Good evening, I am just curious as the title questions if "woody" cents or pennies are considered errors by collectors? I know they are due to them being explained on this awesome site. ( http://error-ref.com/part-v--planchet-errors.html ). But I question whether all woodies are errors due to many being minor or so common and due to my experience of never seeing one in a slab labeled as an error? Has anyone seen any slabbed as errors? If you have please paste a link below. Excuse me if this question is obvious to you but to me its something that crossed my mind that I am simply not well informed about..
no, not errors. Simply put, since I discussed this yesterday with JP Martin, mis-mixed metal mixture.
This is probably one of those tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to things. PCGS(and most) define an error as "a numismatic item that unintentionally varies from the norm." Given that definition, I would say that yes, they are errors. However, some might argue that the mint found them to be acceptable, and are thus not errors.
They have been far from consistent. In fact that is the only on I have seen. For instance, I believe this one has more "improper alloy mix" than teh one they labeled as such.
I think so far this seems to be the most "accurate" observation so far. The two pics shown above definitely show the tomayto-tomahto thing in my opinion. I wonder though since the penny graded by ngc in my opinion " a slabbing company more attuned to classifying errors or varieties" is more likely to "accurately grade such woodie coins as errors vs pcgs which in my opinion "is a grading company that is not so attuned to classifying errors and varieties". What are your thoughts on this people?
My thoughts on this are that David Lawrence probably gets NGC to write anything he wants on the label.
It has always bothered me that many 'woodies' or 'improper alloy mix' seems to be a surface phenomena. Generally ( outside of numismatics) improper mixing of alloys that is visible on the surface also extend a decent proportion internally. So if the surface colors ( due to different chemical reaction on the different metal components). I would expect to see this color variation at different levels on the struck coin, such as under the base of Lincoln's bust ( rlm's post #7) than the coin mentioned in the original post, where the difference is so extreme on the surface of the bust, but hardly visible between the bottom of the bust and the rim. Possibly I am wrong, but it doesn't look correct to me. IMO. Oh, I don't consider it an error, just a visually interesting toning.
You are confusing the daylight out of me. First off, all the coin you see was the same "level" on the original planchet - the top surface. The minting process does not machine into the planchet and I am sure you understand all of this. So just what are you referring to with your "levels"? On the other hand, I have always been convinced that the differences in color appear due to toning (i.e. oxidation). Doug seems to feel that the color difference is present from the get go. Maybe you have managed to show that he is wrong. Probably the last area on a Lincoln to turn brown is that area between the rim and the bust. In other words, it is the last area to tone. Therefore, it would be the last area to show the grain.
I visualize the flow from the strike to be from the center outward ( thinking that the dies are slightly conical to start with ) , so as the flow occurs , the surface should be almost homogeneous in alloy mix ( normal alloy mix or improper) over the surface of the coin as it is struck, so I do not see why that area should tone differentially compared to the rest ( proper or improper mix). I will have to get out a group of cents that are RB and see if that is a consistent fact ( the last area to turn brown) as I am not sure either way, although I have looked at thousands, it didn't stick in my mind one way or another. Sorry to cause confusion. I would understand why there could be variations in the subsurface metal crystallization such as the Cu-Ni mix of 5 cent coins ( thus the phenomena of Nic-a-Date), but it doesn't work on copper alloys.
I am dumbfounded as to why you think the surface moves appreciably. Look at a coin with an impurity in it (as some extreme woodies). The lamination or void remains virtually in tact and in a nearly perfect line as it it originated. If the surface flows and mixes, it it minute. As for Nic-a-Date not working on copper alloys, just what is the nickel? It is 75% copper. Why is that not a copper alloy?