Weird looking penny, I think a lot of grease had a part in its making

Hello everyone,

Collect89,

I checked the links you provided and shall go over them in order. My post will be long but will not be verbose as what I write is necessary in order to clarify things. So, before any of you start posting about how long it is, if you do not want to read it and learn, please do not read it and go to some other post. I am trying to bring good information to prevent and misleading those who wish to learn and to dispel myths and beliefs that are not correct as they may one day possibly cause others hardship. I say this because, what if this coin, or others like it from other members are actually error coins caused during the manufacturing process and are not caused by any PMD reasons? Then those coins are not being given the true grading they deserve, and all because some poster deemed them worthless by a 'flick of the pen' (typing their response), and often times, the original poster believes it because they look upon some of you as experts and because they haven't been collecting as long as some of you, to them your judgement/word is sound advice which they take to heart. When someone dishes out comments like 'acid dipped' or 'dryer coin' so easily, you'd better be sure that the information and judgement on that person's coin is both valid and true. What if they believe that their coin is worthless and they give it away, or sell if for much less than they're worth. Who is to blame? You are, all of you who post replies that may not be truth. These posters are depending on you, and you owe it to them to be sure of your answer, or do not post about its worth at all. I posted some very valid possibilities and scenarios of what may have caused my coins appearance. Can any of you offer any solid evidence showing why it is not so? And so, we move on.

Have you or anyone actually did to a coin what you/they claim it is? Have you put a coin in acid, or been present when a coin was put into acid to see if what will happen to a coin and if the results done to the coin are the same? If not, why are you posting such information? If your reason is, "So and so said so, and he heard if from so and so, who heard it from so and so", or maybe you read it somewhere and without checking for yourselves, you accepted it as truth. If that is so, it is not right.

All through my adult life I have met and dealt with spec men. What is a spec man? They are people who read the latest specs in say, some hotrod magazine, motorcycle magazine, or other magazine that offers specs and take it as the gospel truth. I don't believe things as easily, never have. I'm the guy that will go do things myself and see what results I get, and then I'll know what is truth and what isn't. What works, and what doesn't. Now, onto the links provided by Collect89.

First link: Struck through grease?

If you ever did try this, you'd know beyond any doubt that no coin would come out looking like my coin or the coin in the link you provided.

On that post, raider34 said, "Looks like it has been melted."

How many of you have actually seen a melted copper penny? How many of you have tried it yourselves? If you have, you'd know it does not look like my coin or the coin in the link. Don't believe me, try it, then post what results you got. From what I got from this article, melting U.S. coins is not a crime, so long as the reason you are doing it (fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens) is not to fraudulently fool someone, or to pass it of as something it is not, or for profit:

http://www.coinflation.com/is_it_illegal_to_melt_coins.html

The following is an excerpt of that webpage:

"Is it Illegal to Melt U.S. Coins?

Published June 26, 2006
Written by Alec Nevalainen


I get emailed this question at least once a week, sometimes more. It's a reasonable question, many governments (including our neighbour to the north) have laws that make coin melting illegal, but the U.S. government is not one of them... at least not yet.

Where does it say that you can melt coins? Well, that's part of the problem. It doesn't say anywhere that the U.S. government is ok with this. But, go to the U.S. Mint web site and search for "illegal". You'll get this result:

1. Is it illegal to damage or deface coins?

Section 331 of Title 18 of the United States code provides criminal penalties for anyone who fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the Mints of the United States. This statute means that you may be violating the law if you change the appearance of the coin and fraudulently represent it to be other than the altered coin that it is. As a matter of policy, the Mint does not promote coloring, plating or altering U.S. coinage: however, there are no sanctions against such activity absent fraudulent intent.


The keyword is fraudulent. When you take a 25 cent piece and try to pass it off as a Sacajawea Dollar, that's fraud. When you take a Buffalo Nickel, and scratch out one of its legs and try to sell it as a rare collectible, that's also fraud. But when you melt a pre-1982 cent, and sell it for its copper value, that's genuine and legal (EDITOR'S NOTE: Please see update at bottom of this page regarding U.S. cents and nickels).

Also, silver refiners have been melting coins for decades. Precedent is on your side. "

Copper's melting point is 1,984°F
Zinc's melting point is 787.2°F
The copper pennies from 1982 are 95% Copper/5% Zinc which makes those pennies a brass alloy, not bronze as some think they are. There, an example of false information passed along and believed by others who read it. Want another?

