| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 971 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
98 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2833 Posts |
IMO, it looks like a LD w/ damage.
Edited by coin rejector
10/18/2022 12:44 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
21586 Posts |
If you had a Large over Small Date, it would show as two different dates as they are in different positions on the dies. What you have is a Large Date with some Die Deterioration. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7174 Posts |
 LD and a hit. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19120 Posts |
Yes, large date with some circulation damage.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
98 Posts |
I'm inclined to agree, actually now appears to be some zinc rotthat caused what looked to me like separation initially. Plus just finished going through a bunch of 1960 D cents right before finding this, had my mind on over-dates lol.
Thanks all!
|
|
Moderator
United States
94892 Posts |
Never heard of a 1982 over-date. It just looks like a damaged large date.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
@Flowme911: From the point of view of the Mint ways of the making the hubs, After 1948 is no date over date. According with the process in place, the MM was punch on the Hub at the necessity for more Dies if the Dies Hub was worn, which eliminate this error. In the history of the Mint except the outside interventions, very few date over date was happened.
Now for me the date over date for you do not mean RPM?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10635 Posts |
Just a regular large date. I've never heard of a 82 overdate.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
98 Posts |
I agree with all, just a large date with damage. I also have not heard of any 82 overrated, but plenty of varieties I have not heard of still exist I am sure, which is why I ask here where many have far more knowledge than myself! Thank you all for responding :)
|
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 971 |
|
Posted 10/18/2022 12:47 pm
