NEWP: Lot of 15 Lincoln cent errors. Check it out! EDIT: I believe a "You Suck" is in orde

coinkid855 · March 25, 2009 1:02PM

I thought I got a pretty good deal on this lot. I really love the 1970 S.

Errors

-Paul

savoyspecial · March 25, 2009 1:04PM

yep, you got your money on that 70-S......everything else is a throw-in at that point

nice!

GoldenEyeNumismatics · March 25, 2009 1:19PM

You did very well!

RunnersDad · March 25, 2009 1:21PM

Cool Lot. I would say you did quite well. Wish I had seen that one!

STONE · March 25, 2009 1:23PM

I was thinking of bidding on that lot, but decided to pass for another coin.

Congrats and enjoy

coinkid855 · March 25, 2009 1:27PM

Thanks guys!

-Paul

seanq · March 25, 2009 1:35PM

I was watching that lot also, I think you got a decent deal. In fact, had I been paying closer attention I might have pushed your bid a bit.

The real cherry in that group might be the broadstruck 1963 cent. For some reason the Philly cents from 1960-1963 are rarely found misstruck, in fact dated off-centers from those years are harder to find than S-mint coins from the late 1960s. There's actually an off-center 1962 running on eBay right now that is bid up close to $100 with several days left to go. The broadstruck 1944 cent isn't a bad coin either.

So over all you got yourself a good group of error Lincolns there, nice job.

Sean Reynolds

coinkid855 · March 25, 2009 1:40PM

Wow, thanks Sean! I never realized that errors of that era were so uncommon!

-Paul

commoncents05 · March 25, 2009 1:43PM

If only I hadn't stopped searching for Cud Lincolns a few weeks ago, the lot probably would have been mine. Very nice job!

-Paul

seanq · March 25, 2009 1:49PM

<< Wow, thanks Sean! I never realized that errors of that era were so uncommon!

>>

No problem. Just to clarify, I was referring mainly to misstruck coins, other errors like clips (and your group also includes a nice 1961 with a ragged clip) are pretty common from that time period.

Sean Reynolds

coinkid855 · March 25, 2009 1:52PM

Thanks for the clarification! But isn't the 1961 a defective planchet, not a ragged clip?

-Paul

stinkinlincoln · March 25, 2009 1:55PM

Nice pickup! Thats what it costs me to fill the gas tank of my car. Id rather have those Lincoln errors.

jonathanb · March 25, 2009 2:07PM

Very nice pickup. I probably would have bid also. I like the blank planchet with a clip, plus the others that have been mentioned.

GrumpyEd · March 25, 2009 2:42PM

That thick 1944 cent might be nothing or something good.

I wonder if it weighs extra or it's just a high rim, if it weighs extra it could it be a foreign plan????

coinkid855 · March 25, 2009 2:43PM

I'm guessing it was just spooned, but hey, anything is possible!

-Paul

coinkid855 · March 25, 2009 2:46PM

Hmmm, I googled "1944 cent foreign planchet", and I happened upon this site:

Mint Error News

About three quarters of the way down the page, I saw this:

<< 1944 Cent thick planchet specimen (Pollack #2078) is more likely a mint error struck on a foreign planchet or on incorrectly rolled stock >>

Maybe I REALLY have something here!

-Paul

GrumpyEd · March 25, 2009 2:52PM

The edges look too sharp to be spooned.

Weigh that one when you get it, it might be a good one.

In any case you got some neat stuff!

Don't forget to post an update when you get it

coinkid855 · March 25, 2009 2:54PM

Will do!

-Paul

coinkid855 · March 26, 2009 2:17AM

Anyone else wish to add their two cents on the 1944?

-Paul

FredWeinberg · March 26, 2009 2:52AM

If you mean the Unc-ish 1944 in the upper left hand corner of the
photo - it looks like it might be a partial collar strike or a small
broadstrike.

You'd have to weigh it to see if it's on a rolled thick planchet.
Normal copper cents weigh 3.1 grams/48 grains. Can't tell from
the scan only

coinkid855 · March 26, 2009 3:00AM

Thanks Fred! I'll make sure to weigh it when I get it in hand.

