1980 Lincoln cent D over S

Meltdown

A guy I know has a small anacs slab of an MS62RB 1980 D over S lincoln cent and he was wondering just what the heck it was.
I did some looking and found a small blip saying the variety is no longer recognized as of 2006 because what looked like an S turned out to be die gouges instead.
My question is, is the coin still worth anything to lincoln collectors? Just how rare was this rpm variety before it was debunked?
Any info on this cariety is appreciated.

GrumpyEd

It was debunked by most experts but you still see them selling. They sell for less than they were years ago but someone might want it as a conversation piece.

In 62 RB just a wild guess it might get around $25, you'll only know if you put it on ebay.

SamByrd

I have read both the 80 d over s and the 81 d over s ,are now considered to not be legitimate errors I would like to hear what some of the experts have to say on this. I do have an example in a anacs slab and they don't offer the designation any more I am told.

Meltdown

Anyone else have any specifics? Thanks.

GrumpyEd

Check out Coneca and Coppercoins about it:

Coneca delisted as die damage


Coppercoins debunked as die gouges

TexasNationals

Not worth more that a MS-62 RB 1980-D Lincoln.

Bigrig52

Thats just like the Lincoln 1956-D with a seperate S mintmark under and between the 1 and 9 in the date.Some graders classify it and some don't and yet they are selling for almost $500.00..Some of these graders i believe are just jealous that they haven't found any and don't want to declare it as a misplaced mintmark or a OMM..Thats just my thoughts..

perfectstrike

I collect these debunked coins in old holders. I've got about a dozen or so. Maybe I'll be able to offer a class some day. If you want to get rid of yours, let me know.

David

seanq

<< <i>Thats just like the Lincoln 1956-D with a seperate S mintmark under and between the 1 and 9 in the date.Some graders classify it and some don't and yet they are selling for almost $500.00..Some of these graders i believe are just jealous that they haven't found any and don't want to declare it as a misplaced mintmark or a OMM..Thats just my thoughts.. >>



The 1980-D over S was delisted because someone came up with an early die state which clearly showed the marks in the field above the D were damage and not an errant mintmark. Neither of the links above show the EDS coin but it was very obvious that it was the same die and not an OMM.

There is a natural tendency for people to see patterns in random markings, and I think that comes into play in die variety attributions as well. If a coin has "character" it gets the benefit of the doubt, at least until another example comes along to confirm or dispell it.


Sean Reynolds

Walmann

I still search for these as I have a better chance of finding them I do Bigfoot.

Bigrig52

I would just like to know why different coin graders will classify these kind of errors and other graders will not just like the 1956D-1OM-001 1956-d with seperate S mintmarks..I'm not trying to be a hardhead about this certain error but they are selling on Fleabay as a OMM..I think they should be recognized as a OMM..The 1956D-1OM-001 has been debunked and yet the 1956D-1OM-002 has be listed with the same kind of mintmark but a different place..Explain please..Thanks