Maybe new stage, with the mark in the field above left shield heres the link to wexlers http://doubleddie.com/894355.html
I think this one is more doubled on LIBERTY, then wexler, more cuds too, (shield) better doubling on WE, and last, better doubling on TRUST, but unfortunately, his photos are full of what looks to be gray paint, or grease on LIBERTY
Since 2010 there 1 change big to shield cent was less copper and more zinc to make the coin cheaper to make. that thin copper shin has been the biggest problem I think and a lot of the coin books are saying the same thing.
According to my "Redbook", the Composition of circulation strike cents 1982-2009 was (core) 99.2% zinc, 0.8% copper with a plating of pure copper. The weight is 2.5 grams. Composition of circulation strikes cents 2010 to present is identical, (core) 99.2% zinc, 0.8% copper, with a plating of pure copper. The weight is also listed at 2.5 grams. Is the Guidebook of U.S. Coins (Redbook) incorrect? Thanks, Bill
Bill I know what Red Book has to say. 2010 something changed our 1 cent planchet + coin since 2010 just don't grade well. do not look good etc.
I think the us mints have gone to a more basic look for the shield cent, but then, so has the quarter too, (obverse) both look to what would have been minted back in the 80s, real cheap looking, no detail today, just basic looking
I agree with the thoughts that the coinage looks like it could be greatly improved. It's not an issue of composition though. It seems that with some of the coins, particularly as Rick mentioned, the quarters just don't have the depth that they used to. It's in the method of creating the hubs that the coins look weak. The design is weak in the first place. Overall, we should be able to make better looking coins in many repects. To me, the decline started back in the mid-90s with the Kennedy halves. The designs just didn't have the depth that they used to. It just keeps getting worse.
I have to agree !!" US mint put million into computer driven hub and engraving . But the coins are not shown any improvement in striking at all.
Even the computer driven designs are not the problem, They've made a few decent coins using that system. They can program the designs to any depth. This is conjecture but I think that they are attempting to cut costs in the die making area of the Mint. Dies with less depth probably last longer. If they can get more coins minted per die, they save on costs in the overall scheme of things.
the funniest thing is, they all look like worn dies, with that said, with today's grading standards, most be hard to grade, they all look au to me
Its really doubled like that, has nothing to do with anything else, you guys are use to seeing photo taken " though " a microscope, from a camera, my are taken from a dino-scope, whole different image, thats all
I think the redbook is incorrect with the compositions...post-1982 cents are composed of a 97.5% zinc core with a 2.5% copper plating. http://i.imgur.com/b0vJ83v.jpg https://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/fun_facts/?action=fun_facts2
I think the "Redbook" is correct and the Mint website is correct. In the "Redbook" The core of the coin is 99.2% zinc, 0.8% copper. The coating is pure 100% copper. The Redbook isolates the compositions of the core and the surface material. When the copper of the plating is added to the copper that is a percentage of the core, you get an overall composition of 97.5 zinc and 2.5%copper. The Mint site says "the composition was changed to 97.5 percent zinc and 2.5 percent copper (copper-plated zinc)." They put parenthesis around copper-plated zinc to indicate the overall structure of the coin. They didn't say that the copper plating was 2.5% of the total weight of the coin. Don't ask me to do the math
