Please help identify variety #

prooflike

I pulled out the old Whitman's and going through the coins and found a couple of interesting cents & need help identifying variety # so I can properly label...

1943-S Lincoln cent - the '4' is almost non-existant and the mint mark is partially filled, so I am assuming a grease filled die??

&

1882 Indian Cent - the top part of the '2' is missing, it has the loop on the left and part of the top curve on the right, so it is the top part missing.

Any help would be great...TIA

prooflike

Can anybody help?

lathmach

This is real common on the Steel cents. I can't give an opinion on the Indian Head cent.

Ray

shylock

The only major variety for 1882 IHs is the S-1 RPD in which both 8s show repunching within the upper loops and the 2 shows some in the top part of the base. The example from Larry Steve/Kevin Flynn's FINDERS REPORT has a weak, almost flat upper 2 similar to yours. Does yours show any of these RPD traits? If not this is just the result of a clogged die and not a variety.

I'm charging my camera up to show you the image in the book...

shylock

coinrookie

Concur on the steelie. Fairly common.

prooflike

Thanks every one for the input & thanks Shylock for the image. The 1882 doesn't seem to have the RPD on the 88, and on the 2, where the doubling is, my 2 is completely missing that part.

Thanks again for the help.

shylock

I was reading through an article by Larry Steve tonight, "The Ultimate (Die Variety) Date Set", in the current FE & IH Cent Collector's Society quarterly journal (Longacre's Ledger), and whalla! He mentions every date's major variety, but for 1882 lists two, one of which:

Broken 2 (Snow-2)

This is the only date where I offer a choice (or both). I couldn't omit this variety as it is the only die which clearly shows a broken date punch. There are very few dies throughout the entire series on which a broken date punch was used; however, nearly all of them were obscured by a repunching of the date. This selection remained completely un-repunched.

Not listed in his book (1995) so, like many, a fairly recent attribution -- and a pretty cool one at that! Congrats.

prooflike

THANK YOU Shylock for finding that info, and it is an interesting variety andthe broken 2 is plain as day.

Thanks again,
Jeff