<<<It is not acid washed or anything like that.>>> OK, we believe you. It's not acid washed.
<<<I do not know why there's spotting on it, maybe something used at the mint that soaked into the raw zinc.>>> Nobody knows, the possibilities are endless why coins get spots on them.
<<<It's not a coin that lost the copper, it was minted as it is.. Very sharp lettering with full steps.>>> OK, we believe you. It's a genuine Mint product.
<<<Look, I did not ask anybody whether they thought my coin is fake or not. I mean I am not asking to sell this, just want to know what a coin like this providing it is real would be worth.>>> Why didn't you post a thread titled "Value Needed on Unplated Cent" instead of posting a picture of a fake coin & acting surprised at the answers.
<<<Not interested in how to make a fake Thanks..>>> Knowing how one is made will help you next time you authenticate one.
<<<BTW, if it was fake and I was perpetrating something like this, just showing a B.U. 1982 roll would prove absolutely nothing. Moreover, who can prove this roll, were I to show one, is the actual roll it came from. It proves nothing.>>> Just like your saying it came from a roll and is not fake proves NOTHING.
<<<The best evidence in this coin is its B.U. details.. Check out my photos close, i do not know anything about making a fake or washing one with acid, however I'd expect an acid wash will cause some surface damage that could be seen a lot easier than what's in my crummy photographs. The spotting, is some type of oil, it does not take a scientist to figure that out, acid wash aint gonna leave no oil..>>> You posted that on Sunday October 15, 2006 12:10 PM but the day before, on Saturday October 14, 2006 5:36 PM you said "I do not know why there's spotting on it, maybe something used at the mint "Sunday October 15, 2006 12:10 PM. Overnight expert, huh? You a rocket scientist?
<<<For all i know if it was plated when struck, maybe the plate is in the die.>>> No. Plating does not get ripped off. The whole thing would have stuck to the die creating a Die cap.
<<<I can not imagine how a coin like this was created at the mint.>>> It wasn't.
<<<I looked online at the mint and the details about makeing these, or current ones, I can not imagine, given the pre-plated sheets, this could happen..>>> Sheets are not preplated. Zinc planchets are punched out a strip and then copper plated. The Mint farms this operation out to subcontractors and has nothing to do with it.
<<<Well there's the rub, eh? where are the 'experts'? I find all these people volunteering their expertise yet hardly one or two actually has the knowledge or experience about what I asked.>>> After several people said 1¢ if fake and possibly $100-$200 if real I felt no reason to waste keystrokes saying the same thing.
<<<"it's acid washed" It's deplated" It's fake" this, that and every thing except but few people who could simply answer the question I asked which began this topic.>>> The topic was not "Value Needed on Unplated Cent" instead it was "1982 Lincoln cent missing copper layer error?" with pictures of an acid washed" It's deplated" It's fake" this, that and every thing and you got your answer; it is not a 1982 Lincoln cent missing copper layer error.
<<<Simple question, seems I really have not received a solid answer too. Save, "100, 200, and 1 cent." >> That's about as solid and accurate as you're going to get. It's worth 1¢ if fake and $100-$200 if real & certified as such.
<<<Now for you naysayers, get a life or a TV there's more excitement made by professional actors then what you can find sitting behind a computer and pretending you are qualified to be a judge, expert, etc..>> I got a life & it's watching idiots like you troll the board.
<<<For all of you, I tightened up my camera, Jeez I never asked for an opinion, but instead I get condemnations. Chucklers. Hecklers,>>> YOU posted the pictures as evidence that your coin was real, which turned out to be evidence that your coin is a fake. Understand & realize that and get on with your life.
<<<Two photos. First, the date.
What's important is the 2. Behind this two is a perfectly smooth reflecting metal surface. NO scratches behind it, it is a stamped flat, smooth, shiny surface. I can not get a closer photo to prove to the doubting Thomas’s, but it is as it is.. Smooth, flat, shining surface, ghosting the 2.>>> Looks porous to me.
<<<Now HOW could this be there if it was acid washed?? NOT, because it is absolutely impossible to acid wash a surface and leave any area that was not etched. 1 billion to nothing odds. Also, although a bit blurry, copper glittering on the edge, and sporadically within the zinc.>>> Again, it looks porous to me.
second photo
<<<Here you can see clean unaltered, non-discolored, non etched copper on the edge rim . Look close enough and it's within the zinc too. Sparkly, shiny, mint or raw copper.>>> The plating on the edge is more dense from the upsetting & striking process and was not completely removed by whatever deplating process was used.
<<<All possibilities about this coin having been altered suggested in this topic are totally disproved with these two photos.>>> Your pictures prove that it has indeed been altered.
<<<It has not been acid washed, nor electronically deplated,>>> OK, we believe you.
<<<O.K.? Of course there are those who will chime in and run their fingers off with their self proclaimed opinions, please, those of you who fit in that pocket, be quite for a while..>>> My fingers were happy being idle; thought maybe on a slight chance that if you read it was fake 1 more time you would understand & realize that and get on with your life.
<<<The only thing that makes any sense in the least is exactly what I said as a possibility. Perhaps the copper came off in the die. Both sides at the same time, seems impossible but, it is the only other probable way the copper surface could have been removed. unless there just plain was no copper plating when it was stamped.>>> That makes no sense to us who are familiar with the minting process and are are telling you so.
<<<Moreover, for the rough surface, the only possibility seems to be this. Ripped off within the die. Or, the plating was ripped off before it was stamped?>>> Neither. A few sentences up you said it was "perfectly smooth reflecting metal surface" Is it rough or perfectly smooth?
<<<Maybe the plating was to thin,>>> Makes no difference, plating does not get ripped of by the die.
<<<I don’t know, but do know this aint no fake-er-ru.>>> OK, for the 10th time, we believe you.
<<<Duuh no wonder LincolnsRule, you ask this question, “what do you pay experts for?” The solution to that is, first you find an expert.>>> I'm the 5th or 6th one to reply to your thread.
<<<Thanks seanq, Sean Reynolds I cannot believe how difficult it is to get decent responses around here. Yours not only deals with my original question but goes into the difficulties this topic is exposing. Thanks for taking the time, (the bait is to) help send this topic it in a positive direction.>>> You made it difficult by arguing after you received the answer. You're convincing yourself that it's real bt convincing us more that it's fake. Again, you should have posted a thread titled "Value Needed on Unplated Cent"
<<<There is one point I'd like to respond to which you've made: "A genuine unplated cent should have some fine particles of copper struck into the surfaces, transferred from the faces of dies which had been striking copper plated planchets.">>> True, but your pictures do not show that, they show remnants of plating not removed by the deplating process.
<<<Is that not clear enough in my photo, or writing about them?>>> No, it shows that the plating was probably removed post-mint.
<<<I am still thinking that, if it was stamped it ought to shine, yet this does not.. However one of your points are shown in my photo, which seems incomplete.>>> Unplated planchets shine before striking and they shine after striking. Yours does not shine because the surfaces have been etched away.
<<<As to the weight of it, I do not have the equipment, so i cannot go there for now.>>> The authorized weight is 2.5 grams, + or - .1 gram. The plating is 2% of the coin, or .05 grams, so that wouldn't be of any help.
<<<If an acid or metal remover of any type was used on this coin, two things would have occurred. One, a specially designed washing agent would completely remove all of the target material, (copper) and two; tone the copper and or etch it so badly it would not shine well. , or both.>>> You can unplate a coin using electricity & weak salt water, it doesn't have to be as severe as using acid.
<<<The copper which is embedded into this coin is not toned, rather it is 'collector' Red, and there's plenty of it on the rim and sporadically embedded threw out the entire coin. Reiterating, the copper is 'embedded' within the zinc.. >>> It is embedded from when the zinc planchet was copper plated.
<<<Herein, the normal fake like this, simply, in layman’s terms, aint gonna have the copper nor copper shine and copper color this coins got..>>> Yes it will.
<<<I also know as a expert collector in another realm that many super experts will overlook certain details regarding lower priced inferior collectables. Generally the major knowledge revolves around the exclusively high dollar items. Nice but leaves lower value collectors in the black.>>> Then stay in your own freaking realm!! Byers & Weinberg will give you honest answere is the coin is worth 2¢ or $2 mil. Who attributed the unplated cents WoodenJefferson posted? It was one of the experts who told you that yours was not genuine. He gets paid $$ every tine he attributes one; if he thought it was real he would have told you to send it in, not tell you not to waste your money with submission fees. Your insulting, know it all smartass attitude makes you appear to be nothing more than a troll. You asked a question but know more than the people that are answering so take your fake & move on!!
Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
Get a life dog, sour loser. ignorant do nothing but sit on a computer spouting off more stupidity wasting peoples time, yeah suck your own darn self into a jet engine barking like a dog but really a squealing weasel.
