You been waiting for the chance to use that I bet! Well done! >>
Without rehashing your entire contribution... First, let me say
The OP asked whether anyone had seen an unplated cent, and what the value would be (before the edit).
He didn't like the answers, even of the experts - and they are just that - experts.
Now, determining the grade, originality or confirming whether a coin is even genuine is very difficult, and some would say impossible to do from photos or scans.
Given the best information available, the experts gave the educated opinion that the coin was not a genuine unplated planchet error. No real attempts were made to cast aspersions as to the provenance of the coin, or the credibility of the original owner.
What did occur was that the OP became such an ass that people reacted with sarcasm and derision - again, not so much against the coin or the original source, but against the OP.
There is much to learn on this board, and the teaching comes from contributors with many different personalities. With some time invested, participants become accustomed to most of those personalities.
For the OP to come in with virtually no contribution to the board and start throwing around insults goes against basic netiqutte. Trolling is almost always met with flaming, right or wrong as that may be.
I'm glad that you came here, and I hope that you can somehow get the coin accurately evaluated by an expert, in hand. In any event, it doesn't appear that even if it were totally authentic, that it is a million dollar coin - but a nice conversation piece to be sure.
<< <i>I am the person who found the coin. Back in 1982 I was into coins and pennies more specifically. I knew the mint ws changing over from copper to plated cents. So I would go to the bank and get bank rolled pennies and tube them. I did hundreds of rolls. I figured there might be a mistake made or there would be more of one variety than another and for fifty cents a roll it seemed a good bet to me. >>
But the thread author said:
<< <i>Here's a not to good photo, very tough to photograph. It is mint B.U. with solid details. It is not acid washed or anything like that. It was recently found in a mint bank roll of 82's. >>
So, was it found in 82 or recently?
Also, the thread author said:
<< <i>Look, I did not ask anybody whether they thought my coin is fake or not. >>
So, is the coin his or yours?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
You been waiting for the chance to use that I bet! Well done! >>
Without rehashing your entire contribution... First, let me say
The OP asked whether anyone had seen an unplated cent, and what the value would be (before the edit).
He didn't like the answers, even of the experts - and they are just that - experts.
Now, determining the grade, originality or confirming whether a coin is even genuine is very difficult, and some would say impossible to do from photos or scans.
Given the best information available, the experts gave the educated opinion that the coin was not a genuine unplated planchet error. No real attempts were made to cast aspersions as to the provenance of the coin, or the credibility of the original owner.
What did occur was that the OP became such an ass that people reacted with sarcasm and derision - again, not so much against the coin or the original source, but against the OP.
There is much to learn on this board, and the teaching comes from contributors with many different personalities. With some time invested, participants become accustomed to most of those personalities.
For the OP to come in with virtually no contribution to the board and start throwing around insults goes against basic netiqutte. Trolling is almost always met with flaming, right or wrong as that may be.
I'm glad that you came here, and I hope that you can somehow get the coin accurately evaluated by an expert, in hand. In any event, it doesn't appear that even if it were totally authentic, that it is a million dollar coin - but a nice conversation piece to be sure. >>
Well, I know how message boards can be. I am no stranger to that. However I do have a higher opinion of the OP than you seem to because A: He is my happy customer B: If he took what was said about that coin at face value he would then have been obliged to inform me that I lied to him. He didn't do that and for that I am grateful.
Oh thanks for the welcome too. And not to wear out my welcome, but I am not after a million dolar coin. Chiefly because it no longer belongs to me I would be a lot more interested in the value if it was still mine.
But if a non academic interest is the idea that the experts did say it was not genuine, an opinion that I have to believe is in error and that could have had unfortunate consequences for me had the OP belived them. Had someone said "I don't know" well, ok. No harm no foul. But weren't there statements made conclusively that it was not genuine?
So aside from that it is an interesting topic and that I belive I can both learn and perhaps educate too by way of discussion here, the over arching importance to me is that graders and experts would be best off not thinking something is not genuine when in all likelyhood it is. Mistakes like that, should they prove to be mistakes as I think they will by a point by point discussion, could hurt people. It could have damaged me a lot.
<< <i>I am the person who found the coin. Back in 1982 I was into coins and pennies more specifically. I knew the mint ws changing over from copper to plated cents. So I would go to the bank and get bank rolled pennies and tube them. I did hundreds of rolls. I figured there might be a mistake made or there would be more of one variety than another and for fifty cents a roll it seemed a good bet to me. >>
But the thread author said:
<< <i>Here's a not to good photo, very tough to photograph. It is mint B.U. with solid details. It is not acid washed or anything like that. It was recently found in a mint bank roll of 82's. >>
So, was it found in 82 or recently?
