1992 Lincoln cent FG Error?

Discussion in 'Error Coins' started by tommy cent, Dec 25, 2013.

  1. tommy cent

    tommy cent Active Member

    This is a 1992 wide AM cent but why is the FG like this?
    its more like an RDV-005 FG instead of the RDV-006 FG.

    Attached Files:

  2. Avatar

    Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide this ad.
  3. tommy cent

    tommy cent Active Member


    I just read here: http://www.errorvariety.com/Design/WAM-CAM.html

    RDV-005 exhibits a shallow and delicate FG (which is often polished with a reduction in detail); and has a wide spaced AM. Used on P, D & S from 1986-1988

    The photo below shows a wide spread AM.

    so If this is correct then this 1992 wide AM has an FG error.
    because this FG was used from 1986-1988.

    Can someone help me here!!

    Attached Files:

  4. non_cents

    non_cents The Frisco Kid (YN)

    Looks like a normal 006 IMO.
  5. tommy cent

    tommy cent Active Member

    You can cleary see this is not a RDV-006 the pictures I posted are
    clear enough and heres another example of the RDV-006 which this is not.

    this is a RDV-005

    Attached Files:

  6. non_cents

    non_cents The Frisco Kid (YN)

    Hmmm...I don't think so. To me, it looks like the top part of the G does not extend far enough to resemble an 005. Yours may have been abraded slightly or some gunk on the coin may be obscuring its appearance. But I still think it is an RDV-006.
  7. tommy cent

    tommy cent Active Member

    You can tell by the flatness on the bottom of G its the same as a RDV-005 the
    RDV-006 The G is rounded at the bottom take another look.
    that bit of gunk is not obscuring the G at all.
  8. non_cents

    non_cents The Frisco Kid (YN)

    But also look at the blue line in the 5th pic of your first post. It shows the relative distances of the top of the G with the crossbar...notice how in the RDV-005, the top of the G extends at least as far as the crossbar of the G if not farther, with the RDV-006 stopping noticeably shorter of the crossbar. Now, compare that to the first picture of your first post...you will see that the top of the G does not extend over the crossbar.
  9. tommy cent

    tommy cent Active Member


    The G's are totally different Im sending it over to mike Cause this is definitely an RDV-005.

    Thanks.
  10. non_cents

    non_cents The Frisco Kid (YN)

    Alright Tommy, good luck with the submission. Please let us know the results when you find out.
  11. tommy cent

    tommy cent Active Member

    I cleaned the Gunk this is clearly a RDV-005 I know what im looking at
    I Have 1988 RDV-006 this FG is not an 006. this is an 005 look at
    how flat the bottom of the G is. You see it now?

    Attached Files:

  12. non_cents

    non_cents The Frisco Kid (YN)

    Tommy, you evidently see it as an 005. I obviously do not see it the same as you, even after the new pictures. Look at how far the top of the G extends. That alone does not look like an 005. Sorry, still think it's 006. At any rate, either wait for an expert to chime in here or send it to Mike, and let us know the results...
  13. tommy cent

    tommy cent Active Member

    I am not trying to be funny but do you know the difference between an 005 and a 006?

    I uploaded 2 reference photos

    The first one is the RDV-005
    the second one is the RDV-006

    Attached Files:

  14. non_cents

    non_cents The Frisco Kid (YN)

    Tommy, I consider myself well-aware of the different reverse design varieties. What do you have to say about the length of the top of the G? It obviously does not extend as far as what is seen in an RDV-005, and more closely resembles the normal RDV-006. Also, with the RDV-005 being retired after 1989, I would find it, let's say, unlikely that it survived for 4 more years after it was retired to strike more coins.
  15. tommy cent

    tommy cent Active Member

    Its not a close AM and the G looks nothing like a RDV-006 so what would you call it?
    The length of the looks slightly longer on the bottom but it doesnt change the fact if You had to compare my find to those reference pictures one would easily go with the RDV-005
    wouldnt You agree?
  16. non_cents

    non_cents The Frisco Kid (YN)

    I'm sorry Tommy, no matter how many times I look at it I do not see an RDV-005. Wait for an expert on this one...
  17. tommy cent

    tommy cent Active Member

    Ok thanks.
    non_cents likes this.
  18. desertgem

    desertgem MODERATOR Senior Errer Collecktor Moderator

    Tommy, Non_cent answered your question the same way at least a half dozen times, and you keep trying to get him to change his answer. After you said in your 2nd post,

    And he tried. It was just that his answer was different than you want. Ok, if you don't agree, wait until someone else might stop by. But if you seem so unappreciative towards someone trying to help, there will be few who wish to do so. No one is required to spend time checking photos and references to try and help, they will just skip your posts.
    non_cents likes this.
  19. tommy cent

    tommy cent Active Member

    Who said I was unappreciative? I just didn't agree with Non_Cents but I
    was appreciative of his info I said Thank You to him also. so what are You talking about?
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2013
  20. desertgem

    desertgem MODERATOR Senior Errer Collecktor Moderator

    I am talking about post
    #4
    #6
    #8
    #10 .
    #12
    # 14
    So one 'OK Thanks' is appreciative ?? Ok, whatever, but I think you are on the wrong track. Have a nice day.
  21. Rare-Tim

    Rare-Tim Member

    I found this recently :)

    Attached Files:

Share This Page