Jeezz!
This topic brought more facts into light than apparently, for all this babble you wrote, you can comprehend. Unfortunately, message boards invite people like you who can not do anything but complain. Deal with it, squealer.
I did not come here to make friends or Entertainment, I thoguht that was made clear, just find facts.
If you want to establish the authenticity of an unplated cent, it's best to compare the microscopic surface texture to control specimens consisting of:
1. unplated planchets (these are readily obtainable) 2. cents with partial plating (these are rarely faked and relatively common)
You should only deal with BU specimens. What you'll find in both is that the exposed zinc is smooth and often shows an obvious luster. There is no pitting, no roughness, no bumps, no matte texture. If a purported unplated zinc cent deviates from this smooth texture, then you've got to question its authenticity -- whether or not it's slabbed and no matter who it's slabbed by. There are plenty of fake unplated cents in top-tier slabs.
Once an unplated cent has circulated and oxidized, then it becomes extremely difficult to authenticate. An authentic specimen should weigh a few hundredths of a gram under 2.5 grams -- somewhere between 2.42 and 2.48 grams.
The 1982 cent under discussion shows a rough texture under high magnification and lots of copper speckles. Neither will be found on unplated planchets or partly plated cents that are in BU condition. One must therefore conclude that the cent was deplated -- possibly by reverse electroplating.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
Good points no doubt errormaven, however both specimens displayed other than the one I began seeking answers about, are either fakes or the information you are relating is flawed.
Both of these coins exhibit precisely what I have illustrated in my coin.. From rough surfacing, copper remnants, spotting, to lack of shine. and in Fred's note what he calls "powdery" surface. I don’t know about your ability to view these other examples but it is very clear they are the same in characteristic likeness. . Including where the dark gray example does not show copper flakes the light gray example shows them well, spotting throughout the entire coin. No different than mine.
Either per your information these two are also fakes, or?
Lets just change the investigation, to the current PCGS examples , what say you? Fred said; no powdery surface yet here are graded and slabbed examples.
Just who am I soposto believe ?
Mine Exibit A: note the tinly little spots all threw the coin
exibit c. WoodenJefferson's contribution note the exact tiny little spots all threw the coin: this is copper flakes. Apparently noted by the grader as "RD" This is completly contrary to your information "The 1982 cent under discussion shows a rough texture under high magnification and lots of copper speckles. Neither will be found on unplated planchets or partly plated cents that are in BU condition. One must therefore conclude that the cent was deplated -- possibly by reverse electroplating. "
Exibit B: Stike out's contribution. while there are no tiny little spots visible on this there is the suimular small oliy spotiing in it.
Includeing contrary to Fred's input plenty of "powder"
Exibit B:
Providing all of the 'expert' opinions I have received in this message board is correct, then the PCGS grading is seriously flawed. Which is it?
Lets cut to the chase, get to the facts, are you collective of ‘experts’ calling the PCGS a useless service?
Is it that difficult to see these coins in the slabs are no different than the one I have asked about? seriously.. Get your glases out if you need.
Your quote: Lets cut to the chase, get to the facts, are you collective of ‘experts’ calling the PCGS a useless service?
Who eluded to that statement...NO representative of this thread mentioned anything in reguards to PCGS in nthat manner, their expertise was used for a "DEFINATIVE" that means FINAL/EXACT/TRUE example!
From ANA
Partial Plated and Unplated- Beginning in 1982, the Lincoln cent composition was changed to a planchet primarily composed of zinc, with a copper plate. Planchets dated 1982 to date with only part of the copper plating are partial plated. Consequently, if no plating is present, they are "unplated."
I hope I get this posted before this thread gets nuked...this is one case where "dropping the bomb" is warranted.
Obviously this topic is subjective. However, the psychical evidence in this topic is conclusive. All points regarding the differences between a faked 'de-plated' example and the examples shown in the exhibited PCGS slabs are just as clear as day. Providing the information I continue to receive is accurate, then one must question the slabbed examples as well. To carry in any other direction would be prejudge.
psychical evidence ?????????? YOU are the only one that has physical evidence...the coin in your hand!
picurtes posted on a forum web page as physical evidence?????...I hope you never have to serve jury duty, the defendent would be doomed before everyone in the court room sat down.
Hey it is the photo you posted that I am using as evidence, now you are suggesting your own information is fake, flawed, invalid? what? Jeez give it a rest.
A piece of evidence is not physical evidence if it merely conveys the information that would be conveyed by the physical evidence, but in another medium. For example, a diagram comparing a defective part to one that was properly made is documentary evidence—only the actual part, or a replica of the actual part, would be physical evidence.
<< <i>The only thing that makes any sense in the least is exactly what I said as a possibility. Perhaps the copper came off in the die. Both sides at the same time, seems impossible but, it is the only other probable way the copper surface could have been removed. unless there just plain was no copper plating when it was stamped. Moreover, for the rough surface, the only possibility seems to be this. Ripped off within the die. Or, the plating was ripped off before it was stamped? >>
AwlKindsOStuff with his big shiat for brains head hung low mumbles under his breath:
<<<Get a life dog, sour loser. ignorant do nothing but sit on a computer spouting off more stupidity wasting peoples time, yeah suck your own darn self into a jet engine barking like a dog but really a squealing weasel. >>> Thank you for your acknowledgement. Bout time I got some respect around here. Not only do I do all that but I also live under a bridge and 3 times a day I stick my high sloping forehead with my abnormally narrowly close set eyes and hairy knuckles out from the shadows and shout “Who wants to cross my bridge!!!!”
Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
Based on its appearance, I would seriously question the authenticity of the PCGS-slabbed 1983 cent. I also have doubts about the 1995-D cent. When unplated cents were a relatively new phenomenon, many fakes were inadvertently slabbed. I don't believe PCGS would slab either coin today.
Again, if the coin lacks luster, and the microscopic surface texture is something other than smooth, then one must err on the side of caution and reject the coin.
<< <i>Good points no doubt errormaven, however both specimens displayed other than the one I began seeking answers about, are either fakes or the information you are relating is flawed.
Both of these coins exhibit precisely what I have illustrated in my coin.. From rough surfacing, copper remnants, spotting, to lack of shine. and in Fred's note what he calls "powdery" surface. I don’t know about your ability to view these other examples but it is very clear they are the same in characteristic likeness. . Including where the dark gray example does not show copper flakes the light gray example shows them well, spotting throughout the entire coin. No different than mine.
Either per your information these two are also fakes, or?
Lets just change the investigation, to the current PCGS examples , what say you? Fred said; no powdery surface yet here are graded and slabbed examples.
Just who am I soposto believe ?
Mine Exibit A: note the tinly little spots all threw the coin
exibit c. WoodenJefferson's contribution note the exact tiny little spots all threw the coin: this is copper flakes. Apparently noted by the grader as "RD" This is completly contrary to your information "The 1982 cent under discussion shows a rough texture under high magnification and lots of copper speckles. Neither will be found on unplated planchets or partly plated cents that are in BU condition. One must therefore conclude that the cent was deplated -- possibly by reverse electroplating. "
Exibit B: Stike out's contribution. while there are no tiny little spots visible on this there is the suimular small oliy spotiing in it.
Includeing contrary to Fred's input plenty of "powder"
Providing all of the 'expert' opinions I have received in this message board is correct, then the PCGS grading is seriously flawed. Which is it?
Lets cut to the chase, get to the facts, are you collective of ‘experts’ calling the PCGS a useless service?
Is it that difficult to see these coins in the slabs are no different than the one I have asked about? seriously.. Get your glases out if you need. >>
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
I think we're about at the point where further discussion will not prove fruitful. The 100+ years of error experience form the "Error Elders" have given their opinion, which for myself would be good enough 99% of the time. But we always preach pictures can only tell so much of the story, so I'll leave a small percentage that they are all wrong.
If we truly are at a place where even looking at certified examples can't help us, why don't you just send it in? If you are absolutely sure it came directly from the mint that way, it is worth about $150 (That's what the example I posted sold for I think). So your $40 for error service certification will still leave you $110 profit. Tell you what - if it slabs, I'll even pay the $40 so you're out nothing. See who is preparing an error submission and ask to piggyback on it.
The thread got somewhat sidetracked, but it was a good learning experience on many fronts, I think we should leave it at that before too many bridges get burned.
<< <i>LOL smart, by this time Fred would reject in personal principle. >>
With all due respect to you, Fred would not do such a thing. If close examination revealed the coin to be a genuine unplated 1982 zinc cent, Fred would "certify" it as such. He's a professional, and would not let a petty thing like your obtuseness get in the way of the truth.
