Lincoln Cent collectors - a grading question

jmski52

Do you know if grading points are deducted for bubbled plating? I'm assuming that coins without bubbled plating are graded higher because of the defect in manufacturing.



It was common during 1982 to see problems in the first batches of copper-plated zinc cents that were released. Can someone provide guidance?

mannie gray

My experience has been that (1.5-2) grades are deducted for serious bubbling.

Minor, scattered bubbling, it's hard to say.....my results have been all over the place.

Sometimes they are ignored, other times they get hammered.

No consistency-may depend on the grader's mood or whether he/she hates so-called moderns.

Also, my experience says they don't like the "roller marks" ( I know that's probably not what they are but it's what I am calling them) on the planchets either-even if the coin is otherwise essentially flawless.

Rampage

What are the roller marks you refer to?

mannie gray

I guess I meant striations or improperly plated planchets, where the lines appear raised, almost like parallel ripples.

I know they're not roller marks actually, but not sure what the correct term is....but I know 'em when I see 'em!

perfectstrike

I may have one MS67 that is bubble free, but kind of dull compared to the rest. Most of the MS67's and even MS68's have a few small bubbles.
David

oih82w8

I have wrapped rolls of each of the seven types for 1982 that I purchased from Virg Marshall III back in 1982. I wonder what lies between the toned ends?

jmski52

I guess I meant striations or improperly plated planchets, where the lines appear raised, almost like parallel ripples.



I started with 35 rolls or so back in 1982, when I carefully put them into plastic tubes, using cotton gloves, the whole nine yards. I've only had these rolls open twice since then, mainly to weed out the ones with corrosion or bad rinse marks, etc. I sold a bunch of the rolls a few years ago, but I think I'm going to go through the remaining 7 rolls for the best ones and then submit them.



I've seen many of these coins where the plating looks as if it was "squeegee'd" and that area generally has a dull appearance. I have coins where the "D" mintmark actually moved during the striking so that the zinc is peeking out from one side of the mintmark. There are other coins in which the bubbles have "popped" like miniature volcanos. The whole group had a high rate of plating rinse residue spotting or streaks.



My thought is that the coins should be fairly stable now after time has taken its toll.

cladking

Originally posted by: jmski52

I guess I meant striations or improperly plated planchets, where the lines appear raised, almost like parallel ripples.







I started with 35 rolls or so back in 1982, when I carefully put them into plastic tubes, using cotton gloves, the whole nine yards. I've only had these rolls open twice since then, mainly to weed out the ones with corrosion or bad rinse marks, etc. I sold a bunch of the rolls a few years ago, but I think I'm going to go through the remaining 7 rolls for the best ones and then submit them.







I've seen many of these coins where the plating looks as if it was "squeegee'd" and that area generally has a dull appearance. I have coins where the "D" mintmark actually moved during the striking so that the zinc is peeking out from one side of the mintmark. There are other coins in which the bubbles have "popped" like miniature volcanos. The whole group had a high rate of plating rinse residue spotting or streaks.







My thought is that the coins should be fairly stable now after time has taken its toll.

The '82 through '84 issues are just terrible. The '84-D is OK in the mint set except half are corroded but the other early zincolns are hard to find well made and pristine.