Also, the thread author said:
<< <i>Look, I did not ask anybody whether they thought my coin is fake or not. >>
So, is the coin his or yours? >>
I put about 400 rolls of pennies in tubes back then. I used gloves and in the case of bank rolls (I did get one sack but fiorget which batch of pennies it was) I unrolled the paper as I slipped the coins in. So the coins were not all that visable and I am sure it showed through the side in 1982 but given that I was doing so many I just missed it.
I found the coin a few weeks ago by viewing it through the side of the sealed roll tube.
At least you came clean and said (after my post) that you in fact sold the coin and no longer have it...I commend you, that's more than what the the original poster eluded to. If you read back... the plot thickened quick.
I am glad that the OP didn't take what was said here and go back to the seller asking for a refund (BTW, Obrial, welcome to the forums). As much as several experts gave their opinions from the pictured provided, most of them emphasized that theirs were opinions only. Knowing most of them personally, I also think they would be happy to admit a mistake if one were made. I still think an accurate weight would go a long way toward clearing up the mystery surrounding this coin, but it has also been said that even with the coin inhand this type of error can be extremely hard to authenticate.
I guess as long as both the seller and the new owner are satisfied with their transaction perhaps it's best to just agree to disagree on this one. Sure was an entertaining thread, though.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Wasn't my comment, but I think the OP came here hoping he got a "rip," and his subsequent defensiveness was a reaction to the idea that he may not as been as successful as he first thought.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I did read your auction ad and you never said that the 1982 cent missing the copper plating was a "genuine" mint error or found in Aunt Hilda's closet and that it was just mixed in a roll of bank coins. I see nothing wrong with your auction the way it was worded...as seanq stated, the original poster was looking for something, but he did not like what he was getting.
obrial...this is a fair and worthy Q&A forum when it comes to US coins, welcome. Your intrest is also welcome.
<< <i>At least you came clean and said (after my post) that you in fact sold the coin and no longer have it...I commend you, that's more than what the the original poster eluded to. If you read back... the plot thickened quick. >>
I thought it was evident it wasn't my coin because I am not the OP. But looking back I can see how taht wasn't as clear to everyone else as it was to me
I am glad that the OP didn't take what was said here and go back to the seller asking for a refund (BTW, Obrial, welcome to the forums). As much as several experts gave their opinions from the pictured provided, most of them emphasized that theirs were opinions only. Knowing most of them personally, I also think they would be happy to admit a mistake if one were made. I still think an accurate weight would go a long way toward clearing up the mystery surrounding this coin, but it has also been said that even with the coin inhand this type of error can be extremely hard to authenticate.
I guess as long as both the seller and the new owner are satisfied with their transaction perhaps it's best to just agree to disagree on this one. Sure was an entertaining thread, though.
Sean Reynolds >>
Me too. A return and bad feedback would have hurt me a lot.
I however am still interested in a technical discussion. I think facts have been stated that aren't neccessarily so. I was starting with teh idea that striking makes a coin shiney. As it happens I am in the tool making trades and I know something about dies and how metal reacts to stamping and I think that is not true. I think there isn't enough force involved or movement of the metal to burnish it. It has to move to burnish and if you moved the metal around that much the plating would show through.
<< <i>I did read your auction ad and you never said that the 1982 cent missing the copper plating was a "genuine" mint error or found in Aunt Hilda's closet and that it was just mixed in a roll of bank coins. I see nothing wrong with your auction the way it was worded...as seanq stated, the original poster was looking for something, but he did not like what he was getting.
obrial...this is a fair and worthy Q&A forum when it comes to US coins, welcome. Your intrest is also welcome. >>
Thanks!
Doesn't anybody want to talk about the technical details maybe?
Things like I mentioned about the matte finish.
Or about the plating on a zinc planchet being twice as thick on the edges of a penny as the middle? How would one remove twice as much from the sides as from the middle? Someone mentioned more specks on the outside of this penny but we arent talking specks we are talking twice as thick. Even if someone did do that, undertook to devise a means to remove it in double proportion on the edges, wouldn't it show in less sharpness to the detail on the outside edges?
