2017P Lincoln cent amazing find?
TPring
Posts: 229 ✭✭✭
Just remember...the advice you receive on the site is worth every bit of what you paid for it.
0
TPring
Posts: 229 ✭✭✭
Comments
coins for sale at link below
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipPHBJBjTRY5m0-qlgojscFqp_9dPd3hYS3drfrk
Just in case they needed a reason to continue to weigh every coin...
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Exactly. My first thought was the coming horde of weekend posters with their "bronze" shield cents.
This was a one off mintage with the P mint mark for the USM 225th anniversary. Is it possible that has something to do with it? Could the entire production have been produced on bronze planchets?
According to the PCGS Coinfacts app, they were standard copper-plated zinc, as per usual. So probably not...
"Another day, another Collectors Universe forum scrolling session."
- Someone, probably
Ok, so weighing coins paid off in this case, but this is not the norm.
There is a subculture of people in the hobby, fueled by videos on YouTube, who weigh every single coin they get, and save the ones that are even tiny amounts off. Though many of them are nice, and listen to my advice, there have been some that have gotten really angry. I encounter at least one member of this subculture at every single show I work.
A few weeks ago, a guy brought a clad quarter to my table claiming it was overweight. It was, but it was not significant enough to make it look thicker than a normal clad quarter. He was mad because he'd submitted it to PCGS and it came back with no error on the holder- he even had it in the broken open PCGS slab. He insisted a bicentennial quarter had sold for over $1 million at Heritage because it was overweight by the same amount, and wanted to know if we would certify his quarter. I told him to save his money, and sent him over to Mike Maino's table (Mike's Error Coins) and Mike told him the same thing.
He came back and asked if we would certify it with just the weight on the holder and I told him no, and he raised his voice and demanded we take it. I asked him how much he wanted to insure for and it well exceeded our show limit for an individual coin. He finally huffed off saying he would try NGC next.
The next day I was at another dealer's table, and he asked me if I'd had a guy with a slightly overweight quarter come by, and had a good laugh when we shared our stories, as it was definitely the same guy!
Weird, must have been a mint employee, right? Unless someone found a planchet in the back closet and threw it in with the rest
looking at CT thread, you must be the luckiest person on the planet!
I read the other thread. It's not quite what it appears.
The label says 99.1% copper, .9% zinc, so it's not even a pre-1983 or 2009 proof set bronze planchet.
Error expert Mike Diamond theorized that it's a heavily coated zinc planchet.
Wouldn't the weight rule that in or out?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
You'll have to ask Mike. He seemed pretty adamant about it.
In any case, 99.1% copper isn't right for a bronze planchet, so something is up.
Agreed
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
PCGS had obviously weighed it.
It's their XRF device that must've sealed the deal with authenticating this coin?
Mike Diamond... @errormaven ?...
In the original Coin Community thread I suggested that this might be a zinc cent planchet with an unusually thick layer of copper plating. Such errors do occur. I have a heavily plated zinc cent that weighs 2.9 grams. With such a thick layer of plating, the XRF beam might not penetrate to the underlying zinc. It all depends on beam strength and the depth of penetration, details of which have not been provided. A better test in these circumstances would be a specific gravity test, as zinc has a much lower density than copper. Even a heavy later of copper plating wouldn't obscure the difference. Even a "ring" test would be helpful here, as a pure copper coin would give off a sharp ring while a zinc planchet would register a dull thud. I wouldn't trust PCGS when it comes to metal composition. I've seen numerous cents (1995- 2000) struck on undersized (foreign) copper-plated zinc planchets that PCGS labeled as "copper planchets".
Thanks for your thoughts on this, very enlightening.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I have been promoting the use of Specific Gravity testing for decades. Properly done, as when I was working on my Thomas L. Elder medal collection, I could tell the difference between Copper, Bronze and Brass.
Tutorial link here:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/842687/tutorial-on-how-to-do-specific-gravity#latest
The weight on the PCGS label, 2.87 Grams, is neither fish nor fowl. I would consider it to be out of tolerance for either 95% Copper, 5% Zinc (the old Bronze or Brass planchet, however you wish to call it) or the new Copper-plated zinc planchet.
The Principle of Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. A heavily copper plated Zinc planchet is the easiest solution, and PROBABLY correct. Of course, it remains unproven.
THE WAY TO PROVE IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IS WITH A SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST!!!!
TD
If PCGS only conducted a XRF analysis, it needs to be resubmitted for a specific gravity test.
Well, as skeptical as one may, or may not be with regard to its origin or attribution, it's going to sell for more than $5k come Sunday...
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2073804/Mint-Error-2017-P-Lincoln-Cent-Shield-Struck-on-Bronze-Planchet-991-Copper-09-Zinc-287g-PCGS-MS-64-RB
.
Should GC pull this auction and get pcgs to perform the specific gravity test to make sure a buyer doesn’t get burned? I have a feeling the pcgs guarantee might need to come into play on this one. Ian is normally very helpful in ensuring coins that go through his auctions are legit and not in mislabeled/mistake holders.