I don't know if its real or not but unless your experience is equal to or more than some of the true experts whom have taken the time to express their opinions I would suggest you at minimum consider them. What would be a motivating factor in Fred or someone saying that it wasn't real? Would he put his reputation at risk for your coin? Not likely.
However, we all create our own realities and you seem stuck on yours. Now if you'd like some other "rarities" to go along with your zinc Lincoln, I have these you can consider....
This first one I thought was pretty but this "forum" bashed it wholeheartedly, so it will fit in nice with yours:
And can you believe that this "forum" thought this nickel was AT'd? It will also go along good with yours:
You've stuck to your guns and its no time to back out now. Add these beauties to your collection and you can promote them and I'll bet this thread will make 100 !!!
<< <i><< LOL smart, by this time Fred would reject in personal principle. >> >>
Well if you believe that you might as well just spend it then, because if don't get it certified no one is going to be willing to pay any kind of money for it, and if you send it in for certification guess who they are going to send it to for an expert opinion. That's right, Fred.
<< <i>Based on its appearance, I would seriously question the authenticity of the PCGS-slabbed 1983 cent. I also have doubts about the 1995-D cent. When unplated cents were a relatively new phenomenon, many fakes were inadvertently slabbed. I don't believe PCGS would slab either coin today. >>
Errormaven, the problem is those are not slabs from back when they were new phenomenons The 1983 is in a slab used from January 1999 to Feb 2002, and the 1995-D is in a slab that started in late 2004. The problem is zinc is a very reactive metal and I would wonder whether or not they may have turned in the holders.
<< <i>Based on its appearance, I would seriously question the authenticity of the PCGS-slabbed 1983 cent. I also have doubts about the 1995-D cent. When unplated cents were a relatively new phenomenon, many fakes were inadvertently slabbed. I don't believe PCGS would slab either coin today. >>
Errormaven, the problem is those are not slabs from back when they were new phenomenons The 1983 is in a slab used from January 1999 to Feb 2002, and the 1995-D is in a slab that started in late 2004. The problem is zinc is a very reactive metal and I would wonder whether or not they may have turned in the holders. >>
That's curious. What you say is certainly possible, but it seems unlikely that a coin could go from BU to powder gray while sitting in a sealed capsule. Both of my BU, fully unplated zinc cents, and all of my partially plated zinc cents, have retained their original luster in cardboard 2X2's.
Whether or not they "turned" while sitting in a slab, their current appearance raises legitimate doubt about their authenticity. One should never grant carte blance acceptance to any claim of authenticity or any diagnosis when visual evidence indicates something amiss.
By the way, I find it amusing that the 1983 cent is graded "MS-65 Red", when there is no copper at all.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
By the way, I find it amusing that the 1983 cent is graded "MS-65 Red", when there is no copper at all. >>
Stikeoutxxx asked the question about the RD in a previous thread. I myself do not know the anwer to that, I was hoping someone would pick up the ball and give us an answer, but that never happened. Perhaps all the tension that eventually transpired in this thread turned the posters off...I know it did on this end.
<<<By the way, I find it amusing that the 1983 cent is graded "MS-65 Red", when there is no copper at all. >>
Stikeoutxxx asked the question about the RD in a previous thread. I myself do not know the anwer to that, I was hoping someone would pick up the ball and give us an answer, but that never happened. Perhaps all the tension that eventually transpired in this thread turned the posters off...I know it did on this end. >>> I'm guessing that the computer program makes them enter something in that field and since it the color was as minted they didn't use Bn or Rd Bn.
Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
Conder101 and errormaven, rather than question the authenticy of the slabbed coins, it seem obvious you are failing to realize what you have been told or believe verses what is real is in contrast.
Ring, ring, = slobber, drool..
Does not have to be food once the bell has been rung at the right time long enough..
Pay attention, Conder101 and errormaven, last time I’ll say this, the slabbed coin that says RD, does contain copper, it is identical in composition and construction to mine..
The slabbed dark gray coin has different colors, textures because it has finger prints.
Get your self a 40x magnifying glass and take another look at your coins. There’s a whole new world just waiting for many of you beyond the 10x realm..
Dog, yeah read that long enough and maybe it will help you. That is, maybe one day you’ll get it.. Ha Not..
Since you don't seem to give a crap what the opinion is around here about your coin, you should send it to PCGS and see what they say and get back to us. I do find it ironic that the person who does error attribution for PCGS has already weighed in on this thread.
<<<Dog, yeah read that long enough and maybe it will help you. That is, maybe one day you’ll get it.. Ha Not.. >>> I doubt it. I'm pretty dense Jeffro. Maybe next time I'm in Joplin MO I can drop in & let you explain it to me in person. You still live on Moffit Ave?
Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
They slab steel cents as RD as well. The RD designation on steelies and unplated cents is there to describe the surface as being tone free and nothing more. If it were slightly toned, it would be RB.
<< <i>Pay attention, Conder101 and errormaven, last time I’ll say this, the slabbed coin that says RD, does contain copper, it is identical in composition and construction to mine.. >>
All genuine non-plated planchet zinc cents will have some traces of copper from copper dust adherring to the dies from all of the plated strikes, but the RD on the slab does not have anything to do with that. It is simply their code for and untoned cent.
As for the authenticity of the the coins in the slabs I have no idea, the photos are not good enough, but I have already commented on the possibility that they may have turned in the slab, and there is always the chance that PCGS screwed up. Personally, from the way the coins look in those photos, I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. Even if I did see them in person and decided they were genuine they are so ugly now that there is no way there would ever meet up to the grades that are on the holders. They are both grade guarantee candidates.
I'm afraid that I have to dispute your contention that "All genuine non-plated planchet zinc cents will have some traces of copper from copper dust adherring to the dies from all of the plated strikes".
The two fully unplated examples I have show no trace of copper, even under high magnification. The several partly plated cents I have do not show any copper flecks in the unplated zones. I'm sure these flecks do show up on occasion, but it would be wrong to assume they are universally present.
As a control, just look at some cents struck on dime planchets or cents struck over struck dimes. You'll find that comparatively few show embedded copper flecks. The enviroment in which they're struck is identical to the environment within which unplated cents are struck.
<< <i>
<< <i>Pay attention, Conder101 and errormaven, last time I’ll say this, the slabbed coin that says RD, does contain copper, it is identical in composition and construction to mine.. >>
All genuine non-plated planchet zinc cents will have some traces of copper from copper dust adherring to the dies from all of the plated strikes, but the RD on the slab does not have anything to do with that. It is simply their code for and untoned cent.
As for the authenticity of the the coins in the slabs I have no idea, the photos are not good enough, but I have already commented on the possibility that they may have turned in the slab, and there is always the chance that PCGS screwed up. Personally, from the way the coins look in those photos, I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. Even if I did see them in person and decided they were genuine they are so ugly now that there is no way there would ever meet up to the grades that are on the holders. They are both grade guarantee candidates. >>
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
Conder101: I do not need, and expect you should see the reason I don't in the photographs, need to know for sure the RD example has copper. The tiny rusty looking spots on this coin is the copper. As in my first photographs the raw copper looks rusty in the photograph too. However, as my magnified view shows it is raw and untinted.
errormaven: I agree per your examples that have no traces of copper, that makes more sense, other wise the mint must have an incredible sloppy operation.
However, speculatively speaking, it seems possible that during the initial stages of development the mint may have been purposely embedding copper flakes to improve the adherence of the copper to the zinc. As I understand it took some time to develop the technology and process that is currently in use.
We can argue, discuss this forever but the bottom line is having a comprehensive understanding of what techniques the mint is and has used threw the development of this type of coin.
I think this subject should remain an open topic until further research, has been exposed. The various types are recent enough and it would seem that, if anybody could contact the Mint perhaps they can disclose why we are seeing copper flecked and plain zinc pennies.
I am not the only person who's come across these but apparently the only one who's strong minded enough to overlook the hierocracy of online message board coin-age.
Read me now and believe me later, the photographs and this discussion is of a coin that has not been altered or tampered with. .
Nothing gets past my trusty rusty Eschenbach Varioplus 8x30 with additional 10x lens. Cept a germ or two
Ah yes, another case of a genius who found a rare valuable coin and decides everybody who responded is wrong because, well, he's a genius. This is good, though, since most of the other turds in the bowl have grown rather stale. We were due for a fresh one.
<< <i>Ah yes, another case of a genius who found a rare valuable coin and decides everybody who responded is wrong because, well, he's a genius. This is good, though, since most of the other turds in the bowl have grown rather stale. We were due for a fresh one.