On this webpage on the Lincoln Cent Resource Community website:

http://lincolncentresource.com/smalldates/1982.html

it says, "our government makes a handsome profit when it creates coins and paper
money."

Our government does not make or print our money. Our money is made and printed by the Federal System (a whole bunch of Federal Reserve Banks), a privately owned institution. Go through any encyclopedia, even the old ones, and it will tell you so. Even Wikipedia will tell you this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

From Wikipedia: "The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers. The result is a structure that is considered unique among central banks. It is also unusual in that an entity outside of the central bank, namely the United States Department of the Treasury, creates the currency used. According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve System "is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."

There are a lot more sites that tell you this too, but this is not the purpose of this post. The purpose was to show you that just because you read something on a site, it isn't necessarily true.

the same site (Lincoln Cent Resource Community website) continued with:

"1982 was chosen as the transition year to put this change into effect, and many millions of
solid copper and copper-coated zinc cents were produced in 1982 so as to discourage saving
or hoarding by the public."

The 1982 'solid copper' penny wasn't solid copper, but an alloy made of the percentages shown above (95% copper/5% zinc). Yet many who read this may also then believe that they were made of solid copper.

My point is this, had I not known the real truths regarding these 2 examples I've posted, I'd most likely believe what this site told me. Was there any reason not to believe? It seems like a very informative and knowledgeable site. So too, other people who do not know the truth would also believe those 2 statements there. So you can see that is it very important for you to know whether what you are posting is truth, or someone's opinion of truth, or even just your unfounded opinions as others who read what you post may not know and accept your facts as infallible truths.

This does not mean that when the penny's temperature hits 787.2 degrees it will melt and collapse into a puddle. Because the penny is only comprised of 5% Zinc, the Copper will hold the penny's integrity until a much higher temperature.

For the sake of this discussion, we will say that the heat source is a Map/Mapp gas torch or Acetylene gas welding outfit (not electronic MIG, TIG, or Arc welders, and yes, I have all 4). When you heat the penny to its melting point, the metal will start to puddle/flow. What do you think will happen to the small letters and fine details? They're going to disappear. With the heat required to melt the coin and to start the metal flowing, no person can control it to the degree to have an outcome of this pattern/design. If so, I challenge you, all you doubters and spouters who try and shoot down a persons coin so quickly before doing any serious scientific studies. People who are not as knowledgeable come to places like this forum to learn, to get help, and to help others when they can. Do not promote nor propagate false knowledge to others. That is the same way the theory of the world being flat, or that the sun circled our planet evolved.

Pyrbob said, "I think this coin was soaked in an acid. This is a major acid coin."

No again. A lot of posters instantly say acid dip even though they have no experience at all with putting a coin in acid. In the link 'pmd nickel?', is could be acid dipped as the rim edge on the inside is very thin. A good way is to measure the outside diameter with vernier calipers/dial indicator, and the thickness of the coin. If it was dipped in acid, it will both smaller in diameter as well as thickness. But as I said before, the letters on my penny are of standard height if not higher. If it were dipped in acid, how is it possible that the letters are still high?

In the link '1982-P with odd texture...'

eddiespin was quick to spout off, "Acid job."

But was countered with slippinin writing, "You think so? Doesn't look like that to me. Also, if this was acid, how is there a line on the right side of the eagle on the reverse that doesn't have the effect?"

There were 7 people on that post that said the coin was exposed to acid. All of them professionals with backgrounds in chemistry I suppose, or did the acid experiment themselves. Too many spec men, too little real knowledge.

I was also asked by Collect89 to measure the penny, which I did. These are the diameter and thickness measurements gotten by rotating the penny or moving it from end to end at. I only rotated it halfway as going beyond that would yield the same results.

18.95mm diameter
19.02mm diameter
19.04mm diameter
19.03mm diameter
19.08mm diameter
19.04mm diameter

1.49mm thickness
1.63mm thickness
1.53mm thickness
1.50mm thickness

It does not seem overly larger or smaller than a normal 1982 cent. My evaluation stands. and it makes the most sense.

non_cents, Have you ever dipped a coin in acid and gotten results that look like my coin? Have you heated and melted a coin and gotten results even similar to my coin? Have you put a coin in a dryer and gotten results even similar to mine? Please show me your results. Sorry, but I do not respect your advice and views anymore. You were so quick to deem my coin valueless and PMD with no proof other than spouting off things you obviously know nothing about. And yes, I know what acid does to a coin. I know what flame and heat does to a coin, and I definitely know a dryer doesn't do this to a coin. I can prove my statements, can you?