-Paul

MisterBungle · March 26, 2009 3:05AM

Sweet!!

~

coinkid855 · March 30, 2009 3:57AM

Ok, I got the lot today. All of the coins look much nicer than the pictures, and the 1944 does appear to be much thicker than normal, but I am having trouble finding a place to have it weighed. I think I might just head to Office Depot and pick up a scale for $30 or so. I'll let you guys know in an hour or two!

-Paul

coinkid855 · March 30, 2009 4:56AM

I just got back from having it weighed at the Jewelry store.

4.09 GRAMS!!!

-Paul

seanq · March 30, 2009 5:00AM

Ugh... if I hadn't just scored a major cherry elsewhere, I'd be kicking myself pretty hard for not bidding on that lot again. Great score.

Sean Reynolds

FredWeinberg · March 30, 2009 5:09AM

Congrats!

At 63 grains, it's one of the thicker "rolled thick" planchets around.

Worth at least a few hundred dollars to the right interested collector.

SilverEagles92 · March 30, 2009 5:16AM

Having received the coveted You Suck in the past, I feel that I am qualified to issue a big fat

YOU SUCK!!!!

to you. Congratulations.

seanq · March 30, 2009 5:24AM

Fred,

Not to hijiack this but would a 1941 cent of a similar weight carry the same premium? I have one that weighs 4.0 grams and I didn't assume it to be worth too much of a premium.

Sean Reynolds

coinkid855 · March 30, 2009 5:28AM

Ok guys, here are some pictures of a few coins from the lot, including, of course, the 1944 thick planchet.

-Paul

Smittys · March 30, 2009 5:30AM

Sweet Error and Sweet Score

FredWeinberg · March 30, 2009 5:30AM

Sean,

Although most are dated 1944, and most come Unc/BU, I would
think that a similar-grade 1941 might bring the same price range.

As you well know, with 'oddball' errors like this, it's the old saw:
"It's worth what a willing buyer and seller agree to"......

Also, don't forget that a (normal 48 grains) cent planchet that
weighs 50-55 grains or so wouldn't be a big deal, but if it's over
60 grains in weight, that's overweight/thick by 25% - decently
substantial, imo......

GrumpyEd · March 30, 2009 5:32AM

Paul,

That 1944 is a neat error!
Glad it worked out that way!

The others are also nice and they all look great in your pics.

coinkid855 · March 30, 2009 5:42AM

Ok, I'm preparing an NGC submission form to send the coin in to be graded. I'm guessing NGC would be fine, or should I send it to PCGS? (The only reason I don't want to send it to PCGS is the high mint error grading fee.)

-Paul

coinkid855 · March 30, 2009 5:43AM

Oh, and thanks guys

-Paul

MadMarty · March 30, 2009 5:51AM

Nice pic, but not "YOU SUCK" material...

coinkid855 · March 30, 2009 5:58AM

Oooh. Look what I found in the Heritage archives!

1944 Thick Planchet MS64 BN

Anyone care to give me a grade on mine? I'm guessing AU58 RB...

-Paul

SilverEagles92 · March 30, 2009 6:00AM

<< Nice pic, but not "YOU SUCK" material... >>

No? He got the lot for a song, and is probably worth several hundred dollars at least? That's pretty sucky.

seanq · March 30, 2009 6:10AM

<< 

<< Nice pic, but not "YOU SUCK" material... >>

No? He got the lot for a song, and is probably worth several hundred dollars at least? That's pretty sucky. >>

It's a You Suck Lite™. Trust me, I've been trying for years, I know all about those.

Sean Reynolds

NEWP: Lot of 15 Lincoln cent errors. Check it out! EDIT: I believe a "You Suck" is in orde

Comments

Leave a Comment

NEWP: Lot of 15 Lincoln cent errors. Check it out! EDIT: I believe a &quot;You Suck&quot; is in orde

Comments

Leave a Comment

NEWP: Lot of 15 Lincoln cent errors. Check it out! EDIT: I believe a "You Suck" is in orde