<<<However, speculatively speaking, it seems possible that during the initial stages of development the mint may have been purposely embedding copper flakes to improve the adherence of the copper to the zinc. As I understand it took some time to develop the technology and process that is currently in use. >>> By golly I think you're right Jeffro! In 1982 electroplating was a new & unknown process in the industrialized world and it took the Mint many years to finally give up & say "Hey this is too much trouble" and farmed the job out to the Ball Corporation in Tennessee. In late 1982 before finally throwing in the towel they experimented with the prototype XMD1c-A1 planchet, which was imbedded with moon dust brought back from earlier Apollo missions. Moon dust proved to be not cost effective due to the prohibitive cost of transportation from the Moon to the Mint, however a small amount of these unusual, rare & valuable cents were released for general circulation. These cents can be easily attributed by sniffing them and if the loose flakes of inhaled moondust causes a light headed & dizzy feeling and incurs the repeated urge to troll on online message boards then they are genuine. <<<Pay attention, Conder101 and errormaven>>> you too, Byers, Fred, until you are <<<having a comprehensive understanding of what techniques the mint is and has used threw the development of this type of coin.>>> don't be posting here again!! Legend Numismatics is constantly warning us about wannabe dealers of your ilk. Jeeze what a bunch uf fuchtards!!!!
Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
<< <i><<<However, speculatively speaking, it seems possible that during the initial stages of development the mint may have been purposely embedding copper flakes to improve the adherence of the copper to the zinc. As I understand it took some time to develop the technology and process that is currently in use. >>> By golly I think you're right Jeffro! In 1982 electroplating was a new & unknown process in the industrialized world and it took the Mint many years to finally give up & say "Hey this is too much trouble" and farmed the job out to the Ball Corporation in Tennessee. In late 1982 before finally throwing in the towel they experimented with the prototype XMD1c-A1 planchet, which was imbedded with moon dust brought back from earlier Apollo missions. Moon dust proved to be not cost effective due to the prohibitive cost of transportation from the Moon to the Mint, however a small amount of these unusual, rare & valuable cents were released for general circulation. These cents can be easily attributed by sniffing them and if the loose flakes of inhaled moondust causes a light headed & dizzy feeling and incurs the repeated urge to troll on online message boards then they are genuine. <<<Pay attention, Conder101 and errormaven>>> you too, Byers, Fred, until you are <<<having a comprehensive understanding of what techniques the mint is and has used threw the development of this type of coin.>>> don't be posting here again!! Legend Numismatics is constantly warning us about wannabe dealers of your ilk. Jeeze what a bunch uf fuchtards!!!! >>
Can't let it die... Dog has to have mo' bark in him
I am the person who found the coin. Back in 1982 I was into coins and pennies more specifically. I knew the mint ws changing over from copper to plated cents. So I would go to the bank and get bank rolled pennies and tube them. I did hundreds of rolls. I figured there might be a mistake made or there would be more of one variety than another and for fifty cents a roll it seemed a good bet to me.
As it happens I got lucky and wound up with a number of 82 P small date rolls.
So, I know for darn sure that penny came from the bank. You of course don't need to believe me but from my standpoint it is pointless to consider other possibilities because I know for a fact that it did.
So the prevailing opinion, which has been stated as fact by some I believe if I recall what I read correctly, is that this is an altered coin.
So again from my standpoint, that means it would have had to have been altered at the mint, by the couriers, or by the bank employee who rolled the pennies.
I think the probability for it having been altered at the mint is low because that carries criminal penalties as well as career ending implications. Not to mention that the thought here is that it was altered after striking the opportunity for which I belive is extremely low because the coins travel down chutes and are processed automatically. I havent been to the mint but I think the chances for altering one are best to slip an odd blank in for striking rather than to remove one and alter it after striking then reinsert it in the stream.
A courier would have to open a mint sewn bag, remove one cent and insert the altered cent, altered at great difficulty and technical expertise, then resew the bag on an industrial sewing machine in the proper pattern.
So that leaves a bank employee. People will do some surprising things but I can't envison a bank employee risking their career for no profit motive whatsoever. And again we have to consider the technical prowess that would be involved in altering the penny. It is possible but I think highly unlikely that a bank employee altered that coin.
But since you don't know all that for a fact as I do having been there at the time, can we consider some of the technical points that have been discussed? I would like to start with the notion that a minted coin would by default be shiney. I think it is true that if the planchet was shiney, the minted coin would likewise be shiney. But if the planchet was dull, the minted coin would likelwise be dull or matte. The force required to burnish a dull planchet shiney would be much, much greater than that used to stamp a coin. That is why they polish the blanks for the proof coins, because even double stamping them does not remove small flaws in the planchet.
So to me the idea that the coin has a matte finish which must have been produced by some chemical process just isn't true. That assumes it was shiney to begin with and my thinking is that it likely was not.
But since you don't know all that for a fact as I do having been there at the time, can we consider some of the technical points that have been discussed? I would like to start with the notion that a minted coin would by default be shiney. I think it is true that if the planchet was shiney, the minted coin would likewise be shiney. But if the planchet was dull, the minted coin would likelwise be dull or matte. The force required to burnish a dull planchet shiney would be much, much greater than that used to stamp a coin. That is why they polish the blanks for the proof coins, because even double stamping them does not remove small flaws in the planchet.
So to me the idea that the coin has a matte finish which must have been produced by some chemical process just isn't true. That assumes it was shiney to begin with and my thinking is that it likely was not.
Anyone care to discuss? >>
Welcome aboard.
I trust you didn't come for the ultra-violence.
Odd you should ask as I was just contemplating the other day what effect there would be from a less than pristine planchet. It's not unusual for planchet defects to remain after striking especially with harder metals like copper nickel. Barring sig- nificant corrosion, I'd expect relatively little telltale sign poststrike. This would es- pecially apply to soft metals like zinc. Luster (and shine) are imparted at strike by the flow of the metal and compression. Areas where there was less metal flow such as in the center of the fields might be more subdued perhaps. I really don't know and intend to start paying attention to signs of such things since they should travel in batches.
I gather the subject coin of this thread was found in a solid BU roll? I have to ask just to be sure we're on the same page.
No one really doubted the author of the thread so much as all anyone has to go on are the photos. The photos are hardly conclusive but they don't appear to show direct contact with the dies. If the coin oxidized over the years then it could be real but not appear to be.
Keep in mind that because these can be faked, people are skeptical and the coin bears the burden of proof. That is, it might not really matter if it's real or not.
But since you don't know all that for a fact as I do having been there at the time, can we consider some of the technical points that have been discussed? I would like to start with the notion that a minted coin would by default be shiney. I think it is true that if the planchet was shiney, the minted coin would likewise be shiney. But if the planchet was dull, the minted coin would likelwise be dull or matte. The force required to burnish a dull planchet shiney would be much, much greater than that used to stamp a coin. That is why they polish the blanks for the proof coins, because even double stamping them does not remove small flaws in the planchet.
So to me the idea that the coin has a matte finish which must have been produced by some chemical process just isn't true. That assumes it was shiney to begin with and my thinking is that it likely was not.
Anyone care to discuss? >>
Welcome aboard.
I trust you didn't come for the ultra-violence.
Odd you should ask as I was just contemplating the other day what effect there would be from a less than pristine planchet. It's not unusual for planchet defects to remain after striking especially with harder metals like copper nickel. Barring sig- nificant corrosion, I'd expect relatively little telltale sign poststrike. This would es- pecially apply to soft metals like zinc. Luster (and shine) are imparted at strike by the flow of the metal and compression. Areas where there was less metal flow such as in the center of the fields might be more subdued perhaps. I really don't know and intend to start paying attention to signs of such things since they should travel in batches.
I gather the subject coin of this thread was found in a solid BU roll? I have to ask just to be sure we're on the same page.
No one really doubted the author of the thread so much as all anyone has to go on are the photos. The photos are hardly conclusive but they don't appear to show direct contact with the dies. If the coin oxidized over the years then it could be real but not appear to be.
Keep in mind that because these can be faked, people are skeptical and the coin bears the burden of proof. That is, it might not really matter if it's real or not. >>
Yep, it came from a BU roll. I was hunting around for some 82 small date rolls. I still don't know how many I have I have to go through a lot of rolls before I will know that. I saw the coin as a sliver of grey through the side of the plastic tube. I thought I was having a corrosion problem or something and I was shocked to find that the coins either side of it bore no discoloration at all.
For reasons unknown to me, a LOT of the early clad cents developed dark spotting. Many that I have sealed in tubes are that way though they were not when I put them in there. It happend soon thereafter though it isn't a recent thing. Anyway, one way I have had to screen the tubes (since i didn't mark them back then since no one knew what the varieties would be yet) has been to look at the coins through the side of the tube. For some reason my 82 zinc P small dates do not spot. My 82 zinc P large dates do. At least so far that is what i have found. Lucky for me it is the 2 small dates that sell for a premium or I would be crying over my spotted coins.
So there is a windy answer to your short question.
