1982 large date cooper Lincoln Cent Strike Through Error?

All information on this coin is Greatly Appreciated

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looks like corrosion

 

THANK YOU BUT ON THIS ONE YOU ARE DEFINITELY WRONG you claim this coin is corrosion now i wonder about your pass coin opinons .this coin is not even rotting one bit not even a micro bit of rot strange you do not see this this coin is here to prove you are not correct on this coin you failed badly

 

In your title the word is actually Copper not Cooper.

Since you said I am wrong in capital letters and questioned my past responses.. you have now been put on my ignore list. You will get no more responses from me.. Too bad

 

i do not need wrong opinions

 

any real information on this coin is Greatly Appreciated

 

oh wow my mistake of hitting the
p on the keyboard is equal to you being on a website giving bogus information
to the people asking questions here

 

Think about it, what would it be struck through that covers the entire coin, both sides? I would have to agree with damage, either corrosion followed by a cleaning or damaged by being ground into something abrasive like sand.

 

and this is corrosion

 

If you know what it is then just send it in to PCGS.


Your 2nd one is just bad road rash. But you probably think it's something else.

 

my coin is not the second coin the second coin is the corrosion coin

 

The one with the file name "damaged coin.jpg" looks liked road rash on my phone.

 

First coin is badly corroded. Send it in if you are smarter than everyone else.

 

Grammar and punctuation are your friends. I can't understand most of what you are typing here....... And after all the posturing, the real kicker is that @paddyman98 is correct.

 

add to that the OP has replied twice to their own posts ??

Of course, we know strikethroughs are when the die has some material between it and the planchet. This material, whatever it may be, takes up space (example is grease), thus the height and sharpness of all the letters, bust etc would be reduced based upon the material (grease takes up volume; cloth takes up volume and creates a pattern; etc). This coin clearly shows good detail and height in the date, the bust, all the lettering, etc. although the surface has been attacked. Thus, based upon those simple indicators, the coin has had something happen to it after the mint. Plus all those what looks like long plating blisters on the back upper left side ... icky.

 

Road Rash ... (not corrosion)

 

He showed 2 different cents. The first was corroded
And the second was road rash. What the OP was trying to say was that I don't know what Im talking about and that I give him wrong information
Well I'm not helping him at all anymore!

 

Yes, I agree on all items.
OP was stating the road rash coin was a "corrosion" coin which is what I first replied to .. after the OP replied to themselves a few times.

 

The manner of writing with run-on sentences and condemnation of people giving correct answers reminds me of someone else that was recently banned.