1982 copper sm. Date Cent

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Check out the pictures I just posted tell me what you think I am 100% sure the slab sent that I have that says it is environmental damage is a small day compared to the other pennies that I showed you although the one 1982 d small Vape that I'm showing you in the picture next to the slab could be a small date but looks like a large date because of the thickness of the date where the one in the slab is very very thin

 

Good luck finding one in circulation with that grade lol

 

Dude why you so negative what is wrong with the pennies that I just posted that isn't a you better than the PCG penny that they have

 

I really don't understand your logic bro good luck please don't respond to my threadz anymore I'd appreciate it and I'll do the same peace and God bless

 

You spoke to me first @Willysilver

 

OK. Cough,cough.
And the MS 65 is 40 cents.
They produced 17 billion 1982 cents. I don't doubt that some fool spent $5000 for an MS-67 1982 zinc LD. But that person is a fool.

 

He said in poor condition.

 

The top-pop registry set people will pay that much.

 

http://worldnumismaticnews.com/2017/02/17/ngc-slabs-extremely-rare-one-of-a-kind-discovery-coin/
This is the one to look for. The 1982-D Small Date Bronze,




-SC

 

The gentleman specifically stated Lg date zinc in 67, which isn't a top pop coin, meaning anyone paying such an amount would indeed be a fool. To expand, I'm not aware of any of the regular issues of this date bringing anywhere remotely close to said price in said grade RD.

 

I don't doubt that some top pop thing went for $5000. With 17 billion minted, that number will only increase with time and that value will be slashed.
I don't care if an MS RD 69 came out of Salma Hayeks butt, I am not paying $5000 for any zinc cent.

 

Value in 67 is $55, but one did pay $10,000 for a MS69RD.

 

Indeed, but is a big difference and one worth clarifying when making such a statement.

 

I am not the one who made that statement. All I said in response to one was that many would pay that.

 

Oy vey.... you do understand what "context" is, right? The only point was that there's enough misinformation on this site, so it's wise to clarify when stating what "many will pay". Very simple; nothing negative.

 

Oh I see.

 

That is a great site