And yes I agree that the coin will have to bear it's own witness to it's authenticity. However my purpose here has to do with the intellectual excercise of discussing the facts which have been put forth to disauthenticate the coin. Since I think the coin pretty much has to be real having come to me that way it did, I find it insteresting that the expert opinion was conclusively that it can not be real.
That's a windy way of saying I am not here for money I don't have another one that I know of. I just find it interesting that everyone says it is fake. So I get a debate/discussion and an excuse not to do the things I really should be doing instead that are less interesting.
I understand what you say about the flow of metal in a die. One might expect some shiney areas. If you ran a coin over with a train as I have arranged to happen and I think maybe lots of people of my vintage did, you get a shinier longer coin. But that is a train. And there is lots of room for the metal to move. Given that the plating on a zinc planchet is so thin, do you agree that there can't be all that much metal flow in the dies? If there was a lot the plating would part in spots yes?
Comments
<< <i>OK - answer me this - how can that zinc cent be "RD"?
~dunno~ but like some e-bay sellers say...I don't grade'em or slab'em, all do is I photo/scan'em, put'em up for auction.
Good question?
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
OK, we believe you. It's not acid washed.
<<<I do not know why there's spotting on it, maybe something used at the mint that soaked into the raw zinc.>>>
Nobody knows, the possibilities are endless why coins get spots on them.
<<<It's not a coin that lost the copper, it was minted as it is.. Very sharp lettering with full steps.>>>
OK, we believe you. It's a genuine Mint product.
<<<Look, I did not ask anybody whether they thought my coin is fake or not. I mean I am not asking to sell this, just want to know what a coin like this providing it is real would be worth.>>>
Why didn't you post a thread titled "Value Needed on Unplated Cent" instead of posting a picture of a fake coin & acting surprised at the answers.
<<<Not interested in how to make a fake Thanks..>>>
Knowing how one is made will help you next time you authenticate one.
<<<BTW, if it was fake and I was perpetrating something like this, just showing a B.U. 1982 roll would prove absolutely nothing. Moreover, who can prove this roll, were I to show one, is the actual roll it came from. It proves nothing.>>>
Just like your saying it came from a roll and is not fake proves NOTHING.
<<<The best evidence in this coin is its B.U. details.. Check out my photos close,
i do not know anything about making a fake or washing one with acid, however I'd expect an acid wash will cause some surface damage that could be seen a lot easier than what's in my crummy photographs. The spotting, is some type of oil, it does not take a scientist to figure that out, acid wash aint gonna leave no oil..>>> You posted that on Sunday October 15, 2006 12:10 PM but
the day before, on Saturday October 14, 2006 5:36 PM you said "I do not know why there's spotting on it, maybe something used at the mint "Sunday October 15, 2006 12:10 PM. Overnight expert, huh? You a rocket scientist?
<<<For all i know if it was plated when struck, maybe the plate is in the die.>>>
No. Plating does not get ripped off. The whole thing would have stuck to the die creating a Die cap.
<<<I can not imagine how a coin like this was created at the mint.>>>
It wasn't.
<<<I looked online at the mint and the details about makeing these, or current ones, I can not imagine, given the pre-plated sheets, this could happen..>>>
Sheets are not preplated. Zinc planchets are punched out a strip and then copper plated. The Mint farms this operation out to subcontractors and has nothing to do with it.
<<<Well there's the rub, eh? where are the 'experts'? I find all these people volunteering their expertise yet hardly one or two actually has the knowledge or experience about what I asked.>>>
After several people said 1¢ if fake and possibly $100-$200 if real I felt no reason to waste keystrokes saying the same thing.
<<<"it's acid washed" It's deplated" It's fake" this, that and every thing except but few people who could simply answer the question I asked which began this topic.>>>
The topic was not "Value Needed on Unplated Cent" instead it was "1982 Lincoln cent missing copper layer error?" with pictures of an acid washed" It's deplated" It's fake" this, that and every thing and you got your answer; it is not a 1982 Lincoln cent missing copper layer error.
<<<Simple question, seems I really have not received a solid answer too. Save, "100, 200, and 1 cent." >>
That's about as solid and accurate as you're going to get. It's worth 1¢ if fake and $100-$200 if real & certified as such.
<<<Now for you naysayers, get a life or a TV there's more excitement made by professional actors then what you can find sitting behind a computer and pretending you are qualified to be a judge, expert, etc..>>
I got a life & it's watching idiots like you troll the board.
<<<For all of you, I tightened up my camera, Jeez I never asked for an opinion, but instead I get condemnations. Chucklers. Hecklers,>>>
YOU posted the pictures as evidence that your coin was real, which turned out to be evidence that your coin is a fake. Understand & realize that and get on with your life.
<<<Two photos. First, the date.
What's important is the 2. Behind this two is a perfectly smooth reflecting metal surface. NO scratches behind it, it is a stamped flat, smooth, shiny surface. I can not get a closer photo to prove to the doubting Thomas’s, but it is as it is.. Smooth, flat, shining surface, ghosting the 2.>>>
Looks porous to me.
<<<Now HOW could this be there if it was acid washed?? NOT, because it is absolutely impossible to acid wash a surface and leave any area that was not etched. 1 billion to nothing odds. Also, although a bit blurry, copper glittering on the edge, and sporadically within the zinc.>>>
Again, it looks porous to me.
second photo
<<<Here you can see clean unaltered, non-discolored, non etched copper on the edge rim . Look close enough and it's within the zinc too. Sparkly, shiny, mint or raw copper.>>>
The plating on the edge is more dense from the upsetting & striking process and was not completely removed by whatever deplating process was used.
<<<All possibilities about this coin having been altered suggested in this topic are totally disproved with these two photos.>>>
Your pictures prove that it has indeed been altered.
<<<It has not been acid washed, nor electronically deplated,>>>
OK, we believe you.
<<<O.K.? Of course there are those who will chime in and run their fingers off with their self proclaimed opinions, please, those of you who fit in that pocket, be quite for a while..>>>
My fingers were happy being idle; thought maybe on a slight chance that if you read it was fake 1 more time you would understand & realize that and get on with your life.
<<<The only thing that makes any sense in the least is exactly what I said as a possibility.
Perhaps the copper came off in the die. Both sides at the same time, seems impossible but, it is the only other probable way the copper surface could have been removed. unless there just plain was no copper plating when it was stamped.>>>
That makes no sense to us who are familiar with the minting process and are are telling you so.
<<<Moreover, for the rough surface, the only possibility seems to be this.
Ripped off within the die. Or, the plating was ripped off before it was stamped?>>>
Neither. A few sentences up you said it was "perfectly smooth reflecting metal surface" Is it rough or perfectly smooth?
<<<Maybe the plating was to thin,>>>
Makes no difference, plating does not get ripped of by the die.
<<<I don’t know, but do know this aint no fake-er-ru.>>>
OK, for the 10th time, we believe you.
<<<Duuh no wonder LincolnsRule, you ask this question, “what do you pay experts for?” The solution to that is, first you find an expert.>>>
I'm the 5th or 6th one to reply to your thread.
<<<Thanks seanq, Sean Reynolds I cannot believe how difficult it is to get decent responses around here. Yours not only deals with my original question but goes into the difficulties this topic is exposing. Thanks for taking the time, (the bait is to) help send this topic it in a positive direction.>>>
You made it difficult by arguing after you received the answer. You're convincing yourself that it's real bt convincing us more that it's fake. Again, you should have posted a thread titled "Value Needed on Unplated Cent"
<<<There is one point I'd like to respond to which you've made: "A genuine unplated cent should have some fine particles of copper struck into the surfaces, transferred from the faces of dies which had been striking copper plated planchets.">>>
True, but your pictures do not show that, they show remnants of plating not removed by the deplating process.
<<<Is that not clear enough in my photo, or writing about them?>>>
No, it shows that the plating was probably removed post-mint.
<<<I am still thinking that, if it was stamped it ought to shine, yet this does not.. However one of your points are shown in my photo, which seems incomplete.>>>
Unplated planchets shine before striking and they shine after striking. Yours does not shine because the surfaces have been etched away.
<<<As to the weight of it, I do not have the equipment, so i cannot go there for now.>>>
The authorized weight is 2.5 grams, + or - .1 gram. The plating is 2% of the coin, or .05 grams, so that wouldn't be of any help.
<<<If an acid or metal remover of any type was used on this coin, two things would have occurred. One, a specially designed washing agent would completely remove all of the target material, (copper) and two; tone the copper and or etch it so badly it would not shine well. , or both.>>>
You can unplate a coin using electricity & weak salt water, it doesn't have to be as severe as using acid.
<<<The copper which is embedded into this coin is not toned, rather it is 'collector' Red, and there's plenty of it on the rim and sporadically embedded threw out the entire coin. Reiterating, the copper is 'embedded' within the zinc.. >>>
It is embedded from when the zinc planchet was copper plated.