No
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
If this coin was 99.1% copper throughout, it should weigh more than the 3.1 grams that a pre-82 cent weighs. The 2.87 gram weight makes this coin an anomaly. I would venture to guess that an extra/heavily copper coated zinc cent is probably worth $50 or less. Having a buyer pay $5,000+ when common sense says the pcgs label is wrong and avoidable should be at least considered.
Just remember...the advice you receive on the site is worth every bit of what you paid for it.
“If this coin was 99.1% copper throughout, it should weigh more than the 3.1 grams that a pre-82 cent weighs. The 2.87 gram weight makes this coin an anomaly. I would venture to guess that an extra/heavily copper coated zinc cent is probably worth $50 or less. Having a buyer pay $5,000+ when common sense says the pcgs label is wrong and avoidable should be at least considered.”
1madman: My thoughts as well. I’m out on the coin without the additional tests being performed. Good luck though to those willing to “roll the dice”. It could result in a very nice “pay day”.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
Different issue. I don't think it is a bronze planchet. However, it's not my job to interfere. And, if i were the consignor, I don't think I want GC interfering either.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I agree. But would the consignor want GC pushing PCGS on the point?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I agree. But would the consignor want GC pushing PCGS on the point?
Unclear- We have no idea where the coin will end today. Let’s say, hypothetically, it ends at $6,000. Or $7,000?
But, with more testing perhaps the coin might be worth double or triple that amount. Or, a tiny fraction of that amount.
So, I agree, the auction company should get the permission of its consignor before pressing PCGS on the point. But, if I was the consignor, that’s what I might agree to do when the options were presented to me.
Wondercoin.
Seems weird that the experts at PCGS didn't think the results were suspicious and said "yeah let's go with that".
Red is going to wait for an example that doesn't have that spot (on the reverse, in the left field (our left and the coin's right) halfway between the shield and the rim at 8:00, slightly above the ribbon). Difficult to locate yet once found cannot be unseen.
And such a weak looking strike, letters flat, Lincoln's upper back almost not there. I'll wait for a nice 99.1% copper.
No, the PCGS guarantee will ensure that no one gets burned.
I don't disagree, but that wasn't the original question asked.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Doesn't John do all their errors now? Or does he only do strike errors?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
What was the “original question”?
Wondercoin
I understand that the leading bidder and a leading error coin dealer are fully aware of the discrepancy and don't care. I guess the label is more important than the coin here, so not an issue.
Where would a 99.1% copper planchet even come from, other than an XRF of the thick plating layer appearance that seems pretty obvious just looking at the "Great Photo" enlarged on my computer screen along with that weight.
The specific gravity of zinc is 7.14g/cm^3 and copper is 8.96g/cm^3, so that substantial difference would leave no doubt if tested. You could probably quite precisely estimate the thickness of the plating relative to a normal 2017-P.
And it even seems rather sloppy to call 99.1% copper and.9% zinc a composition of bronze, but then that is my nitpicking patent attorney brain portion thinking.
I'll just grab some popcorn and see where this one goes.
I don't see any reason for GC to act unilaterally and do anything. If they want to reach out to the consignor, that's their business. Just because one error guy has an alternate theory to the error guy who viewed the coin at PCGS is not - in my humble opinion - sufficient reason for GC to unilaterally pull the listing.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Makes total sense jmlanzaf.
Wondercoin.
I would be willing to bet that Jon did not see this coin from pcgs. PCGS has the “gun” in their office, and I think the coin was sent in to the office described as an underweight error, pcgs shot the coin with the laser gun, and wrote on the label what it read out. They also weighed it.
Over the decades I’ve had a slew of error coins that Fred never saw when he attributed for them. I had to send the coins back in and request Fred review them, and get the labels corrected (like mechanical errors).
This coin is bringing significant money on the auction, and I hope the buyer knows what he’s getting into.
J. M. Lanza Fecit. His friends call him Lanny.
They might now...
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
That's why I asked if John sees all errors. Has anyone asked him?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I did see this one, and can comment that It’s properly attributed based on the metal test results that were done (I believe an XRF was done.) Of course, any issues the owner/buyer has can been reviewed by resubmitting it for review to PCGS.
I don’t see all the errors, just most of them.
Thank you for the information. We appreciate the input.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I would agree with M.R. @SullivanNumismatics, PCGS doesn't make very many mistakes
Jon Sullivan has confirmed that the only test this coin was subjected to was an XRF test. In this context, its results cannot be considered a definitive assessment of the coin's composition.
Well, in this case, PCGS is Jon Sullivan.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
That is irrelevant.
I think this discussion is exhausted. I'm out.
What is irrelevant? It is certainly very relevant when someone just agreed with him about his assessment of PCGS' opinion on the coin. It's equivalent to my saying, "I agree with @errormaven that Mike Diamond is usually correct."
It is also relevant that it was seen by Jon and not just some non-specialist who knows nothing about error coins.
This is not to say that your theory couldn't be correct. We have two competing opinions from two error experts. Yes, a specific gravity test should tell the tale.
Have you contacted PCGS or GC, by the way?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.