I am glad that the OP didn't take what was said here and go back to the seller asking for a refund (BTW, Obrial, welcome to the forums). As much as several experts gave their opinions from the pictured provided, most of them emphasized that theirs were opinions only. Knowing most of them personally, I also think they would be happy to admit a mistake if one were made. I still think an accurate weight would go a long way toward clearing up the mystery surrounding this coin, but it has also been said that even with the coin inhand this type of error can be extremely hard to authenticate.
I guess as long as both the seller and the new owner are satisfied with their transaction perhaps it's best to just agree to disagree on this one. Sure was an entertaining thread, though.
Sean Reynolds >>
" I am defending the lady's honor who took this out of a B.U. Roll. Otherwise, if i take you people’s words I’ll be calling her a flat out bold face liar. I do not believe she is, and feel she has no reason to,. here's more copper for you.. as I mentioned before the details disappear when you shoot this flat, this is Lincolns ear lobe."
No indication in this that he purchased it from "the lady". The OP started out by obfuscating material facts... Not a shot against "the lady" though.
Or about the plating on a zinc planchet being twice as thick on the edges of a penny as the middle? How would one remove twice as much from the sides as from the middle? Someone mentioned more specks on the outside of this penny but we arent talking specks we are talking twice as thick. Even if someone did do that, undertook to devise a means to remove it in double proportion on the edges, wouldn't it show in less sharpness to the detail on the outside edges? Copper coated zinc palnchet link
This was burried deep in this article:
Lincoln cents are the other half. Cent blanks arrive pre-punched and ready to strike from Jarden Zinc Products of Greenville, Tenn., which also provides one-cent planchets to the Royal Canadian Mint. Jarden is the successor to Alltrista Zinc Products Company, which spun off in 1993 from Ball Corporation, which won the contract in 1981 to produce the new copper-plated zinc cent planchets. The name has changed, but it’s essentially the same company that’s famous for fabricating the zinc lids for Ball Mason jars. Jarden uses a patented electroplating process to coat its zinc planchets with just 7.5 microns of copper at the center and twice as much on the edge, where the coins are subjected to harsher wear. Zinc is highly ductile, meaning it’s malleable, so it doesn’t need to be annealed (softened by heating) before it is struck
<< <i>I did read your auction ad and you never said that the 1982 cent missing the copper plating was a "genuine" mint error or found in Aunt Hilda's closet and that it was just mixed in a roll of bank coins. I see nothing wrong with your auction the way it was worded...as seanq stated, the original poster was looking for something, but he did not like what he was getting.
obrial...this is a fair and worthy Q&A forum when it comes to US coins, welcome. Your intrest is also welcome. >>
Thanks!
Doesn't anybody want to talk about the technical details maybe?
Things like I mentioned about the matte finish.
Or about the plating on a zinc planchet being twice as thick on the edges of a penny as the middle? How would one remove twice as much from the sides as from the middle? Someone mentioned more specks on the outside of this penny but we arent talking specks we are talking twice as thick. Even if someone did do that, undertook to devise a means to remove it in double proportion on the edges, wouldn't it show in less sharpness to the detail on the outside edges?
I got more >>
Perhaps another thread is in order. Many people will have stopped opening this one long ago.
I'll warn you though that a thread on luster and the effects of striking on surfaces of planchets will garner relatively few responses.
Earlier it was mentioned that strong nitric acid would dissolve the copper and the oxide formed on the zinc would protect it.
There should be relatively little variation in thickness of the plating on a zinc Lincolns. Even on the cu/ ni clad cu coins the cladding is not significanly thinned in the stretched areas or thicker in others. A clad that's filed down smooth will not show any copper! Of course the plating on the cent is far thinnewr though.
15 or so years ago i put a bunch of post 82 cents on top of an old coal converted to gas furnace that got real hot on the top.I wanted to see how they would tone so i left them overnite on top.Next day almost all had no copper left on them.I recently put a tray in the oven and heated to 500 and left in overnite wuth almost same results
<< <i> So aside from that it is an interesting topic and that I belive I can both learn and perhaps educate too by way of discussion here, the over arching importance to me is that graders and experts would be best off not thinking something is not genuine when in all likelyhood it is. Mistakes like that, should they prove to be mistakes as I think they will by a point by point discussion, could hurt people. It could have damaged me a lot. >>
could you please explain how returning the troll's $20 would have "damaged you a lot"? I must be missing something here, $20 doesn't seem like a lot of damage to me (and I have a much smaller coin budget than many of the members here).