So please, do try to make your acid cent, you dryer cent that looks like my coin, or Jim_M's coin. Again, it is not against the law to do so either as long as you are not trying to pass the coin off as something else, or for profit.

All of you who jump to conclusions and quickly assertain that a coin is worthless, shame on you. My theory on what happened to this coin is the most valid and none of you have brought up any points to dispel it. Can you? I'd like to see it. I am new to coin collecting, and to forums, but I am by no means new to science, logic, and facts, which is what I brought to this coin's posting.

I will not bother posting regarding the rest of the links as they too do not make sense. Just as some 'expert' told poor Jim_M that his coin's appearance was caused by drum roll (that's laughable), and an acidic solution to get it to an almost acidic state (what process was used to reconstitute it to a coin with all the features intact?), all of you who think acid and drum roll/dryer really have any clue, do you? Just look at the rear of Lincoln's head. See all those lines with the same profile as his head? What could cause that? I'll tell you, not acid, and not a drum roll/dryer. That was caused in the mint and no where else. I challenge all of you who say it's acid or drum roll/dryer to produce a coin like ours. Let your works produce what your mouths so easily say.

I tried to get my point across without 'stepping on too many toes', but I've had it with armchair experts. Prove me wrong.

Best of luck

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's very simple, if you think you have an error send it In to be authenticated, and prove us all wrong.

 

Oh, and about the coin being road rashed, here's a bunch of road rashed Lincoln cents I've collected over the years. A road rashed coin will have gouges, metal removed, which is exactly what my coin does not have. My coin has metal displaced. Not dissolved or oxidized, not worn away (as proven by the measurements), not heated to the point of melting (yet keeping all the fine lettering intact magically it seems). Look at these road rashed coins and the truth speaks for itself.

 

It is very simple, I have proven you all wrong. I know what the test results are. YOU all need to prove me wrong. As I said, Show me your acid coins, your heated/melted coins, your dryer coins (actually put in a dryer and spun for months and months to wear it down enough) that show the same traits as my coin, and Jim_M's coin. My post was solid. It provided a lot. But of course, for some egos are bruised easily and it is easier to keep saying the world is flat than to accept a new truth. That is why they say, "The truth will set you free". It means that if you believe something and learn a truth that is contrary to what you believe in, it will set you free from your false truth.

Think about this. The inside of a dryer is pretty smooth. It's made smooth so clothes don't get any more damaged than they do rubbing against each other (the main cause of all that lint). If you have a coin(s) in the dryer with clothes, the coin is being protected from the metal a lot if not most of the time. There are 2 main types of dryers, drums with fins and drums that without. Say we put a coin in a dryer with no clothes and the drum has no fins. The heat is not hot enough to melt the coin to cause any distortion. It doesn't get that hot. The coin will slide along in the drum, and if there is any wear, what's the first part of the coin that is going to wear? It's the part touching the drum of course the rim. So, if the coin did wear down to the point it flattened the words almost to the coins flat surface, the rim too would be gone. Lincoln would be gone, and so would the memorial. Also, as the metal is being removed in such minute amounts, the letters would not flatten out. They'd be the same shape basically, just lower.

If you doubt me, try it yourself. But instead of waiting a very long time for a dryer to do it, use a very fine sand paper to accelerate the process and you will see that what I claim is correct.

When rickmp wrote that acid dissolves, I gave it the benefit of doubt and acknowledge he was right. But inside I knew copper oxidizes in nitric acid, so I checked and was proven right. When I am wrong, I don't hesitate to admit so. Can the rest of you do so?

But say that you can't prove me wrong, as I am new to serious coin collecting, who would I send it to, and what is the cost of such a service?

 

Look at either pgcs or ngc for authentication, a rough idea of cost would be $100+ for either service, but hey you've got a rare error, it shouldn't matter the cost.

 

Please be clear on what you feel caused this. You first said grease and later I think you said it was not.
I have never seen a coin that came from the mint with this look or one in good plastic as an error coin.

Looks like you put a lot of thought into this. I don't see a way to actually prove the cause.

It's like what type of hammer caused this dent or what made this scratch.
Folks know it's damage but can't be sure of what did it.

Send the coin in if you are sure it's a mint error.

 

I'll tell you what. If you send the coin in to an expert and it turns out to be an error coin, I will cover the attribution fee for you. However, if it turns out to be an damaged cent (which it is), then you have to cover the fee yourself, and you MUST update this thread with the results. No "going into hiding".

