A 1985-D MS-60 zinc planchet. This is what they look like without the copper coating. And you thought zinc cents with the copper coating were ugly. This is one dark coin. I did the best I could to get it to show on the photos.
Why? The TPG? The CONECA designation? Or, just not having the piece in hand? The photos are impossible to render such an opinion, in my opinion. I don't understand why you would do so.
The problem is, if it doesn't show mint luster, there is no good way to tell if the coin is corroded from the zinc of an unplated cent oxidizing, or the zinc having corroded from having the copper plating stripped off. Without visible mint luster the coin is questionable.
This was de-plated and then submitted. It is a damaged coin. ICG has certified several as genuine in the past which are damaged via removing the plating. Mint luster will still be on an unplated cent and is often the best indicator of a genuine example
I don't buy that, and I don't at all buy making a determination from a photo. Nor can it be established without forensic determination that plating was removed. Stating this as the basis for the coin displayed, implying that all such pieces "certified" by ICG and by extension, CONECA designated, are not genuine, is suspect. My opinion. Explain why the test of originality is mint luster. I am very interested in this twice posited opinion. I can think of many reasons it would not be. I am all about learning. Edited to mention I am aware of your expertise.
There are many world coins struck in zinc (I think). Do they have luster when they are struck, and how long does it "last" (before you can't see it any more)?
I have some german zinc, they still hve some remaining luster. The problem is the solution that removes the copper plate destroys the luster.
I assume they had luster originally, but how long it lasts I have no idea. This Danish one is getting so dark I wonder if I will see any details in a few years