"From Time to Time the Tree of Liberty Must be Refreshed with the Blood of Patriots and of Tyrants"
Orbrial, like I told all kindsofshiat, OK we believe you too All eBay error sellers find their coins in original bank rolls. Yeah right. If there is a problem just give Mr Marble Expert his stinkin $20 back & let him return the thing so he'll stfu and then send it in to get certified, only cost you $10 at ANACS, oh but wait a minute, one of the guys from ANACS is an idiot that said it was a fake so I wouldn’t believe them either. Then relist it on eBay and sell it for $200 this time, come back here and throw it up in our face that we were wrong. Got a problem with that?
Until then we think you are as full as BS as your apparently dissatisfied customer. Just look at the auction you sold it in <<<I have 4 happy customers so far. I am not a criminal. This penny isn't fake.>>> 4 happy penny buyers? Wow I’m impressed!! You were already on the defensive before you even sold it!! Wonder why? I have never seen a coin seller start his auction by denying that he was a criminal and his coin was a fake. It’s bad when you have to try to convince your bidders that you’re not a criminal to get them to bid on your auction! If you don’t feel deceitful like a criminal why even mention it?
<<<Doesn't anybody want to talk about the technical details maybe?>>> Why don't you read this thread in it's entirety? Then you will see all the technical details there are to be discussed have already been discussed but your punkboy dismissed them and said we were wrong so why would we want to rehash the whole thing again with you? Nothing has changed.
Plus look at your buyers feedback. He’s so ashamed that he hides it. Out of 144 feedbacks he has 5 negatives. Do you see a problem there?
Neither one of you has any credibility in either the error or coin collector/dealer field. Nuff said.
Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
<< <i>Orbrial, like I told all kindsofshiat, OK we believe you too All eBay error sellers find their coins in original bank rolls. Yeah right. If there is a problem just give Mr Marble Expert his stinkin $20 back & let him return the thing so he'll stfu and then send it in to get certified, only cost you $10 at ANACS, oh but wait a minute, one of the guys from ANACS is an idiot that said it was a fake so I wouldn’t believe them either. Then relist it on eBay and sell it for $200 this time, come back here and throw it up in our face that we were wrong. Got a problem with that?
Until then we think you are as full as BS as your apparently dissatisfied customer. Just look at the auction you sold it in <<<I have 4 happy customers so far. I am not a criminal. This penny isn't fake.>>> 4 happy penny buyers? Wow I’m impressed!! You were already on the defensive before you even sold it!! Wonder why? I have never seen a coin seller start his auction by denying that he was a criminal and his coin was a fake. It’s bad when you have to try to convince your bidders that you’re not a criminal to get them to bid on your auction! If you don’t feel deceitful like a criminal why even mention it?
<<<Doesn't anybody want to talk about the technical details maybe?>>> Why don't you read this thread in it's entirety? Then you will see all the technical details there are to be discussed have already been discussed but your punkboy dismissed them and said we were wrong so why would we want to rehash the whole thing again with you? Nothing has changed.
Plus look at your buyers feedback. He’s so ashamed that he hides it. Out of 144 feedbacks he has 5 negatives. Do you see a problem there?
Neither one of you has any credibility in either the error or coin collector/dealer field. Nuff said. >>
About 1/2 the way though this thread someone predicted it would go over 100 posts, don't know who but I read it along this dusty trail, clairvoyant? Care to predict 200?
I still think this is an excllent source (the link) describing planchet processes.
To reiterate: the physical evidence must be consist with the claimed origin of the coin. A dull, rough surface with microscopic copper flecks is not consistent with a genuine unplated cent for the following restated reasons:
1. Bright, uncirculated, partly plated cents show exposed zinc that is bright, smooth, and lusterous. The zinc does not show copper flecks.
2. Unplated zinc blanks and planchets do not show a rough surface and do not show copper flecks. The strike would certainly not impose a rough texture on the planchet.
3. Dimes and dime planchets struck by cent dies do not show copper flecks. Therefore, it is even more unlikely that the copper flecks came from the striking chamber.
4. The genuine unplated cents that I have inspected show a bright, smooth, and lusterous surface that is devoid of copper flecks. These are cents that I have weighed and examined under a microscope. Since I own them, I also took the radical step of scraping the edge against a fine sharpening stone to make sure there was no copper plating underneath.
While it is possible that Obrial's coin has oxidized, this is hard to reconcile with its claimed origin within a roll of BU, bank-rolled cents. In any case, oxidation does not produce copper flecks.
