Is this old penny with an error worth sending to be graded?
Wanamingo
Posts: 8 ✭
I inherited a collection of coins from my great-grandfather. I got lucky as I was the only one in the family that collected coins as a child. I have been going through all the coins, and have many that I will need to have valued. I ran across this old penny and I'm curious about the error I found on it.
From my research I found that it is most likely caused from a crack in the coin die. Is this a desirable trait to have on the coin to collectors?
Tagged:
0
Best Answer
-
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
NO! Someone took a knife to it. Then they say it was struck with a cancelled die.
1
Answers
It does have a nice die crack. But no...not worth grading.
Really deep scratches can dig out ditches in the coins that look like they are raised from the superficial perspective. In reality they are post mint damage that detracts from the value greatly.
As said in all the above responses,
it's not a die crack, and not an error
of any type......man-made damage.
Sorry.....
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
The X is post mint damage. The die crack along the stars is real, and common.
p.s. I love the granite!
The X looks raised in the picture I am seeing.
@thebigeng said: "The X looks raised in the picture I am seeing."
Yes it does. It also looks raised to the uninformed when they hold the actual coin. Did you read this posted above?
"Really deep scratches can dig out ditches in the coins that look like they are raised from the superficial perspective."
Thanks I saw that just now, your right. So is Bob and Fred!!
They are definitely raises in the coin and not dug out scratches. I took it to a coin shop today and he told me that it was definitely from the mint and not post. Here is another picture from an angle.
Sell him the coin and take your family out to dinner and a movie.
Sorry the picture is so bad, but all I have is this camera on my phone. But, look at the tip of the star where the line touches it. If it was a scratch would it not cut the tip of the star off? To me it looks like the star tip is over the top of it.
It is not a die crack, I think, due to the shape. It could in theory be a gouged or scratched die, but I think it is cut as others have said. If you use a thin sharp blade and cut the coin you can pull up a wall of metal that rises off the surface. You can usually see the thin channel along the raised metal, but I suppose it might be possible to fold over the raised wall of metal to coverage channel.
Hello all;
If the first photo is accurate as to color, I like that coin very much, and would love to see the reverse. Though I defer to the copper and error specialists, I have a hard time seeing the X as post-mint damage now that the OP has submitted a photo from a different angle. And JBK's speculation, though interesting, doesn't seem very plausible to me in this case. Is the consensus still post-mint damage?
It's post mint damage. Of course the sides of the X are raised - when you drag a knife through metal, the metal it displaces has to go somewhere.
Even if it weren't post-mint damage, it would be damage regardless. Not a die crack.
Hmmm ..... the only party in this discussion who has seen the coin in-hand says "not dug-out scratches" .....
Collectively, the people here who have responded "PMD" have hundreds of years of experience and the OP has none. One of the responders is an eminent Authority in American numismatics who generously shares his knowledge. Of course it is damage.
Why do people even ask when they don't care to know the truth?
But please, send the thing in for grading and authentication. It costs a lot of money to run a business in SoCal and our hosts gotta make their nut.
I suppose someone could have carved an x into the die, but if that were case then there would be more like it.
Carved coins as discussed above are not uncommon, and I have seen many on ebay for example
I was only relaying the information that I received from the coin shop after the original post was made. My intentions we not to insult anyone's expertise. I am sure most here know far more then I do on grading coins. I also fully understand that it is costly to send in for grading, that is why I am doing research into this coin. I do wish to pay more for grading then the coin is worth.
Thank you to those giving feedback, I do appreciate it!
@Whit said: "Hmmm ..... the only party in this discussion who has seen the coin in-hand says "not dug-out scratches" ....."
And one of the top error experts said it was damage. These coins are fairly common, I have two in my altered coin collection and bet I've seen at least fifty more over the years. So who are you going to believe?
Whoops, I do "not" wish to pay more. Lol, not a very good business venture to pay more!
Your thing is historic, collectible, not unattractive, and a bit of a family heirloom. But the marketplace will discount it for damage.
@Wanamingo
You came here looking for advice. Yet you are quick to push the disagree button on someone trying to help you learn something.
I've been in this business for almost fifty years. You, my friend, are the typical non-collector who thinks they have something and when you tell them it is either counterfeit, worthless, not what they think it is - they fight you.
I suggest you stay around here and learn something about what you inherited. If you have the "right" attitude, you'll get all the help you need.
Now, go on to the Internet and look up things like "canceled die coins", "coins struck w/canceled dies," "fake canceled die coins," etc. - you may find something useful with photos. I'm not going to take the time to look for you.
One last thing I'll leave you with, I admire the way you stick to your belief and don't believe everything you are told. I'm also like that; but there comes a point when you absorb what you've been told and try to make sense of it one way or the other BY YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Good Luck.,
@Insider2
I do appreciate the information that I have received, and I thank you.