<<<Herein, the normal fake like this, simply, in layman’s terms, aint gonna have the copper nor copper shine and copper color this coins got..>>>
Yes it will.
<<<I also know as a expert collector in another realm that many super experts will overlook certain details regarding lower priced inferior collectables. Generally the major knowledge revolves around the exclusively high dollar items. Nice but leaves lower value collectors in the black.>>>
Then stay in your own freaking realm!! Byers & Weinberg will give you honest answere is the coin is worth 2¢ or $2 mil.
Who attributed the unplated cents WoodenJefferson posted? It was one of the experts who told you that yours was not genuine. He gets paid $$ every tine he attributes one; if he thought it was real he would have told you to send it in, not tell you not to waste your money with submission fees. Your insulting, know it all smartass attitude makes you appear to be nothing more than a troll. You asked a question but know more than the people that are answering so take your fake & move on!!
Jeezz!
This topic brought more facts into light than apparently, for all this babble you wrote, you can comprehend. Unfortunately, message boards invite people like you who can not do anything but complain. Deal with it, squealer.
I did not come here to make friends or Entertainment, I thoguht that was made clear, just find facts.
1. unplated planchets (these are readily obtainable)
2. cents with partial plating (these are rarely faked and relatively common)
You should only deal with BU specimens. What you'll find in both is that the exposed zinc is smooth and often shows an obvious luster. There is no pitting, no roughness, no bumps, no matte texture. If a purported unplated zinc cent deviates from this smooth texture, then you've got to question its authenticity -- whether or not it's slabbed and no matter who it's slabbed by. There are plenty of fake unplated cents in top-tier slabs.
Once an unplated cent has circulated and oxidized, then it becomes extremely difficult to authenticate. An authentic specimen should weigh a few hundredths of a gram under 2.5 grams -- somewhere between 2.42 and 2.48 grams.
The 1982 cent under discussion shows a rough texture under high magnification and lots of copper speckles. Neither will be found on unplated planchets or partly plated cents that are in BU condition. One must therefore conclude that the cent was deplated -- possibly by reverse electroplating.
Both of these coins exhibit precisely what I have illustrated in my coin..
From rough surfacing, copper remnants, spotting, to lack of shine. and in Fred's note what he calls "powdery" surface.
I don’t know about your ability to view these other examples but it is very clear they are the same in characteristic likeness. . Including where the dark gray example does not show copper flakes the light gray example shows them well, spotting throughout the entire coin. No different than mine.
Either per your information these two are also fakes, or?
Lets just change the investigation, to the current PCGS examples , what say you? Fred said; no powdery surface yet here are graded and slabbed examples.
Just who am I soposto believe ?
Mine Exibit A: note the tinly little spots all threw the coin
exibit c. WoodenJefferson's contribution note the exact tiny little spots all threw the coin: this is copper flakes. Apparently noted by the grader as "RD" This is completly contrary to your information "The 1982 cent under discussion shows a rough texture under high magnification and lots of copper speckles. Neither will be found on unplated planchets or partly plated cents that are in BU condition. One must therefore conclude that the cent was deplated -- possibly by reverse electroplating. "
Exibit B: Stike out's contribution. while there are no tiny little spots visible on this there is the suimular small oliy spotiing in it.
Includeing contrary to Fred's input plenty of "powder"
Exibit B:
Providing all of the 'expert' opinions I have received in this message board is correct, then the PCGS grading is seriously flawed. Which is it?
Lets cut to the chase, get to the facts, are you collective of ‘experts’ calling the PCGS a useless service?
Is it that difficult to see these coins in the slabs are no different than the one I have asked about?
seriously.. Get your glases out if you need.
San Diego, CA
Who eluded to that statement...NO representative of this thread mentioned anything in reguards to PCGS in nthat manner, their expertise was used for a "DEFINATIVE" that means FINAL/EXACT/TRUE example!
From ANA
Partial Plated and Unplated- Beginning in 1982, the Lincoln cent composition was changed to a planchet primarily composed of zinc, with a copper plate. Planchets dated 1982 to date with only part of the copper plating are partial plated. Consequently, if no plating is present, they are "unplated."
I hope I get this posted before this thread gets nuked...this is one case where "dropping the bomb" is warranted.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
These are either wrong too, or?
picurtes posted on a forum web page as physical evidence?????...I hope you never have to serve jury duty, the defendent would be doomed before everyone in the court room sat down.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
It's late, good night.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_evidence"
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>The only thing that makes any sense in the least is exactly what I said as a possibility. Perhaps the copper came off in the die. Both sides at the same time, seems impossible but, it is the only other probable way the copper surface could have been removed. unless there just plain was no copper plating when it was stamped. Moreover, for the rough surface, the only possibility seems to be this. Ripped off within the die. Or, the plating was ripped off before it was stamped? >>
Tee hee! Now that is just silly!
San Diego, CA
<<<Get a life dog, sour loser. ignorant do nothing but sit on a computer spouting off more stupidity wasting peoples time, yeah suck your own darn self into a jet engine barking like a dog but really a squealing weasel. >>>
Thank you for your acknowledgement. Bout time I got some respect around here. Not only do I do all that but I also live under a bridge and 3 times a day I stick my high sloping forehead with my abnormally narrowly close set eyes and hairy knuckles out from the shadows and shout “Who wants to cross my bridge!!!!”
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Again, if the coin lacks luster, and the microscopic surface texture is something other than smooth, then one must err on the side of caution and reject the coin.
<< <i>Good points no doubt errormaven, however both specimens displayed other than the one I began seeking answers about, are either fakes or the information you are relating is flawed.
Both of these coins exhibit precisely what I have illustrated in my coin..
From rough surfacing, copper remnants, spotting, to lack of shine. and in Fred's note what he calls "powdery" surface.
I don’t know about your ability to view these other examples but it is very clear they are the same in characteristic likeness. . Including where the dark gray example does not show copper flakes the light gray example shows them well, spotting throughout the entire coin. No different than mine.
Either per your information these two are also fakes, or?
Lets just change the investigation, to the current PCGS examples , what say you? Fred said; no powdery surface yet here are graded and slabbed examples.
Just who am I soposto believe ?
Mine Exibit A: note the tinly little spots all threw the coin
exibit c. WoodenJefferson's contribution note the exact tiny little spots all threw the coin: this is copper flakes. Apparently noted by the grader as "RD" This is completly contrary to your information "The 1982 cent under discussion shows a rough texture under high magnification and lots of copper speckles. Neither will be found on unplated planchets or partly plated cents that are in BU condition. One must therefore conclude that the cent was deplated -- possibly by reverse electroplating. "
Exibit B: Stike out's contribution. while there are no tiny little spots visible on this there is the suimular small oliy spotiing in it.
Includeing contrary to Fred's input plenty of "powder"
Providing all of the 'expert' opinions I have received in this message board is correct, then the PCGS grading is seriously flawed. Which is it?
Lets cut to the chase, get to the facts, are you collective of ‘experts’ calling the PCGS a useless service?
Is it that difficult to see these coins in the slabs are no different than the one I have asked about?
seriously.. Get your glases out if you need. >>
I think we're about at the point where further discussion will not prove fruitful. The 100+ years of error experience form the "Error Elders" have given their opinion, which for myself would be good enough 99% of the time. But we always preach pictures can only tell so much of the story, so I'll leave a small percentage that they are all wrong.
If we truly are at a place where even looking at certified examples can't help us, why don't you just send it in? If you are absolutely sure it came directly from the mint that way, it is worth about $150 (That's what the example I posted sold for I think). So your $40 for error service certification will still leave you $110 profit. Tell you what - if it slabs, I'll even pay the $40 so you're out nothing. See who is preparing an error submission and ask to piggyback on it.
The thread got somewhat sidetracked, but it was a good learning experience on many fronts, I think we should leave it at that before too many bridges get burned.
Jeff
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
<< <i>LOL smart, by this time Fred would reject in personal principle. >>
With all due respect to you, Fred would not do such a thing. If close examination revealed the coin to be a genuine unplated 1982 zinc cent, Fred would "certify" it as such. He's a professional, and would not let a petty thing like your obtuseness get in the way of the truth.
I don't know if its real or not but unless your experience is equal to or more than some of the true experts whom have taken the time to express their opinions I would suggest you at minimum consider them. What would be a motivating factor in Fred or someone saying that it wasn't real? Would he put his reputation at risk for your coin? Not likely.
However, we all create our own realities and you seem stuck on yours. Now if you'd like some other "rarities" to go along with your zinc Lincoln, I have these you can consider....