Such comparisons can be made by anyone willing to spend a little money to buy a few unstruck, unplated planchets and a few partly plated cents. These are by no means expensive.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
I guess the only thing left to do is to send it to NGC and let Rich tell him it is a fake too.
Oh wait, Rich will also say it is a fake because Fred and Mike did, because bird of feather flies together, so he is really out of options, ....or send it to AGC, they'll slab anything, right?
Coin Collector, Chicken Owner, Licensed Tax Preparer & Insurance Broker/Agent. San Diego, CA
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Testing to see if the thread is locked >>
Monday October 16, 2006 3:57 PM (NEW!)
You been waiting for the chance to use that I bet! Well done!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Testing to see if the thread is locked >>
Monday October 16, 2006 3:57 PM (NEW!)
You been waiting for the chance to use that I bet! Well done! >>
Without rehashing your entire contribution... First, let me say
The OP asked whether anyone had seen an unplated cent, and what the value would be (before the edit).
He didn't like the answers, even of the experts - and they are just that - experts.
Now, determining the grade, originality or confirming whether a coin is even genuine is very difficult, and some would say impossible to do from photos or scans.
Given the best information available, the experts gave the educated opinion that the coin was not a genuine unplated planchet error. No real attempts were made to cast aspersions as to the provenance of the coin, or the credibility of the original owner.
What did occur was that the OP became such an ass that people reacted with sarcasm and derision - again, not so much against the coin or the original source, but against the OP.
There is much to learn on this board, and the teaching comes from contributors with many different personalities. With some time invested, participants become accustomed to most of those personalities.
For the OP to come in with virtually no contribution to the board and start throwing around insults goes against basic netiqutte. Trolling is almost always met with flaming, right or wrong as that may be.
I'm glad that you came here, and I hope that you can somehow get the coin accurately evaluated by an expert, in hand. In any event, it doesn't appear that even if it were totally authentic, that it is a million dollar coin - but a nice conversation piece to be sure.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>I am the person who found the coin. Back in 1982 I was into coins and pennies more specifically. I knew the mint ws changing over from copper to plated cents. So I would go to the bank and get bank rolled pennies and tube them. I did hundreds of rolls. I figured there might be a mistake made or there would be more of one variety than another and for fifty cents a roll it seemed a good bet to me. >>
But the thread author said:
<< <i>Here's a not to good photo, very tough to photograph. It is mint B.U. with solid details. It is not acid washed or anything like that. It was recently found in a mint bank roll of 82's. >>
So, was it found in 82 or recently?
Also, the thread author said:
<< <i>Look, I did not ask anybody whether they thought my coin is fake or not. >>
So, is the coin his or yours?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Link to seller/buyer This explains a lot of things...hmmmmm
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Testing to see if the thread is locked >>
Monday October 16, 2006 3:57 PM (NEW!)
You been waiting for the chance to use that I bet! Well done! >>
Without rehashing your entire contribution... First, let me say
The OP asked whether anyone had seen an unplated cent, and what the value would be (before the edit).
He didn't like the answers, even of the experts - and they are just that - experts.
Now, determining the grade, originality or confirming whether a coin is even genuine is very difficult, and some would say impossible to do from photos or scans.
Given the best information available, the experts gave the educated opinion that the coin was not a genuine unplated planchet error. No real attempts were made to cast aspersions as to the provenance of the coin, or the credibility of the original owner.
What did occur was that the OP became such an ass that people reacted with sarcasm and derision - again, not so much against the coin or the original source, but against the OP.
There is much to learn on this board, and the teaching comes from contributors with many different personalities. With some time invested, participants become accustomed to most of those personalities.
For the OP to come in with virtually no contribution to the board and start throwing around insults goes against basic netiqutte. Trolling is almost always met with flaming, right or wrong as that may be.
I'm glad that you came here, and I hope that you can somehow get the coin accurately evaluated by an expert, in hand. In any event, it doesn't appear that even if it were totally authentic, that it is a million dollar coin - but a nice conversation piece to be sure. >>
Well, I know how message boards can be. I am no stranger to that. However I do have a higher opinion of the OP than you seem to because A: He is my happy customer B: If he took what was said about that coin at face value he would then have been obliged to inform me that I lied to him. He didn't do that and for that I am grateful.
Oh thanks for the welcome too. And not to wear out my welcome, but I am not after a million dolar coin. Chiefly because it no longer belongs to me
But if a non academic interest is the idea that the experts did say it was not genuine, an opinion that I have to believe is in error and that could have had unfortunate consequences for me had the OP belived them. Had someone said "I don't know" well, ok. No harm no foul. But weren't there statements made conclusively that it was not genuine?
