Lincoln Cent Error Folks?

Coxe

Here is an interesting misstruck Lincoln cent I recently acquired. It is obviously not dated. I could weigh it on a gram scale and bracket the date I suppose. But I am thinking that if another planchet wasn't in place on the strike, the dies probably clashed fairly strongly. Anyone aware of some candidate dates with strong clashing in the lower obverse and upper reverse?

nankraut

The press almost missed that sucker completely, eh?

coppercoins

Your coin is zinc, no doubt.

It also dates from 1982-1991. The shape of the W of WE and the G of GOD gives me that much information.

Anything more than that would be virtually impossible without knowing the source.

errormaven

I see no sign of clash marks.

FredWeinberg

....and it looks like a uniface strike on the reverse,
based on the cupping of the obv. o/c portion

Mercfan

Whatever the date, that's a neat error coin!

Coxe

<< <i>I see no sign of clash marks. >>



What I was thinking was that the dies themselves would clash, buased away from the point it hit the planchet. The coin here would have no such clashes but subsequent strikes would.



<< <i>....and it looks like a uniface strike on the reverse,
based on the cupping of the obv. o/c portion >>



What is a uniface strike, Fred?

FredWeinberg

In this case, a Uniface Strike
means that there was another
blank planchet fed into the coining
chamber (usually) under the coin
that is just being struck - it can happen
on an off-center strike, a double strike,
or just about any time because
planchets are being fed high-speed
into the collar, or into the feeder fingers.

In the case of this Far off-center strike,
there was another planchet in the collar
preventing the reverse die from making
contact this this o/c cent

Coxe

Makes complete sense as there is no reverse design on this piece. Now to locate the sister piece with the missing obverse motto letters would be pretty neat.

FredWeinberg

The "missing" piece would then make
both items a "Mated Pair"

Coxe

<< <i>The "missing" piece would then make
both items a "Mated Pair" >>



Then perhaps I should not have referred to it as a "sister" piece. None of the active mints are in states where that allegation has been prevalent.