This first one I thought was pretty but this "forum" bashed it wholeheartedly, so it will fit in nice with yours:
And can you believe that this "forum" thought this nickel was AT'd? It will also go along good with yours:
You've stuck to your guns and its no time to back out now. Add these beauties to your collection and you can promote them and I'll bet this thread will make 100 !!!
Regards.
Thanks for clarifying that Sean. That's certainly what I was implying in my one and only post on this thread.
<< <i><< LOL smart, by this time Fred would reject in personal principle. >> >>
Well if you believe that you might as well just spend it then, because if don't get it certified no one is going to be willing to pay any kind of money for it, and if you send it in for certification guess who they are going to send it to for an expert opinion. That's right, Fred.
<< <i>Based on its appearance, I would seriously question the authenticity of the PCGS-slabbed 1983 cent. I also have doubts about the 1995-D cent. When unplated cents were a relatively new phenomenon, many fakes were inadvertently slabbed. I don't believe PCGS would slab either coin today. >>
Errormaven, the problem is those are not slabs from back when they were new phenomenons The 1983 is in a slab used from January 1999 to Feb 2002, and the 1995-D is in a slab that started in late 2004. The problem is zinc is a very reactive metal and I would wonder whether or not they may have turned in the holders.
<< <i>
<< <i>Based on its appearance, I would seriously question the authenticity of the PCGS-slabbed 1983 cent. I also have doubts about the 1995-D cent. When unplated cents were a relatively new phenomenon, many fakes were inadvertently slabbed. I don't believe PCGS would slab either coin today. >>
Errormaven, the problem is those are not slabs from back when they were new phenomenons The 1983 is in a slab used from January 1999 to Feb 2002, and the 1995-D is in a slab that started in late 2004. The problem is zinc is a very reactive metal and I would wonder whether or not they may have turned in the holders. >>
That's curious. What you say is certainly possible, but it seems unlikely that a coin could go from BU to powder gray while sitting in a sealed capsule. Both of my BU, fully unplated zinc cents, and all of my partially plated zinc cents, have retained their original luster in cardboard 2X2's.
Whether or not they "turned" while sitting in a slab, their current appearance raises legitimate doubt about their authenticity. One should never grant carte blance acceptance to any claim of authenticity or any diagnosis when visual evidence indicates something amiss.
By the way, I find it amusing that the 1983 cent is graded "MS-65 Red", when there is no copper at all.
By the way, I find it amusing that the 1983 cent is graded "MS-65 Red", when there is no copper at all. >>
Stikeoutxxx asked the question about the RD in a previous thread. I myself do not know the anwer to that, I was hoping someone would pick up the ball and give us an answer, but that never happened. Perhaps all the tension that eventually transpired in this thread turned the posters off...I know it did on this end.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Stikeoutxxx asked the question about the RD in a previous thread. I myself do not know the anwer to that, I was hoping someone would pick up the ball and give us an answer, but that never happened. Perhaps all the tension that eventually transpired in this thread turned the posters off...I know it did on this end. >>>
I'm guessing that the computer program makes them enter something in that field and since it the color was as minted they didn't use Bn or Rd Bn.
Ring, ring, = slobber, drool..
Does not have to be food once the bell has been rung at the right time long enough..
Pay attention, Conder101 and errormaven, last time I’ll say this, the slabbed coin that says RD, does contain copper, it is identical in composition and construction to mine..
The slabbed dark gray coin has different colors, textures because it has finger prints.
Get your self a 40x magnifying glass and take another look at your coins. There’s a whole new world just waiting for many of you beyond the 10x realm..
Dog, yeah read that long enough and maybe it will help you. That is, maybe one day you’ll get it.. Ha Not..
I doubt it. I'm pretty dense Jeffro. Maybe next time I'm in Joplin MO I can drop in & let you explain it to me in person. You still live on Moffit Ave?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>Pay attention, Conder101 and errormaven, last time I’ll say this, the slabbed coin that says RD, does contain copper, it is identical in composition and construction to mine.. >>
All genuine non-plated planchet zinc cents will have some traces of copper from copper dust adherring to the dies from all of the plated strikes, but the RD on the slab does not have anything to do with that. It is simply their code for and untoned cent.
As for the authenticity of the the coins in the slabs I have no idea, the photos are not good enough, but I have already commented on the possibility that they may have turned in the slab, and there is always the chance that PCGS screwed up. Personally, from the way the coins look in those photos, I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. Even if I did see them in person and decided they were genuine they are so ugly now that there is no way there would ever meet up to the grades that are on the holders. They are both grade guarantee candidates.
The two fully unplated examples I have show no trace of copper, even under high magnification. The several partly plated cents I have do not show any copper flecks in the unplated zones. I'm sure these flecks do show up on occasion, but it would be wrong to assume they are universally present.
As a control, just look at some cents struck on dime planchets or cents struck over struck dimes. You'll find that comparatively few show embedded copper flecks. The enviroment in which they're struck is identical to the environment within which unplated cents are struck.
<< <i>
<< <i>Pay attention, Conder101 and errormaven, last time I’ll say this, the slabbed coin that says RD, does contain copper, it is identical in composition and construction to mine.. >>
All genuine non-plated planchet zinc cents will have some traces of copper from copper dust adherring to the dies from all of the plated strikes, but the RD on the slab does not have anything to do with that. It is simply their code for and untoned cent.
As for the authenticity of the the coins in the slabs I have no idea, the photos are not good enough, but I have already commented on the possibility that they may have turned in the slab, and there is always the chance that PCGS screwed up. Personally, from the way the coins look in those photos, I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. Even if I did see them in person and decided they were genuine they are so ugly now that there is no way there would ever meet up to the grades that are on the holders. They are both grade guarantee candidates. >>
Conder101: I do not need, and expect you should see the reason I don't in the photographs, need to know for sure the RD example has copper. The tiny rusty looking spots on this coin is the copper. As in my first photographs the raw copper looks rusty in the photograph too. However, as my magnified view shows it is raw and untinted.
errormaven: I agree per your examples that have no traces of copper, that makes more sense, other wise the mint must have an incredible sloppy operation.
However, speculatively speaking, it seems possible that during the initial stages of development the mint may have been purposely embedding copper flakes to improve the adherence of the copper to the zinc. As I understand it took some time to develop the technology and process that is currently in use.
We can argue, discuss this forever but the bottom line is having a comprehensive understanding of what techniques the mint is and has used threw the development of this type of coin.
I think this subject should remain an open topic until further research, has been exposed. The various types are recent enough and it would seem that, if anybody could contact the Mint perhaps they can disclose why we are seeing copper flecked and plain zinc pennies.
I am not the only person who's come across these but apparently the only one who's strong minded enough to overlook the hierocracy of online message board coin-age.
Read me now and believe me later, the photographs and this discussion is of a coin that has not been altered or tampered with. .
Nothing gets past my trusty rusty Eschenbach Varioplus 8x30 with additional 10x lens. Cept a germ or two
I mean, it really looks dead in this photo. Shouldn't it be a little more 'lively' if it was an original mint product
Lincoln set Colorless Set
Russ, NCNE
San Diego, CA
<< <i>Ah yes, another case of a genius who found a rare valuable coin and decides everybody who responded is wrong because, well, he's a genius. This is good, though, since most of the other turds in the bowl have grown rather stale. We were due for a fresh one.
Russ, NCNE >>
Sounds like we need to flush.
Snippy little Richard, you are. Probably got picked on pretty hard in school - that can be rough.
Good luck with your coin. I hope that smoeone, smoewhare, smoeday gives you the answer that you want.
Doesn't look like it'll be here.
Oh, and good luck as well with your new found friend, Dog97.
Thanks for the entertainment, now it's back to my life
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
By golly I think you're right Jeffro! In 1982 electroplating was a new & unknown process in the industrialized world and it took the Mint many years to finally give up & say "Hey this is too much trouble" and farmed the job out to the Ball Corporation in Tennessee. In late 1982 before finally throwing in the towel they experimented with the prototype XMD1c-A1 planchet, which was imbedded with moon dust brought back from earlier Apollo missions. Moon dust proved to be not cost effective due to the prohibitive cost of transportation from the Moon to the Mint, however a small amount of these unusual, rare & valuable cents were released for general circulation. These cents can be easily attributed by sniffing them and if the loose flakes of inhaled moondust causes a light headed & dizzy feeling and incurs the repeated urge to troll on online message boards then they are genuine.
<<<Pay attention, Conder101 and errormaven>>> you too, Byers, Fred, until you are <<<having a comprehensive understanding of what techniques the mint is and has used threw the development of this type of coin.>>> don't be posting here again!!
Legend Numismatics is constantly warning us about wannabe dealers of your ilk.
Jeeze what a bunch uf fuchtards!!!!
