1983 upon second glance struck on a....

At first I thought a bunch of damage had come to this cent. And it also looked like the devices didn’t fit. Upon a higher magnification, it seems the symbols and imagery could be a cent struck on a different planchet of another coin. I am not knowledgeable enough to discern the symbols, nor would I know if it belonged on a coin near or far, or just hodgepodge someone had fun stamping incuse devices into the coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

PMD.

 

No. Zinc. If it were struck on a foreign planchet, that blank wouldn't have any devices yet, if it were struck on another coin that was already minted, you would clearly see other letters numbers and designs. The first key is to weigh the coin.
2.5g for zinc. That would disqualify everything. Another is size. Size can be altered, but if it stacks with other cents and doesn't look out of place, it was struck on a cent planchet. Let's say the weight and size are off.
Do some homework and see what foreign coins Philadelphia was minting in 1983, in order to see what country/ denomination/ size and weight of the coin is. It would have to be a copper or copper alloyed (or zinc) coin of similar size and weight. It would have to be smaller since a larger coin would not fit into the hub. Some of the Panama and Bahamas coins are the exact size and weight as US coins, and they are 1-1 with the US dollar. But all of the other countries are not, intentionally to discourage a lower valued coin being able to be used in US commerce, machines, etc.
The odds are about a billion to 1 your coin is just a damaged cent.
True errors are extremely rare and finding a coin struck on a foreign planchet/ or foreign coin in circulation is highly unlikely.

 

No

 

Here's your clue that your hypothesis is incorrect.

 

I see clearer now. See anything with this 1972-d quarter?

 

Aside from the obvious obverse scratch, that is one mighty nicely struck 1974-D.

 

Your 74-D is damaged. What are we supposed to be seeing?

 

It is damaged, but I am one who believes in value through damage.
Aren’t we all valuable in spite of our scars? It is not only condition that any collector may use in placing value on a coin. I posted it to see what responses I received based on what value others see in this coin. If value was merely determined by condition alone, eye appeal would not matter at all. It’s the reason an AU58 in a certain coin may sell for more than a MS65 or better in the same coin but with a different eye appeal to each collector.

IMO, I think it’s a ddo. I may send it in to James Wiles for attribution because there is no 1974-d ddo that I could find.

 

Is this one of those Alternative Reality threads ?

 

Yeah, that's not how it works.
The damage makes it worth a quarter.

 

So, perfect collectors always want perfect coins?

 

That's the way I was taught, yes. The goal was "perfection", not "im-"

By the way, there's no doubling on that coin, but it is an awesome example (except for the scratch and ding) of a coin that is usually found awfully mushy.

And it's also of the hub before we went to the "spaghetti hair" era of Washington quarters.

 

hey boy, what does ddo stand for?

 

You were a writer on Blazing Saddles, right?

 

They had writers for that movie??? Thought it was Ad-lib

 

George capone

 

All I remember is the "bean scene" at the end.

 

Kinda near the middle. The end was all that "time and place ambiguity" fight scene and then the "Drive me off of this picture" stuff. More modern-day politically incorrect humor in two hours than anywhere else you can mention.

 

For all of the great stuff Mell Brooks did, I never liked the fight scene at the end and will usually quit watching when it comes on. Just seemed like it didn't fit in.

May the Schwarzt be with you