So aside from that it is an interesting topic and that I belive I can both learn and perhaps educate too by way of discussion here, the over arching importance to me is that graders and experts would be best off not thinking something is not genuine when in all likelyhood it is. Mistakes like that, should they prove to be mistakes as I think they will by a point by point discussion, could hurt people. It could have damaged me a lot.
<< <i>In your first post you say:
<< <i>I am the person who found the coin. Back in 1982 I was into coins and pennies more specifically. I knew the mint ws changing over from copper to plated cents. So I would go to the bank and get bank rolled pennies and tube them. I did hundreds of rolls. I figured there might be a mistake made or there would be more of one variety than another and for fifty cents a roll it seemed a good bet to me. >>
But the thread author said:
<< <i>Here's a not to good photo, very tough to photograph. It is mint B.U. with solid details. It is not acid washed or anything like that. It was recently found in a mint bank roll of 82's. >>
So, was it found in 82 or recently?
Also, the thread author said:
<< <i>Look, I did not ask anybody whether they thought my coin is fake or not. >>
So, is the coin his or yours? >>
I put about 400 rolls of pennies in tubes back then. I used gloves and in the case of bank rolls (I did get one sack but fiorget which batch of pennies it was) I unrolled the paper as I slipped the coins in. So the coins were not all that visable and I am sure it showed through the side in 1982 but given that I was doing so many I just missed it.
I found the coin a few weeks ago by viewing it through the side of the sealed roll tube.
The coin is his. He bought it from me
<< <i>Link to seller/buyer This explains a lot of things...hmmmmm >>
Care to elaborate? I don't take your meaning
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>Link to seller/buyer This explains a lot of things...hmmmmm >>
Heheheheh. Yeah, that does explain a lot.
I am glad that the OP didn't take what was said here and go back to the seller asking for a refund (BTW, Obrial, welcome to the forums). As much as several experts gave their opinions from the pictured provided, most of them emphasized that theirs were opinions only. Knowing most of them personally, I also think they would be happy to admit a mistake if one were made. I still think an accurate weight would go a long way toward clearing up the mystery surrounding this coin, but it has also been said that even with the coin inhand this type of error can be extremely hard to authenticate.
I guess as long as both the seller and the new owner are satisfied with their transaction perhaps it's best to just agree to disagree on this one. Sure was an entertaining thread, though.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>
<< <i>Link to seller/buyer This explains a lot of things...hmmmmm >>
Care to elaborate? I don't take your meaning >>
Wasn't my comment, but I think the OP came here hoping he got a "rip," and his subsequent defensiveness was a reaction to the idea that he may not as been as successful as he first thought.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
obrial...this is a fair and worthy Q&A forum when it comes to US coins, welcome. Your intrest is also welcome.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>At least you came clean and said (after my post) that you in fact sold the coin and no longer have it...I commend you, that's more than what the the original poster eluded to. If you read back... the plot thickened quick. >>
I thought it was evident it wasn't my coin because I am not the OP. But looking back I can see how taht wasn't as clear to everyone else as it was to me
<< <i>
<< <i>Link to seller/buyer This explains a lot of things...hmmmmm >>
Heheheheh. Yeah, that does explain a lot.
I am glad that the OP didn't take what was said here and go back to the seller asking for a refund (BTW, Obrial, welcome to the forums). As much as several experts gave their opinions from the pictured provided, most of them emphasized that theirs were opinions only. Knowing most of them personally, I also think they would be happy to admit a mistake if one were made. I still think an accurate weight would go a long way toward clearing up the mystery surrounding this coin, but it has also been said that even with the coin inhand this type of error can be extremely hard to authenticate.
I guess as long as both the seller and the new owner are satisfied with their transaction perhaps it's best to just agree to disagree on this one. Sure was an entertaining thread, though.
Sean Reynolds >>
Me too. A return and bad feedback would have hurt me a lot.
I however am still interested in a technical discussion. I think facts have been stated that aren't neccessarily so. I was starting with teh idea that striking makes a coin shiney. As it happens I am in the tool making trades and I know something about dies and how metal reacts to stamping and I think that is not true. I think there isn't enough force involved or movement of the metal to burnish it. It has to move to burnish and if you moved the metal around that much the plating would show through.