<< <i><<<However, speculatively speaking, it seems possible that during the initial stages of development the mint may have been purposely embedding copper flakes to improve the adherence of the copper to the zinc. As I understand it took some time to develop the technology and process that is currently in use. >>>
By golly I think you're right Jeffro! In 1982 electroplating was a new & unknown process in the industrialized world and it took the Mint many years to finally give up & say "Hey this is too much trouble" and farmed the job out to the Ball Corporation in Tennessee. In late 1982 before finally throwing in the towel they experimented with the prototype XMD1c-A1 planchet, which was imbedded with moon dust brought back from earlier Apollo missions. Moon dust proved to be not cost effective due to the prohibitive cost of transportation from the Moon to the Mint, however a small amount of these unusual, rare & valuable cents were released for general circulation. These cents can be easily attributed by sniffing them and if the loose flakes of inhaled moondust causes a light headed & dizzy feeling and incurs the repeated urge to troll on online message boards then they are genuine.
<<<Pay attention, Conder101 and errormaven>>> you too, Byers, Fred, until you are <<<having a comprehensive understanding of what techniques the mint is and has used threw the development of this type of coin.>>> don't be posting here again!!
Legend Numismatics is constantly warning us about wannabe dealers of your ilk.
Jeeze what a bunch uf fuchtards!!!! >>
Can't let it die... Dog has to have mo' bark in him
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
I am the person who found the coin. Back in 1982 I was into coins and pennies more specifically. I knew the mint ws changing over from copper to plated cents. So I would go to the bank and get bank rolled pennies and tube them. I did hundreds of rolls. I figured there might be a mistake made or there would be more of one variety than another and for fifty cents a roll it seemed a good bet to me.
As it happens I got lucky and wound up with a number of 82 P small date rolls.
So, I know for darn sure that penny came from the bank. You of course don't need to believe me but from my standpoint it is pointless to consider other possibilities because I know for a fact that it did.
So the prevailing opinion, which has been stated as fact by some I believe if I recall what I read correctly, is that this is an altered coin.
So again from my standpoint, that means it would have had to have been altered at the mint, by the couriers, or by the bank employee who rolled the pennies.
I think the probability for it having been altered at the mint is low because that carries criminal penalties as well as career ending implications. Not to mention that the thought here is that it was altered after striking the opportunity for which I belive is extremely low because the coins travel down chutes and are processed automatically. I havent been to the mint but I think the chances for altering one are best to slip an odd blank in for striking rather than to remove one and alter it after striking then reinsert it in the stream.
A courier would have to open a mint sewn bag, remove one cent and insert the altered cent, altered at great difficulty and technical expertise, then resew the bag on an industrial sewing machine in the proper pattern.
So that leaves a bank employee. People will do some surprising things but I can't envison a bank employee risking their career for no profit motive whatsoever. And again we have to consider the technical prowess that would be involved in altering the penny. It is possible but I think highly unlikely that a bank employee altered that coin.
But since you don't know all that for a fact as I do having been there at the time, can we consider some of the technical points that have been discussed? I would like to start with the notion that a minted coin would by default be shiney. I think it is true that if the planchet was shiney, the minted coin would likewise be shiney. But if the planchet was dull, the minted coin would likelwise be dull or matte. The force required to burnish a dull planchet shiney would be much, much greater than that used to stamp a coin. That is why they polish the blanks for the proof coins, because even double stamping them does not remove small flaws in the planchet.
So to me the idea that the coin has a matte finish which must have been produced by some chemical process just isn't true. That assumes it was shiney to begin with and my thinking is that it likely was not.
Anyone care to discuss?
This thread has been pretty spectacular........
<< <i>
But since you don't know all that for a fact as I do having been there at the time, can we consider some of the technical points that have been discussed? I would like to start with the notion that a minted coin would by default be shiney. I think it is true that if the planchet was shiney, the minted coin would likewise be shiney. But if the planchet was dull, the minted coin would likelwise be dull or matte. The force required to burnish a dull planchet shiney would be much, much greater than that used to stamp a coin. That is why they polish the blanks for the proof coins, because even double stamping them does not remove small flaws in the planchet.
So to me the idea that the coin has a matte finish which must have been produced by some chemical process just isn't true. That assumes it was shiney to begin with and my thinking is that it likely was not.
Anyone care to discuss? >>
Welcome aboard.
I trust you didn't come for the ultra-violence.
Odd you should ask as I was just contemplating the other day what effect there
would be from a less than pristine planchet. It's not unusual for planchet defects
to remain after striking especially with harder metals like copper nickel. Barring sig-
nificant corrosion, I'd expect relatively little telltale sign poststrike. This would es-
pecially apply to soft metals like zinc. Luster (and shine) are imparted at strike by
the flow of the metal and compression. Areas where there was less metal flow such
as in the center of the fields might be more subdued perhaps. I really don't know
and intend to start paying attention to signs of such things since they should travel
in batches.
I gather the subject coin of this thread was found in a solid BU roll? I have to ask
just to be sure we're on the same page.
No one really doubted the author of the thread so much as all anyone has to go on
are the photos. The photos are hardly conclusive but they don't appear to show
direct contact with the dies. If the coin oxidized over the years then it could be real
but not appear to be.
Keep in mind that because these can be faked, people are skeptical and the coin
bears the burden of proof. That is, it might not really matter if it's real or not.
<< <i>Testing to see if the thread is locked >>
Monday October 16, 2006 3:57 PM (NEW!)
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>
<< <i>
But since you don't know all that for a fact as I do having been there at the time, can we consider some of the technical points that have been discussed? I would like to start with the notion that a minted coin would by default be shiney. I think it is true that if the planchet was shiney, the minted coin would likewise be shiney. But if the planchet was dull, the minted coin would likelwise be dull or matte. The force required to burnish a dull planchet shiney would be much, much greater than that used to stamp a coin. That is why they polish the blanks for the proof coins, because even double stamping them does not remove small flaws in the planchet.
So to me the idea that the coin has a matte finish which must have been produced by some chemical process just isn't true. That assumes it was shiney to begin with and my thinking is that it likely was not.
Anyone care to discuss? >>
Welcome aboard.
I trust you didn't come for the ultra-violence.
Odd you should ask as I was just contemplating the other day what effect there
would be from a less than pristine planchet. It's not unusual for planchet defects
to remain after striking especially with harder metals like copper nickel. Barring sig-
nificant corrosion, I'd expect relatively little telltale sign poststrike. This would es-
pecially apply to soft metals like zinc. Luster (and shine) are imparted at strike by
the flow of the metal and compression. Areas where there was less metal flow such
as in the center of the fields might be more subdued perhaps. I really don't know
and intend to start paying attention to signs of such things since they should travel
in batches.
I gather the subject coin of this thread was found in a solid BU roll? I have to ask
just to be sure we're on the same page.
No one really doubted the author of the thread so much as all anyone has to go on
are the photos. The photos are hardly conclusive but they don't appear to show
direct contact with the dies. If the coin oxidized over the years then it could be real
but not appear to be.
Keep in mind that because these can be faked, people are skeptical and the coin
bears the burden of proof. That is, it might not really matter if it's real or not. >>
Yep, it came from a BU roll. I was hunting around for some 82 small date rolls. I still don't know how many I have I have to go through a lot of rolls before I will know that. I saw the coin as a sliver of grey through the side of the plastic tube. I thought I was having a corrosion problem or something and I was shocked to find that the coins either side of it bore no discoloration at all.
For reasons unknown to me, a LOT of the early clad cents developed dark spotting. Many that I have sealed in tubes are that way though they were not when I put them in there. It happend soon thereafter though it isn't a recent thing. Anyway, one way I have had to screen the tubes (since i didn't mark them back then since no one knew what the varieties would be yet) has been to look at the coins through the side of the tube. For some reason my 82 zinc P small dates do not spot. My 82 zinc P large dates do. At least so far that is what i have found. Lucky for me it is the 2 small dates that sell for a premium or I would be crying over my spotted coins.
So there is a windy answer to your short question.
And yes I agree that the coin will have to bear it's own witness to it's authenticity. However my purpose here has to do with the intellectual excercise of discussing the facts which have been put forth to disauthenticate the coin. Since I think the coin pretty much has to be real having come to me that way it did, I find it insteresting that the expert opinion was conclusively that it can not be real.
That's a windy way of saying I am not here for money I don't have another one that I know of. I just find it interesting that everyone says it is fake. So I get a debate/discussion and an excuse not to do the things I really should be doing instead that are less interesting.
I understand what you say about the flow of metal in a die. One might expect some shiney areas. If you ran a coin over with a train as I have arranged to happen and I think maybe lots of people of my vintage did, you get a shinier longer coin. But that is a train. And there is lots of room for the metal to move. Given that the plating on a zinc planchet is so thin, do you agree that there can't be all that much metal flow in the dies? If there was a lot the plating would part in spots yes?