| Author |
 Replies: 19 / Views: 13,863 |
|
New Member
United States
19 Posts |
I read about the transitional design error for 1988 penny. Being 1988 having the 1989 reverse. My question is - is there also a design error for 1989? I found a 1989 penny that seems to be different from other 1989 based on looking at the FG. The first picture is from the 1989 penny that I think is different from other 1989. The second picture is the regular 1989. Any ideas about this?   |
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
It looks like a normal 1989 cent. I have found one 1988-D and one 1988-P with the 89 reverse. I know of no 89 with a 88 reverse if that is what your asking. John1  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4809 Posts |
For the 1989, the RDV006 is correct, but oddly enough, the reverse situation of 1988 was also true in 1989. Some 1989 cents were coined with the 1988 RDV005. Looking at your pictures, I can't be certain. Although the 1988 cent had the 'true' transitional error having the 1989 design, the 1989 cent is worth more if you can find one - I hope you have one here.
Can you change the lighting a bit and snap some additional pictures? Your current pictures have me leaning both ways relative to various details. Also, USA will look fatter and flatter on the RDV006.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
738 Posts |
can you post full reverse pics?
|
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
Rackster, Do you have a pic or a link to the 89 005? John1 |
|
New Member
 United States
19 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Most of the 005 dies were used up and the started using the 006 early in 1989. The design changed that year to replace the worn master die issues. The devices on the 006 is wider and often thought to be a doubled die, but comparing them to others from that year, they see it is normal. The OP's coin is a 006. Note on the lower images of the "FG", you can see the center of the "G" The die is showing wear, but note the location of the top loop of the "G"  Note the 005 extends to the outside part of the "G"? 006 does not. |
|
New Member
United States
8 Posts |
Hi I have a true 1989-d Lincoln with RVD005. How do I add photos? Thanks
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4809 Posts |
John - sorry, I missed your follow-up question. It's listed in Strike it Rich. Kev
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
530 Posts |
I found my first 88 RDV=006 yesterday.It is hard to locate the value of these.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3644 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3644 Posts |
Yes and it doesn't state if any('89 with '88 rev)have been found but I'm guessing they have and not much of a premium 10$ in unc condition...the '88 with reverse of '89 is listed in the book as 300$ in unc condition and 50$ in vf...who knows if these values still hold true tho  Edited by Slamnbass
04/25/2016 9:45 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
I doubt anyone will find a 1989 with the RDV-005 reverse. The reverses were getting so bad in 1988 that they had to dip into the next years dies early. So I'm thinking the RDV-005s were removed in 1989 coinage. IMOHO
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
738 Posts |
look at gap between fg and memorial(close fg) it looks same like on rdv-006
|
|
New Member
United States
20 Posts |
It's clear that there is a difference between the two coins. I'd suggest that you find one or two more coins to compare with.
I get a kick out of hearing "I haven't heard of it", as if that means that 'it', whatever 'IT' is, doesn't have any merit.
Keep us posted...This one is interesting!
|
| |
Replies: 19 / Views: 13,863 |
Posted 01/01/2015 09:18 am