<< <i>I did read your auction ad and you never said that the 1982 cent missing the copper plating was a "genuine" mint error or found in Aunt Hilda's closet and that it was just mixed in a roll of bank coins. I see nothing wrong with your auction the way it was worded...as seanq stated, the original poster was looking for something, but he did not like what he was getting.
obrial...this is a fair and worthy Q&A forum when it comes to US coins, welcome. Your intrest is also welcome. >>
Thanks!
Doesn't anybody want to talk about the technical details maybe?
Things like I mentioned about the matte finish.
Or about the plating on a zinc planchet being twice as thick on the edges of a penny as the middle?
How would one remove twice as much from the sides as from the middle? Someone mentioned more specks on the outside of this penny but we arent talking specks we are talking twice as thick.
Even if someone did do that, undertook to devise a means to remove it in double proportion on the edges, wouldn't it show in less sharpness to the detail on the outside edges?
I got more
<< <i>
<< <i>Link to seller/buyer This explains a lot of things...hmmmmm >>
Heheheheh. Yeah, that does explain a lot.
I am glad that the OP didn't take what was said here and go back to the seller asking for a refund (BTW, Obrial, welcome to the forums). As much as several experts gave their opinions from the pictured provided, most of them emphasized that theirs were opinions only. Knowing most of them personally, I also think they would be happy to admit a mistake if one were made. I still think an accurate weight would go a long way toward clearing up the mystery surrounding this coin, but it has also been said that even with the coin inhand this type of error can be extremely hard to authenticate.
I guess as long as both the seller and the new owner are satisfied with their transaction perhaps it's best to just agree to disagree on this one. Sure was an entertaining thread, though.
Sean Reynolds >>
" I am defending the lady's honor who took this out of a B.U. Roll. Otherwise, if i take you people’s words I’ll be calling her a flat out bold face liar. I do not believe she is, and feel she has no reason to,. here's more copper for you.. as I mentioned before the details disappear when you shoot this flat, this is Lincolns ear lobe."
No indication in this that he purchased it from "the lady". The OP started out by obfuscating material facts... Not a shot against "the lady" though.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
Or about the plating on a zinc planchet being twice as thick on the edges of a penny as the middle?
How would one remove twice as much from the sides as from the middle? Someone mentioned more specks on the outside of this penny but we arent talking specks we are talking twice as thick.
Even if someone did do that, undertook to devise a means to remove it in double proportion on the edges, wouldn't it show in less sharpness to the detail on the outside edges?
Copper coated zinc palnchet link
This was burried deep in this article:
Lincoln cents are the other half. Cent blanks arrive pre-punched and ready to strike from Jarden Zinc Products of Greenville, Tenn., which also provides one-cent planchets to the Royal Canadian Mint.
Jarden is the successor to Alltrista Zinc Products Company, which spun off in 1993 from Ball Corporation, which won the contract in 1981 to produce the new copper-plated zinc cent planchets. The name has changed, but it’s essentially the same company that’s famous for fabricating the zinc lids for Ball Mason jars.
Jarden uses a patented electroplating process to coat its zinc planchets with just 7.5 microns of copper at the center and twice as much on the edge, where the coins are subjected to harsher wear. Zinc is highly ductile, meaning it’s malleable, so it doesn’t need to be annealed (softened by heating) before it is struck
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>
<< <i>I did read your auction ad and you never said that the 1982 cent missing the copper plating was a "genuine" mint error or found in Aunt Hilda's closet and that it was just mixed in a roll of bank coins. I see nothing wrong with your auction the way it was worded...as seanq stated, the original poster was looking for something, but he did not like what he was getting.
obrial...this is a fair and worthy Q&A forum when it comes to US coins, welcome. Your intrest is also welcome. >>
Thanks!
Doesn't anybody want to talk about the technical details maybe?
Things like I mentioned about the matte finish.
Or about the plating on a zinc planchet being twice as thick on the edges of a penny as the middle?
How would one remove twice as much from the sides as from the middle? Someone mentioned more specks on the outside of this penny but we arent talking specks we are talking twice as thick.
Even if someone did do that, undertook to devise a means to remove it in double proportion on the edges, wouldn't it show in less sharpness to the detail on the outside edges?
I got more
Perhaps another thread is in order. Many people will have stopped opening this one long ago.
I'll warn you though that a thread on luster and the effects of striking on surfaces of planchets will garner relatively few responses.
Earlier it was mentioned that strong nitric acid would dissolve the copper and the oxide formed on the zinc would protect it.
