,, Thanks for the info on the cud site , i went there and on the home page is a picture on a penny with the same cud mark .interesting to see that , i e-mailed the owner of the site and sent him pic's of my penny and maybe he will know the exact date of it since i can only see the number 1 on the coin , appreciate the help
I thought Wide AM pertained only to Zincolns. If that is the case, then where is the zinc that would have filled the void? I may be wrong, but is that the tip of a "6" I see as the third digit? Chris
Chris ,i have no idea about the number 6 or zinc filling a void , all the numbers i can see under a eye piece is part of the number 1 ,,1xxx but no other number at all ,where do you think you see a letter 6 ,,i do see i believe a f6 or a number 6 on the reverse side if thats what you're talking about,and i saw the same thing on the cud site that the other member furnished me with ,the almost exact penny at that site had the number 6 on the reverse side
I'm no error expert, so I may be about to learn something, but do cuds usually have a very indented opposite side? The reverse seems unusual to me.
: http://cuds-on-coins.com/lincoln-cent-cuds-no-date/ check this site out ,its for cud coins only and it shows front and back both let me know what ya think
Thanks, it makes perfect sense, I've just never had the pleasure of owning or holding one in hand to learn first hand.
That is just one diagnostic, but the dates for those coins still apply. Read the link! http://lincolncentresource.com/wideams.html Chris
i'm going to try and upload a larger picture of this penny and maybe markus 1959 suggested and maybe let chris take another look so that he can explain the wide am to me and the coins initials that are wide , chris i read the article at the site you gave to me and it stated that there are a few mistakes with the wide and close am and wide and close initials.i'm just trying to understand what chris is meaning ,like i said i dont collect coins but when i find something unusual i keep it and check it out ,like this penny , so bare with me men and i'll try to get a larger picture ,
If, by "wide AM", you're suggesting it could be one of the late 90's era coins, it would be incorrect. Take a look at the actual design, the obverse in particular, and you'll notice design changes that are subtle yet still fairly significant from what was used on later memorials. As an exercise (perhaps for the OP if he wishes to do so) would be to take a cent from the early 60s (say 1962-63) and closely compare to one from later in the decade (say 1968 - one could also compare a 1968 to 1969 for additional changes). Take another from the early 70's and compare to one from the late. Another from, say, 1981 and compare it to the design used once the Zlincoln changeover was made. The design on mid 80's cents are different from those of the "WAM" years as well; one just has to look closely. By the 2000's Lincoln had become a caricature, barely resembling the original design; quite the disgrace actually. The first step in trying to identify the coin would be the cud; one this significant is likely known. However, if unable to do so, the design itself would be the next logical step, even if it doesn't nail down an exact date.
Ohh I know what a Lincoln cent from each era of it's minting is supposed to show and look like. I just wanted to know why Chris thought it necessary to challenge my post. I never suggested anything about the late 90's either. In probably less than 2 seconds, I could tell that this cent wasn't a close AM and knew what years of minting that eliminated.
If this coin was a Wide AM, it would mean that it was struck during the period AFTER the conversion from primarily copper to primarily zinc. If that were the case, then the area of the cud would reveal mostly zinc instead of copper. Think about it! Chris
Think about this. Every cent minted from '59 to '93 are wide AM's exept for one year in which a handful out of billions had a Close AM. Then from '93 to 2008 there were close AM's with the exception of 3 years in which a handful out of billions were Wide AM's. It is a whole lot easier to eliminate what it is not, than what it is. I could do that very easily from the blurry photos that I had to go by.
Another thing to think about is that the portion of the planchet that shows the cud, never touched a die. The upset edge from being run through the upsetting mill is still visible on the obverse. Why would zink be showing on an untouched portion of the planchet? It would possibly break the plating at the edge of the cud but lighting of the photos can't determine that either. If I had a clearer shot of the coin I could get really close to the date of it without looking for another coin just like it. But it wasn't and isn't my coin so do not have alot of desire to do that.
My mistake! I misread the description on Lincoln Cent Resource. I shouldn't be trying to read such stuff at 2:30 in the morning. Chris
