out as being tough in attractive true Gem. The '83-P I've never found but I know of a few. the '84-P may be even tougher. I found a nice superb Gem (MS-67) with full strike and no surface issues. It does however have the tiniest little carbon spot. I have another from the same source that is a solid Gem (MS-65) with no issues except of course very light marking.
I believe anyone who has made a concerted effort to find these probably has found at least an MS-65. The problem is that there are exceedingly few collectors who have made such an effort. So few are looking that this coin isn't worth the cost of slabbing even in MS-66!!! There may be only a few dozen true Gems surviving and every year another 4 or 5% are lost to circulation or corrosion.
While there are several tough zincolns because of rot don't expect every copper memorial to be easy in Gem. Sure, there were plenty made but most went into circulation. Try finding a '79-D without deep scratches AND a weak strike. Try finding even an MS-60 '68-P without carbon spots. There are probably a lot out there because every roll hasn't gone bad but when you couple the relative scarcity of Gems with the prevalence of carbon spots it doesn't leave so many nice coins.
Some of the later zincolns come extremely nice but if you take a close look at those hammered PL '88-D's you'll see the brutality of the strike ripped the copper sheathing right off the sides of some of the reverse lettering exposing the zinc core on the sides of the lettering. In 20 years most of these will be gone including probably all the mint set coins like these.
Some people might ask why collect any coin that is prone to evaporation.
I would say that it's for the same reasons collectors have historically collected current coins; to preserve them for the future.
If you select good coins and store them well the attrition isn't remarkably high. It might actually be lower than some of the memorials that tend to spot or tarnish.
Alot of the early 80's zinc planchets were not rinsed well and the zinc dust stuck on the zinc planchets before the plating process. When they were plated it caused that type of problems - not zinc bubbles. Zinc bubbles are exactly that - BUBBLES, not the tiny imperfections in the plating that you are seeing. Look it up............
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"