A shot in the dark with a 1999 D cent

I purchased this over the weekend from a fellow at the local flee market with a booth selling rings made from silver quarters and halfs.
There were a few other odds and ends silver coins in the display as well as this lone cent that stood out like a sore thumb among the freshly polished silver.
It's obvious what made me want to have a closer look. However after asking to see it closer he was happy to oblige until I removed my led currency loupe from my pocket at which point he began to get agitated.
After a quick look I shook my head laughing and asked what he was asking for it. To which he responded $15.00.
Anyway this story is dragging on so in short I ended up purchasing it for $3.00 and my question is did I make a poor decision and spend $3.01 to much considering the not so obvious over the blatantly obvious?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have no doubts that it is altered. I am trying to figure if there is actually a Roosevelt sitting between the copper plate or if a Roosevelt was used to make the image, then the Copper was reattached to the zinc core.
What the weight and diameter?

 

I don't recall the exact weight/diameter but they were both well within tolerance for a copper zinc penny.
Its the doubling of the memorial most obvious to the right that made me decide to take a chance despite whatever was done to add the relief of the Roosevelt.

 

I'd just like to add that within the last year things like this show up regularly in circulation in my area. Its getting to the point I've lost the desire to even search anymore.

I recently posted another thread concerning a 1999D Roosevelt with reverse tripling that everyone said appeared to be legitimate. However I have not pursued it in fear of being disproved.

They say ignorance is bliss and after 30 plus years I need something to restore the faith that has been so very recently taken from me.

 

Yes, you got ripped off.

 

You are the last person I would want to debate as I fully respect all your posts, but would what you are describing not take a very skilled set of hands to accomplish? Could this possibly be a Mint employee contrived coin? I can't see any lettering on this either unless it's hidden by wear and tear. Without being able to see a date on the Roosevelt I really don't know what to think. There should be no clad planchets in proximity to the cents production. I've never seen this type of machine doubling at the neck before on the 1999 cents and it's slightly misaligned which leads me to believe an "event" of some type when the two coins were hit by the dies. I'm bamboozled.

 

So it is a complete loss even with the very noticeable doubling of the Lincoln Memorial despite the added Roosevelt relief?
Or perhaps that is also intentionally added, or even accidentally?
I had hoped the doubling was and oversight by the forger and would help the coin retain some value.

 

I am considering beginning a continuously updated post of these types of things to give people any idea of the garbage in circulation around here.
Perhaps it would be advantageous to newer collectors and help them to identify things that are inconsistent with the minting process?
Suddenly it seems a shame to have removed previous examples from circulation and stored them out of reach. By that I mean at the bottom of the local lake...

 

There is the possibility that three coins were sandwiched and only enough pressure was use to transfer the highest points.

 

All points are in relief, no sunken impressions but raised.

 

From what I read, the guy at the flee market made coin rings. I assumed that the guy has probably done some experimenting with hammering some coins. What ever has happened it happened post mint IMO.
A Cent would never fit in a Dime Collar not to mention there are many features that would have been obliterated by the second and final Cent strike.

 

As example

 

What's the edge look like? There are ways to remove the zinc from a Zincoln and leave a hollow copper shell. Surgically insert dime and...

https://www.flinnsci.com/api/library/Download/365b4b2351cb42e1ba36a3df936cb7f2

 

I'm not entirely sure what your example is intended to display. However, it illustrates very clearly the differences between the OP's fake error and this genuine error you show. Let me point out a few things:

1. A dime is smaller than a cent. The coining chamber for a dime planchet is thus smaller than that for a cent planchet. A cent planchet CANNOT enter the dime's coining chamber, because it is too big. A dime planchet can enter a cent's coining chamber, because it is smaller. Thus, a cent struck on a dime planchet is possible - a dime struck on a cent planchet is not possible. This rule applies for any denomination you can imagine, and is a very easy method to instantly debunk a large range of so-called off-planchet strikes.

For this reason, the cent/dime hybrid in the OP is impossible, but the one you show is quite possible.

2. Notice in the OP, the cent is the primary image but the dime is the secondary image. This implies that the cent was struck, but the dime design was somehow inserted into this coin. On the error you posted, notice how the dime design is the underlying image. Most of the dime details are weak and appear like they were overstruck. The cent image is the primary image. In this case, the dime was likely struck first, and the cent was struck over the top of it. This fits with our observation in point 1.

3. In the error you posted, both designs appear crisp and sharp. This is because both were struck at very high pressures by the mint (first one, and then another one on top of it). In the OP's coin, the Lincoln design appears sharp, but the Roosevelt design appears soft and indistinct. That's because the Roosevelt design was not struck at extremely high tonnage - it was hammered by hand, or inserted into a relatively low pressure vice. It imparted a shadow of the image, but not the full image.

Given these points, there is a clear and logical explanation for how the error you posted could have been created, but none for the OP's coin. I suspect the error you posted was a coined dime that fell into one of the canvas carts that the mint uses to transport coins. The cart was emptied, but a coin was stuck in a crevice. This same cart was then used to transport cent planchets, and the struck dime fell out of the crevice. The struck dime was then able to be struck like any other coin, and made it's way out of the mint.

There is no reasonable or logical explanation for how the OP's "error" could have been created, based on our knowledge of how the mint and minting process works.

Thus, it's a fake.

 

@physics-fan3.14 Thanks much for the detailed explanation and I appreciate it. @ @Curious Coin Looks like your flea market guy is a flea, sorry you got rooked.

 

It was just used as an example for the preceding post by Pickin and Grinin to illustrate his point.

I knew the "double denomination" coin was fake before I bought it. The intention of this post was in question of the double die of the Lincoln Memorial and of it's authenticity and if said authenticity would hold any value dispite the intentionally damaged coin.

That was my "shot in the dark" to quote myself.

Your insight and deductive intuition are as informative as they are appreciated. Thank you for that explanation.

 

Too true, I was hoping to get one up on him over the double die but alas.

At least I didn't pay the $15.00.

 

Exactly dear fellow. The fact that you were able to talk him down to $3 demonstrates something indeed. Had the coin been genuine, I'm sure he would have held his ground.

 

I apologize for the delay in posting these. I have been at work most of the day. I further regret that I can not currently post a picture of the weight as my balance is currently being serviced at Techtronic.
I can however take the coin to work tomorrow and use the balance there if you would like?

 

I'm sure he was happy with the $2.99 profit for his time. Ha ha