Now I consider myself pretty knowledgeable on the Lincoln Wheat cent, and have an eye for spectacular, well struck wheat cents. Many members here have posted wonderful examples that I find myself drooling over. But in this thread I would like to discuss the late stage die strikes. These cents themselves have their very own uniqueness. The few examples I will be sharing will hopefully show how die wear effects grades and at the same time show the difference between die wear and circulation wear. The early years of Lincoln wheat were tough on the mint. Through the 1920s there are many examples, especially by the branch mints, struck with overused and just awfully worn dies. Now we all know about the most famous of late die state Lincolns. One in which the obverse die was drastically damaged and then paired with a less worn reverse die. I'm talking the 1922 No D cent or also weak D. 4 die pairs exist all showing excessive over worked dies. Obviously die pair number 2 is the most desirable, with supposedly the D polished clean off to remove a damaging clash. Now how does this affect the grade? My example here is a die pair 2 and yes it is raw. Now any other Lincoln would grade probably around AG maybe G. But taken into consideration the known excessive die wear of this coin would actually grade VG, most likely 8. What about another one? Would you believe this 1917 was actually minted in Denver? This coin was purchased from Rick Snow and sold as a 1917 D. What do you suppose it grades? This 1917 D is a wonderful example to show how a die begins to wear down. Not only is the mint mark almost completely gone, possibly from a weak initial punch or maybe even grease or a combination of things. But we also see a missing L in LIBERTY. The left wheat stalk also is missing details. We also see evidence of severe die deterioration in the fields, how the obverse almost looks "cupped" in a way. This reverse die, however, is not showing wear on the most common of places which is on the O in ONE. That is usually the first place to exhibit die wear, yet this example shows a fully struck O. It is crazy to think how many more coins did this die pair create? Did it produce coins that have been mistaken for Philadelphia mint? Impossible to know I guess. Lastly, I want to share, from what I have seen, quite possibly the most worn obverse die ever to strike a Lincoln cent. I have shown this before but it is an outstanding specimen. Aside from being struck off center, there is a lot happening with it. It is a 1918 D. It did straight grade. The obverse die was severely worn while the reverse die wasn't. Is it possible this coin was a product of what would happened in 1922? A fresher reverse die paired with an over used obverse? This 1918 D is also evidence that a coin can be Mint State and exhibit die wear. While the die wear attributes to a lesser eye appeal, hence a lesser grade, but it is still mint state. What is your grade? I see a lot of GTG threads where die wear is being attributed as circulation wear. Maybe it is just preference but many will call an MS coin AU because they see wear. But what kind of wear? I hope with the examples I provided, many can see how Lincoln Wheat cents tend to show die wear. Maybe this will help many think about grading coins differently when seeing a coin showing weakness, is it from circulation or is it just a later die strike? I think a lot of disagreements over grades stem from what is and isn't circulation wear. Please correct me if there is a fallacy in any of my statements above and please post some late die state coins if you have them.
I think you have some very interesting points regarding worn dies and I'm certain I've attributed some coins incorrectly assuming what I was seeing was circulation. Thanks for the in depth post!
I would love to see - as a thought experiment if nothing else - the nanosecond by nanosecond event of the die striking the planchet. From the first touch of the highest part of the die (the field!!) against the planchet, until they separate from a struck coin. I think this would explain a lot of the difference between strike and wear.
Excellent job explaining your thoughts, especially about mint damage vs. PMD. I will be looking at damaged coins more carefully from now on. Thanks.
I have many coins that have the rounded features but are perfect on the obverse. I agree that they grade weird according to today's standards. Just think how many have been tossed without this knowledge. Your point about worn dies is certainly a concern. The features are rounded on many of mine. I kept looking at the wear points and not finding much. It was blowing my mind. Thanks for the info and will be rethinking my wheaties. Regards, The General
Having been involved in the copper industry I still question the quality of the planchetts. Wonder if there was a fudge and the planchetts were harder? Just saying. the largest impurity in copper is brass. Reckon a provider was fudging on purity? I am researching the metal itself. The General
At this time the planchets were produced by the mint, everything was done in house. The purity of the planchets could probably vary between strip VS Strip. But that is not what created the shape of the die as it wore, the shape of the die had to do with the machine itself. Depending on it's maintenance determined how it would wear.
from my researches i have found out the metal is a forgotten alloy called electrum but whos going to believe that..
I recently read an article in Coin World magazine about a 1917 Doubled Die Lincoln Cent. I'm going on vacation soon and will look for the article when I come home in a few weeks. Your coin looks close to the one in the article. If you are interested in reading the article, PM me and when I return I'll provide more info. Or just post your interest on this thread. According to the article 1917 wasn't discovered until 1977.
