I'm at a loss and need help with this 1983 LMC

I found this and normally would just chalk it up to wear but upon closer looking I don't think it's wear at all but am at a loss as to what it could be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Grease filled die.

 

They fool with these dies to keep them in business. Some of that is as said grease and the bulk is polish. Look at the crack through the A in STATES. This die got the old work-over and this is a cool specimen showing it.

 

if you can identify it as a cent, its good enough in my view.

 

I'd say there's a good chance it's just a
weak strike in that area.

Don't forget the deepest part of the Obv.
die is Lincoln shoulder - which is opposite
the area of 'weak' lettering.

 

As noted, this is a combination of things. Grease and the die stage are affecting the quality of the detail in the devices. This is localized to the top of the reverse which suggests this is mostly affected by grease. Position of the die, especially in horizontal presses, will be subject to gravity. You'll note that this area is commonly affected by grease, especially on 80's cents. But we also see evidence of an aging die. The thickness of the devices (letters) is thicker at their bottoms, more towards the center of the coin. Device attributes towards the rims typically become thinner, from aggressive cleanings and from regular die attrition. But the outer devices look pretty good yet, and the flattened and less pronounced lettering suggests that grease is in play here.

 

@Fred Weinberg Would you know if during the 80's they were using Vertical or Horizontal presses? I also suspect that this effect of the 80s has something to do with the zinc.

 

The horizontal Schuler presses were first used in the
Philadelphia Mint in 1997 (although possibly 1996).

So, no, there was no such thing as a Horizontal press
used at any Mint I'm aware of, in the 1980's.

 

I think a weak strike. the front of lincolns coat is also weak. as well as the base of the bust where some of the highest relief on the obverse is.

In my opinion, which isn't a professional opinion but an opinion of a hobbyist and enthusiast, it's a weak strike issue and the metal didn't fill the dies completely cause weakness in the devices from 5 o'clock to 7 o'clock on the obverse, and from 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock on the reverse.

How exactly it happened, I can't say, a slightly tilted hammer die that wasn't plum and level? or just a lower pressured strike from a voltage irregularity? there's more than a couple causes of a weak strike.

1983 P memorial cents were a train wreck to begin with, you can look at PCGS even the highest grade reds are dogs on there. if you want to make a comparison to what a strong stuck 1983 P would look like for a laugh.

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1983-1c-rd/images/3053

Yours looks like an AU weak strike to me in my opinion.

 

I was thinking it was a weak strike but I stuck with it being as a Greaser or is it kind of both? I understand why its more of a weak strike thanks for the extra info.

 

The key is Lincoln’s shoulder, as Fred said. They let up on the psi just a little and that area on the reverse sees it. It’s not the only factor but an ever-present one when that area shows weakness.

 

The explanation provided by Fred makes sense. Weak strike will not move the material around fully and may be compounded by the zinc, which is harder to flow relative to copper. I don't think grease is out of the question. Typically, the manufacturing materials are introduced at a specific point to keep the tools lubricated and to extend the life of the tool. Too much and things get sticky...problems in production. Also, the cleanliness of the material being coined. Dust becomes more problematic when oil is introduced. I got to wondering a while ago about the orientation of the press (vertical vs horizontal), how substrate material affected the coining process, point where lubricant is added, and if gravity was a factor. I read that when determining weak strikes, consider the definition where the field meets the rim. If the rim is defined, then you might want to consider grease. Greasers tend to have full rims but are missing devices/details as we see here.

So, maybe it's all the above. Good discussion no matter, and getting a lookback into the mint in the 80s relative to equipment helps develop a fuller picture for me.

 

They exacerbated that weakness due to the obverse cavity when they polished it hard. Look at the signs of that work all over it, it didn't look like that when it was struck.

 

hey MrisaW ive read several posts above me from members that are just way more experienced at this kind of question. after reading these posts it seems there is 2 theories. grease filled die and weak strike. so i turned to http://www.error-ref.com/ for both types and i though you might like to look for yourself at both types of errors,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.error-ref.com/?s=grease+filled+die
http://www.error-ref.com/weak_strikesinsufficientrampressure/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
after looking and reading at them both im going with greased filled die. check them out. good luck man hope ive helped a little