As to "proving us wrong", you still have yet to prove how this is a mint error. Sure, maybe it isn't exactly damaged in the way that we said it is, but it is damaged nonetheless.

 

Who has to prove who wrong?

 

dsmith23, I shall look into their services, thank you for that information.

ldhair, In the first post, I wrote, "There are what looks like high and low spots where the grease squeezed under tremendous pressure escaped between the planchet and die.",

and in the 2nd post I wrote, "Regarding this coin though, I don't think environmental damage is the cause as there is no obvious oxidation of the coin's metal. I do have coins that have environmental damage, and under magnified observation doesn't look at all the same. I'd also think environmental damage would not cause the pillars to be slanted as such. Grease flow seems to fit as the deformation of the words seem to get worse toward the bottom of the reverse side as the grease flowed in that direction. The wavy rivulets on the obverse side on Lincoln's image could have been caused by a rapid vibration which shifted the coin's orientation, and also affected the monument too because the die metal didn't shift to cause that slant. The damage to the rim may possibly have been caused when the rapid flowing grease caused the rim to be forced out and up, causing it to become thinner the higher it flowed. It is hard to say whether the rim's folding over was at the mint or post release."

I was very clear in my posts. Please read my posts and show me where I wrote that I think it was not. You writing, "I think", shows that you should read them more carefully, and then post a reply. I have put a lot of thought into this. I live in part by 2 rules, "Think before you say", and "Think before you do". If you live by those 2 rules, you will find yourself with less things you regret saying or doing. Of course they aren't the only 2 rules I live by, but they do help tremendously. You said, "I have never seen a coin that came from the mint with this look or one in good plastic as an error coin." From your statement, I get the impression you either have been to the mint, or work in a mint. Either way, in 1982 16,729,361,847 (that's 16 billion, closing in on 17 billion). That is a lot of coins. Put it this way, if you looked at 100 coins per second, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year without breaks or sleeping, it would take you roughly 5.3 years to look at them all. Isn't it possible something like this slipped past?

You are correct that there is no way to prove exactly what caused this. But given the evidence of the coins appearance and my experience, it is what I deduce. Grease cannot be compressed to any significant amount. It is on par with hydraulic fluid, or even sea water at the deepest depths. So when the die comes down and there is a lot of grease on the planchet, something's gotta give way to the tremendous pressure. The die is of a harder material than the planchet. The grease under pressure is harder than the planchet, it is the planchet that is going to have to give way to the flowing grease. Anything that is compressed also generates heat. Bending a clothes hanger wire compresses the molecules which produces friction, which produces heat. Compressing air produces heat. Ever feel a Nitrous Oxide tank that has been rapidly filled? It's hot. Take a spark plug out of a car engine and press your finger/thumb over the hole as hard as you can and have someone crank the motor. The compressed air will shoot past your finger/thumb and give you a very nice hot burn.

I asked what can cause the pillars to be slanted like they are and got no reasonable answer. As stated before, I know what a coin in acid looks like, and it is not like my coin. I know what a coin looks like when heated to its melting point, and it definitely does not look like my coin. The fine features would all be melted away. When the metal melts, and puddles, when it cools what makes it go back to its original design? If that were the case, then when all those crushed recycled soda cans are melted down and cooled, they should all go back to their original shape. Why is this such a hard thing to understand? When you put a coin in acid, metal is removed from the coin. How so then does this removed metal find its way back onto the coin and go back to its original areas (letters, numbers, pillars, etc.)?

I posted the measurements of the coins diameter and thickness. As stated, there isn't any significant metal loss compared to the average 1982 coin. There goes the dryer theory, as that theory requires the coin to lose metal due to metal to metal frictional contact. Do you see any smooth areas flat areas on the obverse and reverse sides that would match the semi flat surface of a dryer drum, especially the rim which would be the first poinst of contact? I don't.

Does my coin look anything like the road rashed coins I posted pictures of? No it doesn't.

non_cents, you wrote, "As to "proving us wrong", you still have yet to prove how this is a mint error." That is not how I proved you wrong as your first post you wrote, "I would say that what you have is an acid-dipped cent. It has been damaged outside the mint and is not an error.", and as stated (how many times already?) I know for a fact what an acid dipped coin looks like and it does not look like my coin. So I have proven you wrong right there. You also (none of you) have not answered my questions. Have any of you dipped a coin in acid, melted a coin, or put a coin in a dryer (or did an accelerated version of a dryer coin test)? Not a single one of those who so easily posted that it was an acid coin, "Because of the slanted plllars of the building it looks like this coin has been in a house fire or maybe someone used a torch on it. In my opinion the coin has been in a near liquid state from a heat source and the metal almost started flowing.This would also cause the pitted look.", "the damage to the rim points to having been in a commercial clothes dryer. I suspect the distortion of the surfaces is from the same." "Damaged. Not a mint error. Probably acid.", and on and on. All thoughtless conjecture without a single shred of decent evidence on the coin to back it up. Isn't there a resident expert who comes on this forum? Someone with a background in metallurgy, hydraulics, mintage processes?

