| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 751 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
101 Posts |
Hi everyone, it's been awhile since I posted about this coin. I believe it was 4/30/24. I understand that the mint was supposed to transition to a 1989 FG and discontinue using the 1988 die. However, I found what I strongly believe to be a 1989 with a 1988 (005) FG. Since it has been said to be impossible, could this be considered a muled reverse? It would seem to be impossible for a Lincoln Cent to have a Jefferson dime reverse, however one exists. I'm still researching this one. |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
73798 Posts |
|
|
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
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
8733 Posts |
I, and others explained this very well the first go around about your coin. I will say that it is not impossible for this to happen, discoveries are made all the time in the Coin World, it is ever changing but your example is not what you think it is. Here is your original post. https://goccf.com/t/464324&SearchTerms=ErrorsRcool-makecents-
|
|
Moderator
United States
95018 Posts |
Quote:It would seem to be impossible for a Lincoln Cent to have a Jefferson dime reverse, however one exists. Especially when Roosevelt is on the dime, not Jefferson. |
|
Valued Member
 United States
101 Posts |
Thanks for everyone's response to my post. I fully understand what everyone is saying. There are still some issues that puzzle me completely. The definition of an excessive die abrasion. I believe you said that it is a die that was over polished. My problem with that is the fact that the polishers are highly skilled craftsman and designers that maticulusly design these dies to scrutinous standards to ward off counterfeiting. I don't understand how the 1989 FG can have the sariff at the top of the upright completely removed and the bottom tab at the base of the upright completely removed and then be signed off as good to use for the 1989 transition reverse on federal government currency. It just doesn't make sense to me how the mint would permit that kind of intolerance of standards. I can understand a 1988 die being used unintentionally until discovered however. ErrorsRCool.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
101 Posts |
Thanks Dearborn. That was a big oops on my part. I meant Roosevelt, not Jefferson on the reverse. My bad. Anyway, I have seen muled coins that were stated to be genuine. I've seen coins stamped on wrong planchettes. I'm just saying that the mints do occasionally make mistakes and bingo, we have another error coin discovery. I'm not trying to be combative by any means whatsoever. I enjoy the hunt as much as the next person. I just don't think the word "impossible" should be used to exclude an error. I guess I have a problem with the term (abraded die) being used instead of just admitting that the mint possibly made another mistake and used the wrong die. Thanks again, ErrorsRCool.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5770 Posts |
It's good to hear you're enjoying the hunt like the rest of us. Quote:
... . I understand that the mint was supposed to transition to a 1989 FG and discontinue using the 1988 die.... The understanding by the numismatic community is that the mint ran out of reverse dies for the Lincon cent towards the end of making the 1988 cents. I believe there was more than one reverse die from 1989 used in 1988. Question for you: If the mint ran out of 1988 reverse dies (at least two), how could one remain to be used in 1989? Quote:
...is the fact that the polishers are highly skilled craftsman... That is an assumption and not a fact. We see examples regularly of over used and over polished dies. Mint workers are human and subject to all the pressures and distractions of production schedules, supervisors, and co-workers. And yes, some things really are impossible in the production of coins. BTW- Varieties and errors are different. This thread is about a variety of the die used on 1989 cents. Words of encouragement are one of the major food groups.
We need to consume them regularly to thrive and grow.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
101 Posts |
Good day Petespockets55. I'm fairly new to all of this as compared to most of the group. I hope I'm not coming off as some kind of know it all, because I am definitely not. I am, however, very interested in the mechanical aspects of the minting process and greatly appreciate everyones input and explanations and expertise and wisdom through experience. I've been reading some books on the subject but still only have a smidgen (if I'm even able to call it that) of the knowledge and experience that most of you have. If I may ask, when does the mint start to make coins for the following year's release date. I'm told in some articles that the mint stamps out about a million coins per hour. If that's true, do they come to a complete halt and change both, obverse and reverse dies at the same time? Now, to attempt to answer your question. Is it possible that only one die, say the 1988 obverse, was changed to a 1989, sometime shortly before the end of the year's run when they ran out of the reverse dies and mistakenly had a few leftover coins run through with the old and new dies? I have no clue. It puzzles me that an old 1988 cent obverse die combined with a new 1989 reverse die is ok, but a new 1989 obverse die combined with an old 1988 reverse die is not when the transition possibly happened around the same time, which leads me back to the question of it being impossible. This is what makes this hobby so interesting and frustrating at the same time. I guess it will all come down to an actual hands on examination to confirm it one way or the other. Thanks again, ErrorsRCool.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
101 Posts |
Good morning everyone. I know that I have been commenting about my 1989 Lincoln Cent with a 1988 RDV-005 reverse design for some time now and have also had several responses. I sent it to ANACS and got a reply saying that I should send it to someone like Mr. James Wiles for verification. It's been stated that the 1988 dies wore out and were replaced with 1989 dies so my coin should not exist. What if this coin is actually a 1988 that had it's worn out obverse die accidentally replaced with a new 1989 obverse die near the end of the 1988 minting run? Hmmm? I did contact Mr. Wiles, and he agreed to take an in hand look at it after January 1st. I'll post again when I find out more. Thanks to all for your anticipated comments. Enjoy your holidays. ErrorsRCool. |
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 751 |
|
Ken Potter debunked this a long time ago as excessive die polishing. 
Posted 09/06/2025 7:02 pm
