Author |
Replies: 11 / Views: 251 |
|
Valued Member
United States
109 Posts |
Another new view, since I never had a macro lens or digital camera when I got this in the 90s. After all the recent mistakes and working on the lighting, it would have been many rolls of film and lots of money before I got the images right. Isn't digital great?  Looking at the photo, I thought I saw a 7 but then, the bar is too long and too big? Something under the missing number, doesn't look right either. I just assumed grease on the die, but I had to ask?   Edited by PPorro 02/27/2021 10:45 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community

United States
4766 Posts |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3684 Posts |
I'm thinking '57 as well. Wonder what the reverse looks like...
|
Valued Member
United States
109 Posts |
Oh sorry, I didn't think the reverse was interesting.  The top bar on the 7 appears too wide and there's something down below? (or am I seeing things) 
Edited by PPorro 02/27/2021 11:40 am
|
Bedrock of the Community

United States
56105 Posts |
Looks like a Greaser, and probably a 7, but assuming it's a wheat I guess it could be a 5 or...?
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3684 Posts |
Reverse is showing a die crack--left wheat. Rather nice. The '57 Wheat cent (Philadelphia mint) often displays a myriad of interesting stuff.
|
Valued Member
United States
109 Posts |
Die Crack, Oh... right. I never would have noticed. Coming here and investing some time, will improve my understanding. I never really did much. I mean, when I was a kid, I collected from pocket change. Nearly filled a cent book, and with buying the 1931-S I'm left where most of us hobby collectors are, no 1909-S VDB and no 22 plain. Looking for unusual coins is a good diversion. I probably never thought about a die crack on anything. Easy enough, raised cracked line. Then the Nickels, same thing except filling a book from circulation, I'm on my third, was just some Winter entertainment. Thanks for more ideas and understanding. I still wonder about the missing number as it's too large, there are raised bits and pieces where the number should be. But if it's not just a one off, no recognized error, that's what it is. No I don't think I'm going to be retiring from any coin find in any imaginary world. I'm more likely to win the lottery and I know the odds of that! 
|
Valued Member

United States
296 Posts |
I concur that it is a Greaser and a very nice one at that. Throw in the die crack on the reverse and that makes it an even neater cent.
|
Valued Member
United States
109 Posts |
Last one on this? I don't know if I shouldn't have looked or if I'm seeing much more detail. I cleaned up a microscope lens, mounted it on an adapter and now I see a "0" plus scratches. But then there's a chunk of something as well. More confusing than when I started. Striations, but not over the entire area. 
|
Valued Member

United States
296 Posts |
New ballgame now in my in my humble opinion...... Almost appears to be an extremely abraided or over polished die from the looks of that pic and maybe not a Greaser. Amazing what different lighting angles can reveal. Not sure.
Edited by Scuba1 02/27/2021 2:20 pm
|
Bedrock of the Community

United States
50241 Posts |
It could be a Grease Fill on that device and Possible thin gouge on the die. 
|
Valued Member
United States
109 Posts |
Thanks all, I'll keep it. Yes, interesting how getting better at photography shows more variations. It will always remain a 195? in my collection. 
|
|
Replies: 11 / Views: 251 |
|