Have you ever given thought as to the harm your conjectures may cause some new member? What if their coin was something special? And just because you have more time on this forum does not automatically make you right, or more knowledgeable than a junior member, does it? What if that person believes you sincerely and sells it for a couple of bucks when it was worth a lot more. Are you going to pay him the difference he lost? If not, either don't post what you don't know, or make sure what you post is truth. If you're not sure, it would be best to just read it and leave it at that.

You also wrote, "Sure, maybe it isn't exactly damaged in the way that we said it is". Maybe it isn't exactly damaged in the way you all said it was? Not even remotely close. How's that? And, do I appear to be someone who goes into hiding? If you think so, you have no idea of who and what I am. I could say the same about you. You know from the things I've posted that your assumption is not correct, yet you still don't admit it publicly. I admitted I was wrong to rickmp even though I knew I was right. That's why I looked it up to confirm it, and then I posted that I was correct the first time. If I am the type that would go into hiding, I would have just ignored his post. I met it head on. I posted, "When I am wrong, I don't hesitate to admit so. Can the rest of you do so?", and not one of you has responded to that. All I see is, "Send it in. Send it in..."

I don't see any, "You know what? Your theory on this makes a whole lot more sense than the ones we posted and you dispelled." It should be obvious to you that I know things, have things, do things. But you all still seem to want to hide your heads and say the world is flat. But I will accept your challenge on the condition that if I am right, you go and apologize to every person your jumped the gun on and gave a possible/probable wrong diagnosis of their coin. You should do that anyway without any challenge and without me telling you. It's what honorable people do. I'd also like to suggest taking up a collection to send Jim_M's coin in, for I truly believe he got a raw deal in someone telling him that his coin basically was worthless.

So tell me who this 'expert' is, and I will look him/her up and see what their backgrounds and educations are. If they are satisfactory, I will send it in without hesitation. But they can't be just a grader of coins. They must have backgrounds in what I mentioned above, and they must be honest. But they'd only be doing what I did (calculated guess/process of elimination), assessing a coins state from the evidence at hand by its appearance. A true way would be to replicate the process I said caused this. If someone knows the pressure used on the master die to press the planchet, perhaps we can make a reasonable facsimile as it shouldn't be hard to make a copper planchet, engrave some kind of design, then add grease on it and ram the die home. It would also help to know the speed the die is rammed.

 

Exactly what was done to the coin I couldn't say. But its appearance is wholly incompatible with anything that could be generated inside a coinage press. Therefore it is a case of post-strike damage

 

I am tempted to close the thread because it is getting away from the main purpose of the forum of concentrating on the coin and not on people. The only people who posts themselves as an "expert" are generally newbies who have a high opiniono of themselves and google to appear so. All anyone can do is to offer their opinion. If the Original poster disagrees, that is their right, but to do so without proof of their own, such as they made it, it also is just opinion, and they should just say thanks, but I respectfully disagree, and would like to hear more from others.

No one has to PROVE or DISPROVE anything to anyone, this is opinions.

The main question is whether it is Post strike mint damage , or could this have occurred in the mint striking process, because then if it is PMD, it is basically worthless as anything other than a curiosity piece.

I believe it is PMD, take it as you may, there is no similarity to any of my 'grease filled' die coins so I ruled that out in my consideration the first time I viewed it.

Jim

p.s. Typing while mike answered

 

I'll admit I have no idea what happened to the coin. That's why I didn't comment. That being said, don't waste your money sending it in. I love your abstract way of thinking, but mike diamond knows as much as, if not more than, anyone in the error coins field. He knows the ins & outs of the minting process. If he says it couldn't have been done at the mint, there's a 99.9% probability he is correct. If you don't believe me, look up his credentials. Thanks for the very entertaining topic though. It was a great read.

 

TS, I have access to many if not all of the "experts" in the error hobby. One person who has had my coin in hand is Ken Potter, he happens to be a personal friend of mine. Others have seen hi-res photos of the coin. Perhaps some of these names may ring a bell with you? Wiles, Wexler, Ellis, Herbert.

