Need help on this one...

This was listed as a grease strike through. But, it looks like a weak strike. The reverse pattern is what makes me think it is a weak strike.

What do you guys think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Listed where? What is that coin in, cellophane? Is that coin in a mint set?

 

It is in a Mint set

 

Well, I'm in the struck thru grease column then. Mostly because of IGWT.

But man, that rev. looks like it's been in circulation!!

 

Make that 2 for the struck through column.

 

It looks like a weak strike to me.

Chris

 

What made me rule out a weak strike is to me the devices that are not affected look sharp and strong. While the parts that are affected look weak and almost missing. Plus the the devices that are weak also look fatter than usual. Especially in the columns on the memorial on the reverse.

Can a weak strike cause the devices to look flat and fat too?

 

Coins I've had before that looked like that were grease strikes I'm pretty sure. The reverse does look circulated, but I am assuming you mean it was in an Uncirculated Mint set and not a Proof set, in which case those can get scratched some.

 

I don't think the proof sets came in cellophane. You say they can get scratched some. That's gotta be the worst sealed mint set coin I have ever seen.

I should start a thread: "Post Your worst looking Mint/Proof Set Coins"

 

Struck through grease or water, etc.

 

Struck Through IMHO

 

Water?

 

Struck through but not a heavy strike. Is there a market for them Joe?

 

OK, I gotta drop the science here a little bit here; good-naturedly, of course...

1. It is not scratched. It only appears so because (a) the cellophane from the Mint cello is marked up, and (b) when planchets don't get a full, direct strike from the dies, the marks, nicks, and dings don't get "erased" from the strike. Notice the unstruck copper planchet below with all the marks on it...



2. It is not circulated. It is sealed in a complete Mint cello set where it was/is housed.

Notice you can make out the partial outline of Lincoln's bust on the reverse where it looks "worn" (which it isn't really). This is common for weak strikes, split planchets and underweight planchets. Below, is the reverse of a split planchet. The pattern is very similar to the reverse of my coin.




The highest points on the obverse - Lincoln's head - are flat on my coin. He also has that "temple gap" which I see on a lot of certified weak strikes and underweight/split planchets. First is my coin, and below it is a certified thin planchet (2.1 grams) strike I have...




So, It just seems strange that both the obverse and reverse of my coin mimic the "wear" patterns of these other error types.

Could the grease have done this? Maybe. I am just not sure. Just wanted to point out these other similarities because often I think everyone just says "grease strike through" any time designs are missing...just a thought...

 

Being in the Mint cello, I can't weigh the coin individually. I really can't even weigh another 1970-S Mint set and then compare it to this one because many coins aren't the exact weight tolerance.

Can anyone think of a serious, creative way to find out the weight of this cent?

 

I guess there can be a market for everything, but generally most error enthusiasts I know don't care about grease strike-throughs. However, if it leaves behind a bizarre or unique pattern that is cool there can certainly be some significant demand. I think a strike through where Lincoln has no head at all and everything else shows up is cool, or if all that appeared was a date, or missing letters spelled something funny. Somtimes just the unique placement or missing details can cause demand and prices to skyrocket.

 

Nice item. Congrats

 

I agree with the underweight/thin planchette theory. I have split cents that have the same pattern.

 

You ever struck coins/medals on a press? A drop of water can fill dies. That's why they call it hydraulics.

 

I never have done that. Don't know anything about it. Sounds interesting.