There should be relatively little variation in thickness of the plating on a zinc Lincolns. Even on the cu/ ni clad cu coins the cladding is not significanly thinned in the stretched areas or thicker in others. A clad that's filed down smooth will not show any copper! Of course the plating on the cent is far thinnewr though.
<< <i>
So aside from that it is an interesting topic and that I belive I can both learn and perhaps educate too by way of discussion here, the over arching importance to me is that graders and experts would be best off not thinking something is not genuine when in all likelyhood it is. Mistakes like that, should they prove to be mistakes as I think they will by a point by point discussion, could hurt people. It could have damaged me a lot. >>
could you please explain how returning the troll's $20 would have "damaged you a lot"? I must be missing something here, $20 doesn't seem like a lot of damage to me (and I have a much smaller coin budget than many of the members here).
--Thomas Jefferson
Until then we think you are as full as BS as your apparently dissatisfied customer. Just look at the auction you sold it in <<<I have 4 happy customers so far. I am not a criminal. This penny isn't fake.>>> 4 happy penny buyers? Wow I’m impressed!! You were already on the defensive before you even sold it!! Wonder why? I have never seen a coin seller start his auction by denying that he was a criminal and his coin was a fake. It’s bad when you have to try to convince your bidders that you’re not a criminal to get them to bid on your auction! If you don’t feel deceitful like a criminal why even mention it?
<<<Doesn't anybody want to talk about the technical details maybe?>>>
Why don't you read this thread in it's entirety? Then you will see all the technical details there are to be discussed have already been discussed but your punkboy dismissed them and said we were wrong so why would we want to rehash the whole thing again with you? Nothing has changed.
Plus look at your buyers feedback. He’s so ashamed that he hides it. Out of 144 feedbacks he has 5 negatives. Do you see a problem there?
Neither one of you has any credibility in either the error or coin collector/dealer field. Nuff said.
<< <i>Orbrial, like I told all kindsofshiat, OK we believe you too
Until then we think you are as full as BS as your apparently dissatisfied customer. Just look at the auction you sold it in <<<I have 4 happy customers so far. I am not a criminal. This penny isn't fake.>>> 4 happy penny buyers? Wow I’m impressed!! You were already on the defensive before you even sold it!! Wonder why? I have never seen a coin seller start his auction by denying that he was a criminal and his coin was a fake. It’s bad when you have to try to convince your bidders that you’re not a criminal to get them to bid on your auction! If you don’t feel deceitful like a criminal why even mention it?
<<<Doesn't anybody want to talk about the technical details maybe?>>>
Why don't you read this thread in it's entirety? Then you will see all the technical details there are to be discussed have already been discussed but your punkboy dismissed them and said we were wrong so why would we want to rehash the whole thing again with you? Nothing has changed.
Plus look at your buyers feedback. He’s so ashamed that he hides it. Out of 144 feedbacks he has 5 negatives. Do you see a problem there?
Neither one of you has any credibility in either the error or coin collector/dealer field. Nuff said. >>
Heh.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
About 1/2 the way though this thread someone predicted it would go over 100 posts, don't know who but I read it along this dusty trail, clairvoyant? Care to predict 200?
I still think this is an excllent source (the link) describing planchet processes.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
1. Bright, uncirculated, partly plated cents show exposed zinc that is bright, smooth, and lusterous. The zinc does not show copper flecks.
2. Unplated zinc blanks and planchets do not show a rough surface and do not show copper flecks. The strike would certainly not impose a rough texture on the planchet.
3. Dimes and dime planchets struck by cent dies do not show copper flecks. Therefore, it is even more unlikely that the copper flecks came from the striking chamber.
4. The genuine unplated cents that I have inspected show a bright, smooth, and lusterous surface that is devoid of copper flecks. These are cents that I have weighed and examined under a microscope. Since I own them, I also took the radical step of scraping the edge against a fine sharpening stone to make sure there was no copper plating underneath.
While it is possible that Obrial's coin has oxidized, this is hard to reconcile with its claimed origin within a roll of BU, bank-rolled cents. In any case, oxidation does not produce copper flecks.
Such comparisons can be made by anyone willing to spend a little money to buy a few unstruck, unplated planchets and a few partly plated cents. These are by no means expensive.
Russ, NCNE
Hey, we have nothing better to do.
I guess the only thing left to do is to send it to NGC and let Rich tell him it is a fake too.
Oh wait, Rich will also say it is a fake because Fred and Mike did, because bird of feather flies together, so he is really out of options, ....or send it to AGC, they'll slab anything, right?
San Diego, CA