What caused the damage on this Lincoln cent?
Saam
Posts: 585 ✭✭✭✭
I have several coins with this damage. Hopefully someone can tell me what caused it. My guess is that the feeder fingers damaged the planchet, but not sure. Thanks!
1
Comments
The die was gouged. That is a cool find.
Mechanical aggression.
peacockcoins
Are the others exact?
Successful BST transactions- Bfjohnson, Collectorcoins, 1peter223, Shrub68, Byers, Greencopper, Coinlieutenant, Coinhunter4, SurfinxHI
I’m in agreement with Clakamas1, looks like die damage to me.
do the areas stick up off the field or sunken into them?
Those 2 pics are same coin right?
My first thought was feeder finger damage and planchet flaw.
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
Both pics are of the same coin but with different light. The distorted area left of the date is lower than it should be, like a gouge and the striations on the left and right of Lincoln's head look like scratches.
the indent is likely from a strike through. i'll let others explain the parallel lines
Looks like a strike through to me/
Young Numismatist. Over 20 successful transactions including happy BST transactions with @CoinHoarder, @Namvet69, @Bruce7789, @TeacherCollector, @JWP, @CuKevin, @CoinsExplorer, @greencopper, @PapiNE and @privatecoin
"Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing" -Benjamin Franklin
how many do you have with the strike through?
I have two of these coins and both have the same marks. Although you can't see it in the pictures, the same striations/scratches on the left and right of Lincoln's face are also between Lincoln's eye and his nose. I do recall seeing these same striations/scratches on some 2007 Washington dollars when they first came out, which I thought at the time were feeder finger marks. Since the marks on these coins are incuse wouldn't that mean there was something between the die and the planchet when the coin was struck?
It's an intriguing coin. I do side in the "die scraped, likely by feeding finger, and strike through." My intrigue is in the strike through... Is it possible that this was the first coin (or nearly so) struck after the scraping happened? That perhaps struck through die of feeder finger debris...
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Fully agree with feeder finger.
That being the case, it would have to be some type of strike through.
I think those are being called field restricted strike through. Something to do with the feeder finger, debris and grease
Feeder finger scrapes, imo (on the die)
"My guess is that the feeder fingers damaged the planchet, "
Feeder fingers damage the anvil die not the planchet itself. Once the die is damaged the rest of the coins coming off of it will have those marks on the surface.
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
thanks fw!
Thanks to everyone! I appreciate all the information. Now I need to decide if it's worth being graded as an error.
IMO, it’s not….
Fred, what is IMO?
“In my opinion’
Your reputation should be the final word but this time I don't agree. I have seen a similar Lincoln coin probably with a different date - which I don't remember. If a coin is damaged by the Mint when it is made, I believe it should be classified as a Mint Error. I understand that the streaks have been attributed to feed fingers, but the hollowed-out area is some kind of strike through. IMO, there had to be some debris on the die to cause the depression and its orientation suggests it was made at the same time as the scrapes.
PS I apologize if I misunderstood your post and we are actually in agreement.
It sounds like you don't understand what feeder finger damage is, assuming I am reading your comment the way you intended.
As has already been noted above in the thread, feeder finger damage is to the die. A struck-through would impact the individual coin (although there have been cases of apparent stuck debris on the die which caused a similar anomaly in a few coins).
The feeder finger damage could have been created many thousands of coins before this one was struck.
My thought is the planchet was damaged before the coin was struck. The dies were not deep enough to flatten it out. The area under Lincoln's beard looks like a lamination.
I like both your thoughts. However, IMO this is not a one-time event. The streaks are the from the fingers. The hollowed-out chunky area will be on more than one coin IF WHAT I POSTED IS CORRECT. You cannot have two similar laminations with coins in the same relative die state.
A "hollowed-out" area on the coin wiould be raised on the die. How could a raised area occur as an error on a die during striking? 🤔
(A planchet flaw is a separate issue).
it's not a lamination. as a zincoln, any peeling would expose the white zinc underneath
Not if the lamination mark were there before the piece was coated with copper.
true
but the the op said he has 2
I can't see that mark below Lincoln's beard coming from the die. Remember that it has to be raised on the die, or it's a struck through if it was not on the planchet before striking. It's got the look of a flaw in the zinc before the coating.
You are correct and a big wad of copper scraped off a coin, planchet or coining debris might remain on the die and cause a crater (STRIKE THROUGH) on a coin. This "error" is not ultra rare. With the interest generated in this thread we will come up with an answer that we all will agree on. I think we can all agree so far that the big depression was not damage to the die for the reason you gave.
it's a strike through
I appreciate all the comments and agree with Mr. Weinberg that feeder fingers damaged the die. These are pics of the second coin I have with the same "markings" but it is slightly different than the first. I actually got these from the Bay years ago and just happened to run across them again. (sorry for the poor pics)