Are these 3 US coins PMD?

I finished sorting my change jar and found these. I'm not sure if they're PMD and would appreciate your input. Thanks!

1. This is a very nicely struck 1986 Cent that I was surprised to find in my change bin. It has what I thought was through Grease on the reverse but I'm not 100% sure.

2. I think this quarter is a strike through but I honestly don't have anything with enough magnification to be sure. I have begun looking up 30-50x loupes but thought I would share anyway.

3. This is a 1992 Cent that looks like it's a misaligned die but it isn't clear to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have one more that made me curious. It's a 1985 Cent with some scratches on it but appears to be almost uncirculated.

 

1. Very common spot for die wear i believe.
2. Is a scratch
3. I think is die deterioration
4. Die Polishing lines

 

The quarter looks to me like a strike through but I'm seeing some possible raised metal on the left side of it so it is hard to be 100% certain without a clearer picture. It does have the properties of a strike through in my opinion.

 

I'll agree with 3 and 4.

I'm still undecided on #2 and agree with @Get Real that I need to get a better shot to be sure. I can't tell with my 10x.

As for #1, it's rather interesting wear for how nice the rest of the coin looks pretty decent. It doesn't make sense for the die to wear there but nowhere else. That's why I think it might be something more than just regular die wear.

Your thoughts?

 

I didn't comment on them before because I am not 100% sure about all of them but I will give it a try.

On item #1 - I don't not agree with it being "Die Wear" although I do agree that it is very common. I have many and have seen hundreds like that one and some much worse. To my understanding it is caused because that location on the Reverse is opposite of the bottom of Lincoln's bust on the Obverse and there is not enough metal in that location to fill the die on both sides. I agree with the logic but I have some doubts because it wasn't an issue in the older LMCs and you would think that after all this time the mint would have made some minor changes to compensate for this but that is what was explained to me.

Item #2 - Already explained, I would like to see some close ups whenever you get around to magnification solution.

Item #3 - I'm actually very curious about this one. I have several like this but much, much more pronounced that I have been hoping for answers too. I may be wrong but I don't buy the "Die Deterioration" explanation based on the extreme versions that I have.

Item #4 - I totally agree with "Die polishing Lines/Scratches".

I hope this helps!

 

On number one i have seen tons in that spot so thats why i wasnt confident in strike through. But die wear made more sense to me.

Regarding number 3, i have seen tons of those as well and if memory serves, they called it a form of die deterioration. But i could be wrong. I just know ive seen this quite a bit.

 

@Insider @SuperDave

Would either of you gentlemen be able to explain #1 or #3?

 

while I am neither of those two gentlemen, I believe that #1 is PMD.
#3 I am not so sure of. My guess is that it could be misaligned dies or a planchet flaw.

 

I have some thoughts; will weigh in tonight after work.

 

You input is still appreciated. I'm going to study the coin some more to see if it looks like it could be PMD.

 

#1. As others have said, this is very common and especially in this spot. Key to what this is: Its surface luster. This is an area of the planchet that never touched the dies. Also note that while "weak" the surface is relatevly flat. A struck thru would be more incuse and would not have "flat strike luster."

#2. Need to see it under scope w/florescent light. As is I can go either way however a scratch would be more common. There is also a similar mark close by on a letter.

#3. Die deterioration. Very common.

#4. Die polish (if raised) and perhaps a few bright hairlines.

 

After contemplation:

Coin 1, I'm convinced is a postmint hit after seriously considering Mint-related possibilities. It takes a lucky hit to damage the outer layer of a Zlincoln without splitting/cracking it, but this has to be that lucky hit. Nothing else would distort the letters in that fashion - there's just no way to make metal flow into that configuration with a normal - even a light normal - strike. TES_o, and RIB in PLURIBUS, are smashed into a shape no die can make them. There is corresponding scuffing/flattening on the appropriate opposite point of the obverse. I'm thinking this one became a shim, maybe involuntarily, but a heavy pressure was applied to it without any horizontal movement.

Coin 3 seems plainly an artifact of die deterioration to me. Perhaps a combination of wear and die subsidence (definitely some of the latter), but an old die doing what old dies do either way. The reverse die seems a bit misaligned along the 7:00-1:00 axis, making it "light" in the area of the obverse which shows the most distortion, which may have been part of it as the corresponding area of the reverse then sucked up more metal for the larger rim than was its' normal due.

 

This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE! Super Dave needs to take a coin grading seminar. I'm glad he cannot see this (he has me on ignore) as I don't have time to argue.

Now someone ask him the following: What happens when the surface of a coin gets a "hit" or is "damaged?" a. Does the surface stay original? b. Does the color of the surface stay the same? What would the surface of the coin look like if it were scraped? Would zinc show through if it were this damaged?

As I wrote before. There is 100% original "untouched" surface in that area where the planchet metal did not fill the design of the die completely (leaving the area weak). The coin shows two types of original mint luster. Normal redish frost and weak pinkish frost.

 

Indeed! I'll even go as far as to say if the OP doesn't believe it and submits to an accepted expert, I'll pay for it if wrong.


OP,

As for using a stronger loupe, the most powerful I ever used was a 16x, and even then it was overkill most of the time, and because of this rarely used. That said, if you do want something 30x or stronger, be very careful about what you buy, and do try to avoid the cheap Chinese eBay offerings. I certainly cannot speak for all, but some offered as 30x are simply labeled as such and in reality are closer to 10x. Even if of whatever stated magnification, cheap glass can terribly strain your eyes (this goes for any and all) so if you plan on using it often, do consider paying up for something of known quality. Good luck!

 

The part that gets me is the lines. What would cause the striations/lines there? That's what made me think struck through.

 

I just can't get behind the PMD hit when no zinc is showing. I believe I'm seeing original luster on that area even though it looks funny... That's why I thought strike through, maybe a cloth or piece of something obstructed the spot.

 

Unless I got some crazy deal, this coin will forever sit in a 2x2 in my collection with a note/question mark about how it looks funny. I don't think it's PMD but I don't know what caused the lines.

As far as loupes, I am happy with my 10x, but I need something a little stronger for photos of tiny areas. I think 30x is the highest I will go and I'm not sure just where I will buy it yet but I appreciate your recommendations on not buying knock offs. If you have a specific company or loupe you recommend, I'm happy to hear it.

 

I don't know for certain (although I have suspicions) why they're there, but can promise you this, including displaying the "lines", is a fairly common occurrence. I've never been a "searcher", but if you examine* larger numbers of cents from that era, you're bound to find others.


* edited to add

 

Well either way, it's my birth year so I'll hold onto it thanks for the feedback.