While nobody can determine the exact cause of the anomaly on my coin what they did say was it was not possible that it was done during the minting process and most likely some form of acidic damage. Many of these gentleman have been to several of the mints and given personal tours. I am sure that they know the minting process. So when you can rule out something that could not have happened during the minting process, anything after that point is simply conjecture of what could be the cause. Unless of course you were the one who was present when this occurred. When people refer to Dryer coins, they are not talking about the dryer that you have in your laundry room.. Many of these types of coins have been recovered from the backs of Commercial Dryers. They get caught in the fins and roll around, after time they start to resemble what looks like the beginning of a spooned coin. If I remember correctly somebody here at CT did a thread years ago about coins that they had found in the back of said machines and posted pictures.

When they stated acidic, that could of been anything from Catchup to nitric Acid. Have you seen the results of what Vinegar will do to a buffalo Nickel? As a side note, when people speak of Grease filled dies etc.. that term is not limited to grease per se.. it could be any liquid or grime that is present during the minting process. simple sludge buildup, oil, grease, hydraulic Fluids, etc.

As for sending my coin in to be authenticated, I am afraid that would be a waste of money because the people at the TPGS look to the people I have talked to and continue to talk to on a regular basis for the answers.

I am enjoying your post so continue. I respect your enthusiasm!

 

Good post Jim , I also enjoyed this thread. Maybe some of us old geezers can learn something from it. I have found lots of these old coins that appears to have been near melted both copper and silver coins over the years. I always just called them badly damaged and put them in the junk coins. Like I said earlir in this thread it would be hard to say for sure what causes this unless someone was there when it happened. I have a friend that has a big lump of silver coins that his wife and him found where a home burned down years ago. These are all partially melted and stuck together.

 

As a long time collector of 1-cent (Canadian small cent) errors, I concur with the others. Physics of striking the coins is similar regardless of whether it is a US copper cent or a Canadian copper cent. When coins are struck through grease, while you do see elements of the devices, they are generally subtle and the surface of the affected area is generally uneven. The fact that the rippling phenomena affects the devices (which only form by flow of metal into the incuse die surface) speaks to me that this is not a mint error - the physics of metal flowing perpendicular to the point of highest force (i.e., die face), which gives us the cartwheel lustre in the fields and forces metal into the devices, does not make sense to form the surfaces such as we see in your coin (basically, what Mike said earlier).

The rim speaks volumes to me. Coins are rimmed prior to the strike, forming Type 2 planchets. Then, when the coin is struck in collar, with or without grease or other elements on the dies, the rim basically comes out clean and sharp. Now, we could exclude ragged or clipped planchets, and other odd features like 'rim fins', on your coin. Something has impacted that rim, post-strike, to deform and push metal out, or over, into the fields.

The rim does look like a commercial dryer coin. Now, "dryer coins" are not what you think they are. They are not formed from excessive heat or tumbling around with cloths inside the inner drum of the dryer. It is when coins get caught between the inner and outer tubs of commercial front loading dryers. I realize this link is on another coin forum, but if the moderators allow it, it is one of the better explanations for dryer coins. The person who created that thread, had family that worked, sold and refurbished commercial machines for laundromats - these are coins pulled out of the machines. Some very cool extreme examples.

http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=143863

As for the surfaces of your coin, I am still digging for an online source. But, if it was struck through grease, then the planchet weight should be exactly within specifications. If it is an acid-affected coin (which I think it is), then it should be lighter... have you weighed it with a good digital scale??

 

Coins struck through grease, pretty much look the same, whether it is copper, copper-nickel, clad, pure nickel or silver... Have a look here:

http://www.cointalk.com/t219863/

 

Here are few pics of the coin that I have, just for those interested

 

Here is a dryer coin that I pulled from a roll many moons ago

 

Jim this is a awesome looking coin . it sure would be a mystery for me to figure out what made it like this. This almost looks as if it was struck thru a loose die cap that was moving a little after striking each coin and the die cap acting as the die. The problem with this is how likely would it be for both dies to get a loose die cap at the same time.I like how it looks like waves of the coins design radiating out from the original design. Maybe it is a dryer coin and came into contact with a high electrical current or maybe it may be a coin shrinking experiment that went bad. Hopefully someone can figure out this mystery if enough people see it.

 

These "rippled" coins are common. How they're created is unclear. But it's done outside the Mint.