| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 1,708 |
|
New Member
United States
5 Posts |
There was a previous discussion pertaining to certain 1971 pennies that had been submitted to the Mint by Numismatics Editor on behalf of a collector who was also a musician. The mint examined the coins (by dissecting one) and determined that the coins were, in fact, largely zinc based due to certain weld sections of penny planchet sheets making there way into production, instead of being entirely cut out.
It seems that, based on the information presented in the article, these were "error coins". If I recall correctly - the Editor purchased one from the musician for $33.
Does anyone have an idea what the current value is of these coins? I know condition is important - so, what would be a range of values assuming circulated VF condition? Any responses based on actual transactions would be helpful. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
34397 Posts |
"If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
New Member
 United States
5 Posts |
Thank you for the link to the prior discussion. That helps because the article is available there.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
73903 Posts |
I've never heard of this error before, so I have no clue.
Errers and Varietys.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8715 Posts |
 I'm not familiar with this error.  to the CCF! |
|
Valued Member
United States
420 Posts |
Does anyone else find it slightly odd that an at-most-as-of-this-moment a two-of-a-kind US coin error, certified by the mint as genuine, with the odds of a similar strike ever happening again being next-to-nil, and even though a cent, is only valued at a double-sawbuck..?
Sadly, since all the component pieces are no longer together and provenance can't be verified throughout I can see how the answer today could be "no.." However, when everything was at first still all together, methinks someone got the screws put to him but good..!
Swamp
|
|
New Member
United States
5 Posts |
While new to this....methinks that while I'm not quite sure I interpret you correctly, and if I don't then my apologies - more than a few of these have surfaced after the initial Mint verification. I have one. The 1971 coin is clearly and largely zinc based. I have learned thus far in my short venture into this world of "errors" that, at times, coins with almost any slight hint of imperfection are quick;y and enthusiastically deemed to be astonishing errors. I, and probably others, have a distinct aberration of the penny production process. I am convinced of it's authenticity and validity. The only question is where the value falls in comparison to the many other examples of "errors" so enthusiastically offered by their respective owners.
|
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
to CCF. If you are that sure it is genuine, you should send it to PCGS. Once slabbed it will be worth more. Can you post photos here on CCF? John1  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2189 Posts |
Quote:
more than a few of these have surfaced after the initial Mint verification. Quote:
The mint examined the coins Why would anyone one send their coins to the US Mint to authenticate? Isn't that what PCGS NGC etc is for, and they will return your coins. It's really beginning to sound like an old fish story Edited by jasper62
07/01/2018 5:20 pm
|
|
New Member
United States
5 Posts |
I can comment as to why the coins where sent to the Mint for verification. The coin collector (a musician)had apparently connected with a very local newspaper columnist for some reason. The columnist referred him to a Numismatic News Editor. That editor connected with Mint officials who were curious and offered to dissect one of the coins. Not a traditional path - but, the path that was taken. As for photos - I will endeavor to get the right camera to take the appropriate photos. As soon as I have that in place - I will post photos. What is not disputed is that Mint employees examined the available specimens and arrived at reasonable conclusions. until then - thank you all for your insight, skepticism and suggestions. I am new to all of this. But, having looked at many "error" coins online - I would be skeptical too. Having seen many micro arrows pointed at "error evidence on a coin........you have a right to be skeptical. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
Why would anyone one send their coins to the US Mint to authenticate? Isn't that what PCGS NGC etc is for, and they will return your coins.
It's really beginning to sound like an old fish story Note that the article was from 1973. PCGS and NGC didn't exist at the time and ANACS was just beginning to get off the ground. Back in that "pre TPG" era it was not unusual for coins with questions to be sent to the Mint Laboratories under the theory that they would be the experts. (This was not always a good idea. They had technical expertise but not an understanding of the realities of the numismatic market. They were once sent an AU 1893 S Morgan withthe question as to whether the mintamrk had been added. It came back stating that the coin was genuine and the mintmark was not added. They had used the point of a knife to dig all around the mintmark to try and pry it off.) |
|
Valued Member
United States
420 Posts |
I debated myself about whether I even wanted to get further involved in this thread, since it can get time consuming and I'm a lousy typist.. My conclusion is: If I don't I become just as culpable as those who don't or won't release better, or for that matter in some areas any, information pertaining to the minting process that would present actuality vs our "best guess stumbling alongs" in our quest for answers.. So, with that said: Quote:
...methinks that while I'm not quite sure I interpret you correctly, and if I don't then my apologies... Apology accepted.. Since you didn't quote anything / anyone I only assume you reference my comment.. (At this point I'm interjecting a "line break" in order to indicate what I speak is generality, not pointed toward EEddie..) I don't understand how anyone could read what I typed and come away thinking it says other than intended.. I never even heard of this "error" until yesterday.. Further, in the wonderful world of errors this one is even more unique than standard since it is the only one I know about that's based on the material being struck rather than having something to do with an occurence during the minting process.. Further further, each coin should be treated as its own unique error since they're based on a weld and each coin will have slightly different composition.. The closest comparison I can make off the top of my head from "already knowns" would be the BIE, which is in actuality a variety.. Which now does lead back to EEddie for a moment, since I believe he's confusing and/or including a plethora of varieties and their arrows pointing toward minutae, with true errors.. Two different things, sir.. I'm from the school that believes the fewer there are of something / anything the more it should be worth due to the rarity factor.. But that isn't always the case, is it..? There are too many instances where the premium is completely out of line with the scarcity, which can play both ways: Too pricey for how many there are; not enough for how few exist.. This is true with everything, not coins exclusively.. For instance, my main thing is vinyl, as in phonograph records, not coins -- and that market fluctuates just as severely as stocks or coins.. And if ya wanna talk about items being out of line worth-wise based on rarity give this discipline a shot.. You'll pull your hair out..! Anyhowww, staying within this forum's boundaries the main point of this reply is I think once EEddie separates varieties and outright fradulent items from true errors he'll find there aren't nearly as many out here as he's now seeing.. Values though are a whole separate issue.. And with that I'm about outta here to go lie in an MRI tube for an hour-n-a-half or so.. L8r kidz.. Swamp PS: What the heck does "...a distinct aberration of the penny production process..." even mean..? |
|
Moderator
United States
188001 Posts |
to the Community! |
|
New Member
United States
5 Posts |
All,
I don't have the best camera for taking photos of coins. Also - it seems that the file size of my photo images will be too big anyway for CCF. Anyway.....the coin has a bright thin yellow tone in general that is interrupted by gray areas or gray toning. On the obverse - the gray comes through on the shoulder and face. On the reverse - the gray is very distinctive in between the pillars of the Lincoln Memorial, and on the base of the memorial. The edges of the coin are largely gray. Also - the coin seems thinner than others.
Seems I have inadvertently offended dome sensibilities or thrown something new in the mix that nobody is interested in. Aberration means deviation from the usual. And I too have some serious vinyl.
However, I am working directly with a couple hobby experts who are interested in what I may have. I was able to get some images to them.
Thanks for your help. Bye.
|
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
Who are the experts? John1 |
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 1,708 |
Posted 07/01/2018 1:13 pm
