Penny 2 years print

Penny 2 different years print

Hello,

I found this penny and I think it must have some value, it has 2 years print on it. I've been watching this forum for a while seeing you guys seem to know a lot about this. I hope you can tell me more about it.

Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well.... I am clueless...

 

Tough to say... better pictures are needed and it should probably be sent in to PCGS or NGC. It could be legit.

 

I want to see the explanation for this if it's legit. It looks to me like the '82 was overstruck by the '81 die? And two different mints involved to boot.

 

Hi,
Hi Resolution picture link.

Tk.

http://s1078.photobucket.com/albums/w487/jbjhunter/

 

bump

 

This is a well-executed fake, in my opinion. The second strike was delivered by a set of sophisticated counterfeit dies. Two different dates and mints is implausible. The strongly tilted second strike (carrying the date 1982) pushes it into the ranks of the unbelievable. With this amount of tilt, the second strike should have generated a well-defined design rim. That's not what happened. The curved line just inside the design rim is not consistent with a genuine strike.

 

I'm sure as heck not going to "critique" the opinion of one so educated as yourself, Mike...so please take this as a quest for knowledge, and not a challenge of your statement.

You say it's "implausible" to have different dates/mm's. Why isn't it plausible that an existing cent made its way into a hopper of blanks?

 

Every other dual date coin I've seen involved the same mint. A coin can conceivably get left behind in a conveyor, hopper, or tote bin and then wind up buried under a pile of planchets after the dies are changed to a new date. Such coins can also be intentionally produced. It's possible for someone to toss a coin into a batch of planchets as a lark or as part of a conspiracy to produce valuable "errors". Such coins can, of course, be from anywhere.

 

this coin is definately a fake and a very poor made one. It is a real 1981 D coin that has been taken apart and the 82 details added then put back together.even if this was a doublestruck coin it would be impossible for the 1982 date to remain visible out in the level field of the coin and another thing there were no 82 cents while the 1981 coins were being struck. just about anyone should be able to easily spot this thing as a altered coin.

 

How can you come here and state, unequivocally, and with such certainty and authority, that the OP's coin is fake?
Even Mike Diamond, a widely recognized expert, would not and did not call this coin a fake. He stated that in his opinion it is fake.
You are far from an expert on anything, and without having this coin in hand, making such definitive statements reduces what ever credibility you may have already had.
You, sir, are no Mike Diamond! Nor will you ever be.

 

What do you mean by taking a coin apart, adding details, and putting it back together again?

Also, you say "it would be impossible for the 1982 date to remain visible out in the level field of the coin..." When you say "remain visible", I get the impression you believe the 1982 date should have been obliterated by the second strike. But the 1982 date was likely from the second strike. If you mean that it wouldn't have been raised from the level field of the coin, I agree. That's one of the suspicious things about this coin for me.

I'm not saying this coin is genuine, but is it not possible for a mint worker to toss a penny from his pocket into the hopper for grins and giggles? I knew a guy who worked at the West Point Mint when I was stationed at West Point, and they had very tight security going in and coming out, but I would imagine it isn't impossible for a year old penny to make its way into the mint. Either with a worker, or in a shipment of planchets.

 

Two different dates and mints is implausible. The strongly tilted second strike (carrying the date 1982) pushes it into the ranks of the unbelievable.
................exactly my opinion in no more or less words.. unless they where processing 2 different dates at once this would never happen..

 

Here's a combo view of the obverse and reverse of this 'cent'. Hope it helps in looking at it.

 

I just stated the facts as I see them and you can like it or not. You are right about me not being Mr Diamond and he has nothing to do with my opinions. No one needs to be a expert at anything to see this coin is a altered coin at first glance if they know anything at all about the coining process. rick you may know so much more than I do then I have a question for you to answer for me. can you explain to me how the 1982 date got put on this 1981 coin. I'm interested in hearing how it got there.

 

The first part of your question I'm not allowed to tell you exactly how this is done on the internet. you will just have to use your imagination on how the coins are taken apart.

there was only one strike on this coin from the mint and that was the 1981 D strike. If anyone thinks the 1982 date was the second strike then where is Lincoln's outline and the words IN GOD WE TRUST and LIBERTY at ? there was no second strike and this proves it. just a bad attempt at trying to alter a coin is all this is.

It looks like we may have to wait a while for rick to tell us how the 1982 got on this coin.

 

do a sound check. If it's a mostly zinc planchet, then it's fake for sure.

 

Some 1982 pennies use the 97.5% zinc composition, while others used the 95% copper composition.

 

What it comes down to Rascal is that every time you respond to someone asking about their "error" coin, you chime in with something that sounds as though you are the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't an error coin, and that your decision is final and should not ever be questioned by anyone, professional or amateur, old-timer or newcomer.

Mike wrote "

This is a well-executed fake, ​

in my opinion

." Based on two very poor quality pictures, even he would not state that it was a fake. He stated that he ​

believes

it's a fake. Mike is a respected expert in the field, and would never make the kind of statement you made based on those two photos.​

Based on those same two photos, you said that, without question, without doubt, that it was, in fact, a fake.

Of those two posts, one was made with humility, the other with pomposity. I know the difference, do you?

No, Rascal, I did not, nor will I ever, say that I know more than you do. I might, though, but I will never say it.

No, I cannot explain how that coin may have come to look like that, nor can I offer an opinion. Does that somehow make you more knowledgeable than me? Do you feel like the bigger man? Do you feel more important?

I will say this, though, unlike you, I know the difference between opinion and fact. And, unlike you, I would never put my opinion out there as fact.

 

Unless dies from 1981 were used in 1982, the zinc planchet is impossible. See, if an already minted coin from 1981 would have slipped into the mintage process somehow, it would of course be a mostly copper planchet. If it isn't mostly copper, it would be fake BECAUSE they did not use 1981 dies in 1982.