82 D struck through possibly!

3.1 g not rot! So what is it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Some kind of fiber or twine?
Would that be incused or raised? On the twine strike through?

 

This is raised for sure which would indicate it's in the die correct?

 

Raised on coin incused on die!

 

Actually looks like a gouge that pushed the metal sideways.

 

This is 100% raised for sure!

 

Also no designers initials on reverse. Which could easily be explained with a grease filled die!

 

look at the area directly below the raised ares. there is a depression there. the metal from that area has been pushed up showing as a raised area above.

 

Yes I looked at that but this would not create the the image we have especially with the rounded top ( or curved to south) for lack of better explanation on that part

 

actually it would create exactly that look....I'm done, believe what you want.

 

On a coin that corroded and damaged, I don't think you can ever know.

 

Sorry no disrespect intended.

 

I can see it is raised.
What I am saying is, if it was a strike through (some object) why would it be raised on the coin? That doesn't make sense.
If a piece of fiber found it's way on the planchet between the dies during the strike, the result would not be a raised section of metal.
It would look more like a fossil of a piece of fiber on the coin.

 

Maybe I'm wrong here but if something(metal) gets between a die and the planchet and deforms it (makes an impression on said die) and again strikes a planchet we would see a raised image on the planchet such as this. If this were that case! Which is my thoughts. By no means am I trying to be disrespectful in any means just just to make my point.

 

I'll bet it looked really nice back in 1982.

 

That raised area is definitely not a foreign object struck into and retained in the coin. If it were, there would be depressions around the perimeter of it. It would appear such as this dime with a retained wire below.



The OP's cent is most likely from a crack in the die, which would leave a raised, reversed image of it on the planchet.

 

No, that's not what happens. Think about it. Dies are harder than planchets -- they have to be! If something gets stuck between the die and the planchet, it gets driven into the planchet.

When you hold a nail against a wooden board and hit it with a hammer, what happens? Does it leave an impression in the hammer head, or does it get driven into the board? (Hint: people talk all the time about "hammering a nail into a board", but you rarely hear of them "boarding a nail into a hammer"...)

 

I've seen struck through feeder fingers and thinking this could be such. If this happens could this feeder finger remain on the hammer die long enough to make an impression on the die itself ? This one is incused I know.

 

I agree with your statement 100%. This analogy is not the same as when a hammer die strikes a planchet. The impact reference is by far different. When a foreign object such as metal ( hardened feeders)get lodged in the hammer die and then falls out and strikes another planchet this could be the result is my argument!

 

But that is not what happened with yours. Nothing was struck into it.