New to coin hunting, error wheat penny here??

ProbablyWorthless

Hello, could use some help making decisions here. Does this minting error on the reverse give this 1957-D penny enough substance to send it in for grading? I have thousands of wheat pennies I inherited and just purchased a digital microscope for my computer to start going over them for errors and rare mints. This was just one that stood out. Any help or info is appreciated!

ifthevamzarockin

Welcome to the forum!

That is just toning or discoloration.
If a piece of tape or something similar was on the coin it would preserve the color under the tape while the rest of the coin toned naturally.

Not an error of any kind.

TomB

Howdy and welcome.

As has been mentioned, this is simply some toning differential or discoloration. It might have come from tape. I will give you some advice that you are free to ignore...if you are new to coins and don't really know what you are looking for and/or don't understand the minting process then you will be sinking a substantial amount of time into something like your user name (ProbablyWorthless).

Unless you are really, really interested in finding nominally valuable errors and the incredibly tiny probability of doing so, I would suggest you buy a Red Book and check out the dates and mints that are more valuable as well as learn how to grade and call it a day. You will be far better off in terms of sunk resources (time, energy and funds) vs. blindly using a microscope looking for a lottery ticket.

Good luck!

jmlanzaf

99.99% of coin oddities are just circulation or environmental damage. If you're serious about this hobby, you should start by looking at the thousands of images of real errors available on auction sites. Otherwise, you're going to be fooled 99.99% of the time by damage. Valuable, collectible errors fall into a few SPECIFIC types.

Manifest_Destiny

It's ProbablyWorthless.

CRHer700

@Manifest_Destiny said:
It's ProbablyWorthless.

It is worth at least one cent.

gumby1234

@CRHer700 said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
It's ProbablyWorthless.

It is worth at least one cent.

Its worth at least 3 cents because its a wheat cent made of mostly copper.

CRHer700

@gumby1234 said:

@CRHer700 said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
It's ProbablyWorthless.

It is worth at least one cent.

Its worth at least 3 cents because its a wheat cent made of mostly copper.

Agree.

Manifest_Destiny

jmlanzaf

@gumby1234 said:

@CRHer700 said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
It's ProbablyWorthless.

It is worth at least one cent.

Its worth at least 3 cents because its a wheat cent made of mostly copper.

He said "at least"...

jmlanzaf

@Manifest_Destiny said:

Don't feel badly. I got the joke

Junkntrunks

Yes , probably worth 3 cents . Agree with the tape scenario . Newbie here in the same situation ,inherited collection etc. I knew the depth of knowledge my brethren possessed requires diligence to a high degree. Much respect to those endeavors and all that partake. Perfection is to be put on high ,no doubt . Errors have their place and it’s another ,”to each their own” . I had hoped to delay my research into errors and concentrate on learning to get a grasp on grading . First I studied the proof sets for inventory . Stacks of Dansco and Whitman volumes assembled from ripped out Mylar blisters from duplicates sets made that a priority . Now, I decided to investigate the circulated tubes to develope muscle memory in handling raw coins correctly. (Learned that as a child when opportunity presented .) Boxes of B.U. Rolls await inspection. Sorting by date , mint mark ,and condition is daunting task not to be taken lightly. Distinguishing the intricacies of cause and effect of manufacture or environmental damage … wow . Turns out environmental damage is most obviously the easiest of the two. (As long as it’s not done to deceive.) The errors in manufacture vast range is instructive to knowledge base as to authentication . Double die vs machine doubling both are mint errors imho. If it’s not nearly perfect it’s a quality error. It’s the desirability of the effect of the beholders eye that still determines its value. Even the decision not to melt $10 million coins in 1955 came down to dollars and sense ( or cents , pun intended) . DD’s give me temporary double vision effect . Machine doubling while interesting is less dramatic. Value shows the monetary winners and losers . ANYWAY. Sadly , I found this 1953 coin VF 40 ? maybe from circulation. That’s without the impression of something bulging from Lincoln’s forehead deforming the crest of his hairline off his forehead not unlike Dagwood. Environmental or mint error ???

