1989 Penny?

This seems odd to me..The last 9 of this 1989 penny seems doubled? Can't find any info on an 1989 error similar to this. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In your first photo, it certainly appears doubled, although the picture is too fuzzy to make out much. The other photos make it more appear to be a worn die or machine doubling, although machine doubling should affect the other digits as well.

 

Yeah..I took some quick pictures. I added another.It's odd. Only that 9. Looking at it looks like 2 nines overlayed. It's not flat like machine doubling. Have you ever seen a 1989 DDO?

 

Incuse die wear. Not a doubled die.
Keep up the hunt!

 

Incuse die wear? Do you make this stuff up as you go? Visange, go to www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/date.php On this page is dates of Lincoln cents, click on the date and it will show you DDO's, DDR's, and MM for that year. Incuse? Is that the opposite of excuse..:goofer:

 

Incuse (meaning a negative or an image that is impressed into something, and the opposite of raised)/offset die wear (AKA die fatigue as Kentucky mentioned) is an actual anomaly that is especially common on late 1980s coins. Doubled dies show raised doubling...where do you see anything in the picture that shows raised doubling? Take a look here...exact same anomaly. Incuse die deterioration doubling.
http://www.error-ref.com/die-deterioration-doubling---incuse.html
NOW do you think I'm making things up, Tony?

 

I didn't understand what you meant by incuse...so its an off-set which would be from the mint, which would be a mint error. Right? Wrong?

 

I never told the OP he had a DDO, I actually gave him a link to your bunch at LCR so the next time he hits a cent he is not sure of . He can check.

 

DDD, wow.... I learned something new. So it is damage....Once again I concede. The OP should look at this link you gave , Simon. That first pic is identical to his.

 

I would hesitate to call it a mint error because
1) it is extremely common. At least 1 in 10 coins from the late 1980s that I have searched shows incuse die deterioration doubling.
2) It is more or less a natural process of the die as it ages.
I guess since it is on error-ref.com then it is technically an error, but there is really no premium or collectibility that I can see in it.
Keep up the hunt!

 

Thanks guys! Appreciate the feedback.

 

Represents the very best stuff on CoinTalk, education and polite disagreements.

 

426.......

 

More commonly called plating shift doubling.


http://www.cointalk.com/t69385/
http://www.cointalk.com/t195366/

 

off center cents are common and still errors.

as are many other items, but they are still errors.

 

I am going to go with this type of ordeal being an error. It adds no premium but it is an error, does everyone concur?

 

Wait, the second link in post 14 shows that there could a premium on these if the cent is well pronounced.

 

Didn't see that. Post where you think it says that.

 

Its your post, you have a link that if you click on it; takes you to another coin talk post. It says 1889 d cent. Click on that link and in the other post they talk about how pronounced the detail is on that cent.:bangg:

 

I do not call such deteriorated die effect an error. An error indicates a mishap during the minting process. In this case the die deteriorated through normal usage ( wear and tear) and is a natural change, and the coins struck as a result, is just a regular issue. If all dies were used to the extreme, deterioration would be even more common than it is. Yes, they can be interesting, some unknowing people may buy them ( Poor man's double die 55 a good example), but they are not an error or obviously not a doubled die.