1983 D cent MM

Is that another full D at 90 degrees rotated below the MM??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In addition to your coin looking like it got into a dispute with 3 grizzly bears, the anomaly you are referring to below the mintmark is a plating issue and not another MM.

 

This might be a better view. The coin damaged but not blistered. What are the odds that the only place plating error occurs is in the shape of the mint mark right there? And it has detail in the relief, where as blisters are usually smooth - like a balloon puffing up. Look again.

 

non cents told you right . this is because the zinc is starting to rot under the copper plating and pushing the super thin copper upwards. around the mintmark sometimes you can see the zinc exposed a little on brand new coins from the mint , so this is a easy place for the zinc rot to begin. this will happen anywhere on these copper plated zinc coins that has the zinc exposed to the elements of mother nature.

 

I understand all that. But, it does not apply to this D. This is not typical of the edge smear where the copper is pushed up into the device and the field is left with a thinner coating. This is an extra D punched in the die that allowed the copper to flow up and fill the extra D leaving behind this raised up extra D of lesser stature than the main MM.

 

Super awesome, ultra rare, one of a kind, thousand dollar coin. How's that?

 

That could be a 1955 Doubled Die and I'd be ashamed to own it. But seriously, what type of peyote is in your neck of the woods that you are seeing things that aren't there and trying to make something of them???? That coin is not worth looking at twice, much less photographing.

 

Is DoubledieKing around here somewhere?

 

What a snob! Assuming this is the one and only known example of this extra D MM, it is worthless just because the coin had a hard life?

 

Its worthless because there is no extra mintmark, just a very damaged coin.

 

Thanks, but you answered some thing not my question

 

If it were a rare error, it would be worth money, even damaged, but yours isn't rare or an error.

 

I'm not a snob. But to answer your question, yes, even if it were an extra D MM and the only one known of it's kind (which it's not and so that point is mute), it would be worthless due to it's "hard life". BTW, coins aren't living creatures.

 

Not rare? So there is some other example of this second D?

 

Lifespan. What a concept.

 

Dude look. Every coin that your hands come into contact with is not some rare error. If that was the case, they wouldn't be rare. Please don't get a microscope. I don't think I can take it. Every scratch, blister, bubble, and chip will be some one of a kind, rare and exciting error. The thread will go on for 4 or 5 pages.

 

There are easily 20,000 coins within 6 feet of this desk, at the moment. Yesterday I traded over $800 in face. Imagine what my post count would be if your concept was even remotely true, dude.

 

Theres not even a first example of it.

 

Why post and ask for our opinions on what the coin is if you're going to disagree with us anyway? You already claim to know what it is, so send it in to an attributor and prove us wrong. :dead-horse:

 

Yes it's rare and there are probably no more examples like it. But................. that doesn't matter because nobody else want's it ..........so it's worthless.