AUandAG

Pack up the microscope and return it or put it in the closet for a few years. Errors, that have value, are almost always visible with the naked eye. Generally a hand held loupe is all that is necessary. Magnification is usually only needed to confirm a real error from a fake error by using other "tells" that confirm the real error.
I've managed to collect coins, and errors, with only the need of a hand held loupe. I don't own a microscope. Today, most cell phones, can magnify to any degree that is necessary beyond that of a loupe.
As mentioned get a Red Book. Almost all valuable errors are listed and usually with good pics.
Welcome, and good luck.
bob

TomB

@Junkntrunks said:
Yes , probably worth 3 cents . Agree with the tape scenario . Newbie here in the same situation ,inherited collection etc. I knew the depth of knowledge my brethren possessed requires diligence to a high degree. Much respect to those endeavors and all that partake. Perfection is to be put on high ,no doubt . Errors have their place and it’s another ,”to each their own” . I had hoped to delay my research into errors and concentrate on learning to get a grasp on grading . First I studied the proof sets for inventory . Stacks of Dansco and Whitman volumes assembled from ripped out Mylar blisters from duplicates sets made that a priority . Now, I decided to investigate the circulated tubes to develope muscle memory in handling raw coins correctly. (Learned that as a child when opportunity presented .) Boxes of B.U. Rolls await inspection. Sorting by date , mint mark ,and condition is daunting task not to be taken lightly. Distinguishing the intricacies of cause and effect of manufacture or environmental damage … wow . Turns out environmental damage is most obviously the easiest of the two. (As long as it’s not done to deceive.) The errors in manufacture vast range is instructive to knowledge base as to authentication . Double die vs machine doubling both are mint errors imho. If it’s not nearly perfect it’s a quality error. It’s the desirability of the effect of the beholders eye that still determines its value. Even the decision not to melt $10 million coins in 1955 came down to dollars and sense ( or cents , pun intended) . DD’s give me temporary double vision effect . Machine doubling while interesting is less dramatic. Value shows the monetary winners and losers . ANYWAY. Sadly , I found this 1953 coin VF 40 ? maybe from circulation. That’s without the impression of something bulging from Lincoln’s forehead deforming the crest of his hairline off his forehead not unlike Dagwood. Environmental or mint error ???

This reads like AI-generated text.

Manifest_Destiny

@TomB said:

@Junkntrunks said:
Yes , probably worth 3 cents . Agree with the tape scenario . Newbie here in the same situation ,inherited collection etc. I knew the depth of knowledge my brethren possessed requires diligence to a high degree. Much respect to those endeavors and all that partake. Perfection is to be put on high ,no doubt . Errors have their place and it’s another ,”to each their own” . I had hoped to delay my research into errors and concentrate on learning to get a grasp on grading . First I studied the proof sets for inventory . Stacks of Dansco and Whitman volumes assembled from ripped out Mylar blisters from duplicates sets made that a priority . Now, I decided to investigate the circulated tubes to develope muscle memory in handling raw coins correctly. (Learned that as a child when opportunity presented .) Boxes of B.U. Rolls await inspection. Sorting by date , mint mark ,and condition is daunting task not to be taken lightly. Distinguishing the intricacies of cause and effect of manufacture or environmental damage … wow . Turns out environmental damage is most obviously the easiest of the two. (As long as it’s not done to deceive.) The errors in manufacture vast range is instructive to knowledge base as to authentication . Double die vs machine doubling both are mint errors imho. If it’s not nearly perfect it’s a quality error. It’s the desirability of the effect of the beholders eye that still determines its value. Even the decision not to melt $10 million coins in 1955 came down to dollars and sense ( or cents , pun intended) . DD’s give me temporary double vision effect . Machine doubling while interesting is less dramatic. Value shows the monetary winners and losers . ANYWAY. Sadly , I found this 1953 coin VF 40 ? maybe from circulation. That’s without the impression of something bulging from Lincoln’s forehead deforming the crest of his hairline off his forehead not unlike Dagwood. Environmental or mint error ???

