Interesting error here...

I'll be honest, I am not 100% sure if this is genuine or not. Mike Diamond is very skeptical as to its authenticity as an error.

@Fred Weinberg is there anything about it that gives you pause as to it being genuine?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm basing my comments on the photos,
and not having the coin in-hand to examine.

How did Mike D. describe it?

And, we don't know the weight, and I'm
assuming (from the photos) that it's thinner
than a planchet.

Could it be a man-made job? Yes, but I can't
condemn it from the photos only, imo,.

 

i totally understand that...and the weight is .grams

Here is how Mike described it:
I suppose it's possible that this is a "sandwich strike" of sorts, with the reverse carrying a brockage from an underlying cent and the obverse struck through a late-stage die cap. However, I still don't like the look of the raised obverse as it lacks any sign of wrinkles or "tendrils" extending from the letters and numbers.

 

The weight is .3 grams.

I am now 99% sure it is not genuine.

 

.3 grams...Razor thin...I found a LWC that was razor thin...correct patina for the age. Then when in the 7th grade, a bath in some acid reproduced the effect. At that point, I figured out my find was just a science experiment.