1990 Lincoln cent that has a small hairline crack that runs diagonally right through the date and to the rim. Was wondering if it' a mint error or just a scratch. It goes through and under one of the 9s. Thanks for your opinions
Well, it wasn't intended to be that way and you'll likely find clowns claiming such coins to be special and/or errors, but this type of thing was fairly common on early Zincolns. Some can be neat and there's nothing wrong with collecting if you like them, but they're simply not worth any real world premium.
I guess I don't understand the actual minting process then. Common sense tells me that if it's part of the plating that happens at the mint. That would be a mint error. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't plating part of the minting process? If it' not part of the minting process the they would have to send it put somewhere to be plated. Then I could see it not being a mint error. But if it happens at the mint then it should be a mint issue. I' Just using some common sense here.
Take a look here for "plating blisters". It has a good explanation of what they are. http://www.error-ref.com/?s=plating
Like I said, it wasn't intended to be that way, so technically I suppose it could be considered an "error". However, and as with many things in this hobby, common sense and accepted do not go hand in hand. Being as this is so common, most do not consider it to be an error, perhaps in part because so many new to this hobby see only dollar signs. Think of how the term uncirculated is used to describe a coin in mint state as opposed to its history. The fact is that one can often find coins in circulation that would technically grade "uncirculated".
I' not in it for the money or to get rich. I don' need the money. Yeah it would be nice to find something valuable. But I if the plating is not part of the minting process what is It? If the coin is plated before it leaves the mint then it' a plating error. If a car comes of the assembly line without the clear coat glossy shine is that a factory defect?
I didn't say nor remotely suggest you were in it for the money, but was simply explaining the sad reality. Again, plating issues were not intended, so in this respect they technically can be considered errors. However, this doesn't mean they are or should accepted by the greater hobby as being in the same category as striking errors. It's basically just a defect. If you want to call it an error, whatever floats your boat. This hobby is yours to make of it as you see fit.
Your reply said that so many newbie only see dollars signs, which I replied that I don' need the money. I understand that they weren' intended to be there, just like any mistake it's not intended. Just like doubled dies or die cracks, they aren' intended to be there either. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind it. I could care less if the coin has any value to it or not. I'm doing this because I needed something to occupy my time. And I'm trying to learn a few things.
It's a plating blister. Not considered an error due to the vast amount of coins that have it. That looks like a clipped planchet just below the date.
What exactly do you want to hear? I understand you're trying to learn and have the utmost respect for it, but this is really getting to be a bit much. If truly just trying to understand as claimed, perhaps you should try to work with the only ones thus far going out of their way to try to explain this. Did you bother checking out the link @furryfrog02 kindly provided? Aside from the fact that plating issues are painfully common on early Zincolns and not a striking error, I don't know what else to tell you. Much likely has to do with the value thing, but each time I've tried to address this nonsense ensues. When something is so common that it's at times more difficult to find an example not displaying the anomaly on some level, would it really make sense to place in a category with truly uncommon and in some cases valuable "mistakes"? Short more extreme instances, no one makes a big deal out of die cracks either and for good reason, but at least they are the result of something beyond a very poor decision on the mint's part. That said, if you want to call plating issues "errors", feel free, but just don't expect everyone else to see them as special or on par with other more significant errors. Easy peasy. And yet again, I did not say nor suggest that YOU are in it for the money, so even after again clarifying, I'm unsure as to why you feel the need to harp on the issue. As someone supposedly wanting to learn, you should easily be able to understand why I (most regretfully) thought it worth addressing this. My mistake and apologies. The below link explains much of the minting process and should be required reading for those new to the hobby. Perhaps, and hopefully, you'll find it enlightening. Best of luck, sir. http://doubleddie.com/