This reads like AI-generated text.

My first thought was Emerald prose. But yeah, AI works too.

braddick

@Manifest_Destiny said:

@TomB said:

@Junkntrunks said:
Yes , probably worth 3 cents . Agree with the tape scenario . Newbie here in the same situation ,inherited collection etc. I knew the depth of knowledge my brethren possessed requires diligence to a high degree. Much respect to those endeavors and all that partake. Perfection is to be put on high ,no doubt . Errors have their place and it’s another ,”to each their own” . I had hoped to delay my research into errors and concentrate on learning to get a grasp on grading . First I studied the proof sets for inventory . Stacks of Dansco and Whitman volumes assembled from ripped out Mylar blisters from duplicates sets made that a priority . Now, I decided to investigate the circulated tubes to develope muscle memory in handling raw coins correctly. (Learned that as a child when opportunity presented .) Boxes of B.U. Rolls await inspection. Sorting by date , mint mark ,and condition is daunting task not to be taken lightly. Distinguishing the intricacies of cause and effect of manufacture or environmental damage … wow . Turns out environmental damage is most obviously the easiest of the two. (As long as it’s not done to deceive.) The errors in manufacture vast range is instructive to knowledge base as to authentication . Double die vs machine doubling both are mint errors imho. If it’s not nearly perfect it’s a quality error. It’s the desirability of the effect of the beholders eye that still determines its value. Even the decision not to melt $10 million coins in 1955 came down to dollars and sense ( or cents , pun intended) . DD’s give me temporary double vision effect . Machine doubling while interesting is less dramatic. Value shows the monetary winners and losers . ANYWAY. Sadly , I found this 1953 coin VF 40 ? maybe from circulation. That’s without the impression of something bulging from Lincoln’s forehead deforming the crest of his hairline off his forehead not unlike Dagwood. Environmental or mint error ???

This reads like AI-generated text.

My first thought was Emerald prose. But yeah, AI works too.

potAAAto.
potaaato.

Junkntrunks

Critic of writing style not objective analysis of the subject reflects poorly on these quaility of these replies. That suggests a lack of humility and general knowledge. Consider yourself a troll not serious person.

Junkntrunks

Critic of writing style not objective analysis of the subject reflects poorly on these quaility of these replies. That suggests a lack of humility and general knowledge. Consider yourself a troll not serious person.

Manifest_Destiny

@Junkntrunks said:
Critic of writing style not objective analysis of the subject reflects poorly on these quaility of these replies. That suggests a lack of humility and general knowledge. Consider yourself a troll not serious person.

Bikergeek

I'd be interested in hearing what happened to that 1953 cent. It looks like a lamination error, but I could be convinced it was just a hard hit with a sharp object. Whatever it is, it looks like the Borg. Here's one now:

FredWeinberg

It’s a well-known and fairly common die crack – also called a “cracked skull“

Interesting and a good example of the mining process, but has very minimal value imo

jmlanzaf

@Junkntrunks said:
Critic of writing style not objective analysis of the subject reflects poorly on these quaility of these replies. That suggests a lack of humility and general knowledge. Consider yourself a troll not serious person.

@Junkntrunks said:
Critic of writing style not objective analysis of the subject reflects poorly on these quaility of these replies. That suggests a lack of humility and general knowledge. Consider yourself a troll not serious person.

It might suggest a lack of humility. It doesn't really say anything about their knowledge.

Personally, I knew it wasn't AI. The AI uses paragraph breaks. 🤣

Welcome to the forum!

Junkntrunks

@FredWeinberg said:
It’s a well-known and fairly common die crack – also called a “cracked skull“

Interesting and a good example of the mining process, but has very minimal value imo

Thank you so very much . “Cracked skull” indeed ! Funny because my grandkids named it helmet head .

Junkntrunks

Reverse