| Author |
 Replies: 29 / Views: 2,835 |
|
|
|
New Member
 United States
24 Posts |
Coppercoins: The coin shows split plating in all of the photos, and the doubling is not a doubled die. End of story. WRONG There is no zinc showing. The spots that look like split plating ARE GLARE!. I really dont know, what you dont understand about that. your welcome to say what you like about the actaul type of doubling it is. But you are INCORECT about the the copper being punctured. THERE AGAIN IS NOT A TRACE OF ANY OTHER COLOR ON THIS COIN OTHER THEN COPPER. edit to add: Coppercoins: I would really like to state that granted you may know very much about the Lincoln Cent. But that dosnt mean that I don't either. I have been a collector for over 20 years. I am assuming that you have been collecting for some years more then myself. But it dosnt mean I'm talking out my rare end. The pictures are not of the best quality FACT, I only put this post up to see if any one else had SEEN A DOUBLING like this on a 87 Proof penny. That all, not much more then that. not to be told like I was a shmuck that dosnt know what he holding in front of his own face. As for how many actual penny I have held in my hand and looked at, not to mention types has to be in the 100s and 100' and 100s of thousands. In fact about 120 pounds of weaties sitting right here. So I need to emphasize my question HAS ANYONE SEEM a 1987S proof Lincoln Cent with this type of doubling? Edited by Nathanscoins
12/21/2006 12:08 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
You came asking a question as to what it is. I answered. You can accept the answer or not, doesn't really matter one way or the other.
Has anyone seen a proof cent with this type of doubling? Sure. I have. Dozens of times. It comes from a combination of striking pressure and die wear which result in split plating. That's the answer, no different answer is going to end up being the correct answer. Sorry you don't like it.
The years from 1982 through 1989 were notorious for plating problems on Lincoln cents because they didn't do enough extensive testing to figure out the right way to plate zinc with copper before moving forward with doing it in production. A vast number of the coins from this period show problems - gas bubbles, split plating, excessive die wear problems, under pressure strikes, over pressure strikes, and a myriad of other things that made a large number of the coins turn out to look 'wierd'. They are not hub doubling, they are not errors, and they are not valuable.
This will be my final post on this subject. I prefer not to be told that I'm not looking at what I am. I know what I see in your images, and I have told you what it is. And yes, that is the end of the story for me.
I may come back in a couple of weeks, I have things to take care of that preclude my spending time here for a while. Have fun all.
|
|
New Member
United States
24 Posts |
right. enough said, All you had to say was YOU dont know. lol
nIm,
Edited by Nathanscoins
12/22/2006 2:54 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
Nathanscoins
You have an advantage having the coin in hand,, Like I said previously we are looking at the info and pictures that you have provided.
Coppercoins is a true expert, with a few books writtn and published on the subject of Die varieties,, He also has a very extensive web business and photo gallery involving thousands of coins.
Respect given is respect gained.
Try taking the pics without a flash if you are using one, or difusing the light through a milk jug or similar opaque filter.
I have to admit that the coins look like they are split at the lettering which is very common on the plated cents.
I believe you when you say they are not,, Did you take a look at the doubling types in the link I provided ?
Rick
Edited by Metalman
12/22/2006 3:47 pm
|
|
New Member
United States
24 Posts |
I dont have anything else to add.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
397 Posts |
I usually do not confront someone, but I have a real problem with your posts.... I looked over the photos really well, and as you can see, the "zinc" areas are NOT reflections. The lighting is all wrong.  I do not know what your game is here, but you are busted.... I also think you were very disrespectful to coppercoins. He was trying to help and you dissed him bad for no reason. Sorry Pal, just call em as I see em' MM  Edited by morganman
12/22/2006 8:54 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
Very Interesting MM !!
Now I have nothing more to add !!
Rick
|
|
Forum Dad
 United States
24161 Posts |
Nathan I don't understand why you are so surprised at the comments here. The opinions were almost exactly the same here as on another forum. That it was either split plating or Strike Doubling that scraped the plating when the obverse die slipped. Perhaps you could work out a deal to send the coin to coppercoins if he is willing to look at it in hand. If he's wrong, I'm sure he will admit it. Now I will say this in Nathan's defense... If this coin is in the mint holder and he's taking photos through it, crazy things will happen to the light. The direction the light is coming from doesn't mean that's the only direction it's hitting the coin from. Trust me, I've photographed thousands of them. |
|
New Member
United States
24 Posts |
I dont care what you think you see.,Its not zinc its Strike Doubling ,,what are you maken such a big deal about? I'm telling no lie, WHAT WOULD I HAV to gain from lieing about the fact that in real life you dont see zinc. |
|
New Member
United States
24 Posts |
|
|
Forum Dad
United States
24161 Posts |
Nathan, using vulgarities in your posts accomplishes nothing.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
577 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
288 Posts |
Do you have more pics of other parts of coin? Any sign of split serifs? If the coins copper plating is not well adhered it would seem to me that it would be possible for the copper plating to move when struck. If the striking die chatters or bounces, the metal can be displaced. Imagine that the thin layer coating of copper metal may push and mound up, possibly into the shapes of the die. It would not necessarily have to break the copper layer and show zinc.
Whatever happened here, it is not supposed to happen on a proof coin. Remember those famous words. The mint does not make mistakes! This coin proves that... right? Proof errors are considered rare. Valueable? Who knows. Cool coin nonetheless.
After 50 years as collector I am still learning. How can an expert get learned after 20-30 years? All I know is that there is a lot to know.
I would hope that a true expert is always open to learning, questioning, debate, and dissent. If you find that there are no experts that you trust, then study, ask lots of questions, challenge the experts and yourself, and become an expert. Most of all, enjoy and share it. G.L. Gusp
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
The 1983 cent is a victim of the same thing - split plating at the time of the strike. There are literally thousands of proof cents out there that suffer from the same thing, I have seen it dozens of times.
Exactly what causes it isn't really all that important - what it is would be more important, and that's exactly what it is. It is most likely caused by the fact that proof coins are struck more than once on purpose, and the feeble coating of copper on the zinc planchet wasn't enough at the time to withstand the pressure of a double strike.
Any time you see a zinc proof cent with the zinc peeking through, especially on the outside edges of the outer letters of the design, this is what you have, and it isn't rare, and it isn't worth a premium value. In fact, it would be worth less than a non-effected cent because the non-effected cents are much less likely to corrode because the zinc is not exposed to the elements.
|
| |
Replies: 29 / Views: 2,835 |
First Page
Posted 12/21/2006 6:52 pm
