The dime has a weak struck 2 for the year "2004" and from an angle, it looks like "004" instead of 2004 The dime is still in the original casing Is this an error?
An error but a minor and somewhat common one. See also An error but a minor and somewhat common one. See also 2003 Proof Lincoln has it has the same thing. A over-polishing error. With the Lincoln as you turn it the "3" starts to fade. I have seen no added value for these although someone may think so.
personally I would prefer not to have these grease-filled die proofs. I want my coins to be fully struck, especially proof coins
Probably not grease filled since if you put a glass on them you see that the digit is fully there. It is just insufficient frosting of the design. Everything else is well frosted so they scatter the light and "light up" while the polished surface of the other digit lacks contrast with the field so it seems to disappear. Similar coins probably exist for other coins/years but we just haven't noticed them. A large number of the 2003 cents were produced and they were noticed and for awhile had a lot of ink in the numismatic press. If a coin doesn't get a lot of press coverage we don'y know about it.
Another great thread! I really enjoy this site for all I am learning! Awhile back I recall one of those TV hucksters spouting about the "disappearing 3" and "rare beyond belief and a must have for the serious collector" . . . Thank you all for sharing. . .you saved me from making a fool of myself, at least for this time