I am sorry you feel that way, my intentions were not to be malicious. I was only relaying information that I received from the gentlemen that owned the shop, that he felt they were not cut into the coin.
I was doing some research on what could have caused the markings. I found an article on the counterfeit coins that were struck with canceled dies. The pictures were of very poorly minted coins, but with very similar markings like the coin I showed here. That is why I was asking, and why I took the coin to the coin shop. I had thought it could be caused from a cracked die, or perhaps a counterfeit coin. I had no idea that people tried to fake this by carving into the coin.
I certainly will not take this information lightly, I am learning a lot!
Thank you for the input.
Folks ... goodness gracious ..... the OP did nothing more than offer counterpoint (to the assertion that he was really looking at gouges) based on a coin shop experience and his own in-hand observation. This is not fighting back, it is not a refusal to accept truth, and it is not a sign of disrespect for anyone's authority. It is an invitation for others to provide a learned response under those constraints. If anyone has expressed skepticism, it is me, and such skepticism, respectfully delivered, is not a sign of disrespect as any scientist will tell us. And so if the only coin-in-hand eyewitness is correct that there is no gouge, but only raised metal, and the star tip really is undisturbed, then the scientist in me still requires an explanation that goes beyond the simple appeal to the acknowledged authority of various generous contributors to this board. In general, how could such an X have happened if there is no gouge? Yes, it's possible that there really is a gouge hidden by folding over the rims of the channel. But while that answer clinches PMD, it ignores the hypothesis of the question and contradicts the OP's assertion. And of course, if some of us respond that the OP has simply mistaken a gouge for raised metal, then that a too is a position whose corollary is PMD. But that too contradicts the OP's assertion. So it seems to me that the decisive issue is whether or not the OP has correctly ascertained that there is no gouge. Above, I was asked who I was going to believe: an expert or a novice? There is more nuance here than implied by that question, and I might rather ask who I am going to believe: an expert who hasn't seen the coin in-hand, or a novice who has? I am not sure. For me, the jury is still out. This is not a sign of disrespect, nor is it an assertion that anyone is wrong.
JBK's points are well-taken. Identical examples would almost certainly exist if mint-made. And I have a number of grafittied large cents passed to me by my grandfather Whit Hart in the 1960's, and have seen many more over the years.
Wanamingo, don't stop offering counterpoint when you have counterpoint to give. You will find all levels of heat and light in the responses you will receive.
Good night, all.
Whit.
I would say post mint damage. There is a valley where the two lines meet, the tops of the ridges appear jagged, and the wear does not appear to be in line with the rest of the coin.
"A dog breaks your heart only one time and that is when they pass on". Unknown
I agree - Post Mint Damage.
Usually die cracks are not in such straight lines, and do not intersect to form an X.
When die cracks are this large, usually they intersect the edge of the coin.
As another person noted, there is a real die crack along the upper right stars, which does yield a raised line and is shorter in height than the X.
Large cents have been extensively studied; for the 1822 there are 14 known die varieties:
coinfacts.com/large_cents/matron_head_large_cents/1822_large_cents/1822_large_cent_varieties.htm
Judging from the die crack along the upper right stars, your coin is the Newcomb 2 variety (a scarce variety, but unfortunately the PMD reduces the value).
If the X was formed by die cracks, it would be a known die state; this is another reason it's PMD.
And as another person noted, there are some very experienced experts in US coins here.
The coin shop guy was going by the simple knowledge that die cracks yield raised lines on a coin.
But apparently he did not know that cuts from a sharp knife can also yield raised lines.
Thank you for posting this interesting question and the photos.
Great info, yosclimber, and good research!
Pete
Well said @Whit
I think if the gouges were done on to a new coin and then that coin was circulated like this one the metal would wear down and may appear as raised lines. Wear could be the "X" factor here. If someone has said this already my apologies..
@Wanamingo.... Welcome aboard.... Interesting coin... I must agree with Fred W. and Insider2... When I look at the enlarged picture (the OP picture), I see on the left side of the 'vertical' X line, what certainly looks like a depression from a cut.... I would like to be able to see this under magnification while in hand.. but you already have the input from Fred W. - the leading error expert. Cheers, RickO
I have definitely learned a lot by doing the research, and from others experience on this forum. I really do appreciate everyone's comments. I have many other coins that I need to sort and grade from my collection as a kid, and my great grandfather's collection. So anything I can learn is very valuable to me going forward!
Someone asked about seeing the back of the coin, here is a picture of the back.
Bah, it did not look some blurry on my phone... I ordered a jewelers loupe and a usb microscope to help with my research on all the other coins. I have come to the realization that a magnifying glass and cell phone are not sufficient for numismatics!
Note to self: Why do folks wish to see the REVERSE of a coin when the characteristic we are trying to figure out is on the OBVERSE? Oh, I know, a counter mark or forceful damage might flatten part of the REVERSE.