Unplated Zinc Planchet

I didn't say they *all* are dmaaged in ICG slabs, so let's not get overly dramatic and put words in my mouth.

And,Yes, I can tell from those photos alone the coin is garbage.

And the presence of original Mint luster is about as basic a characteristic as you can get to determine if a coin's surface has been altered or not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Plated coins also lack original luster, like this one

 

Cool error coin though.

 

Little touchy when you are disagreed with. That is OK, we are all prideful. You could have stated "not all". You chose not to and the inference is "all". Isn't that a dramatic choice, inviting all to assume your words, mouthed or typed?

Calm down.

You can not, in my opinion, decipher from those photos the level of expertise you espouse. You know this.

As to the last paragraph, I still don't buy that opinion. Post the conclusive forensics that support your position.

 

I'm not touchy. I just prefer people quote me accurately. You know, like a professional does.

And when you know you are correct, you don'r care what others think.

Spend more time doing research for yourself and less on trying to get others to do your work for you.

 

Ok. Fair enough.
Any Forensics in support of correctness?
Don't type so fast when miffed. Spelling gets sort of messed up, and professionals try to avoid this. It is a Tell.

 

Yeah. Buy this book. It explains this specific circumstance and dozens more error types and ways to tell if a coin is altered, counterfeit, or damaged. Many on this forum bought one.

 

Have it. Thanks.

 

You have it? When did you get it?

 

Are you going to offer to sign it for him?

 

OK. I don't have it.

Back to the premise you presented, and my questioning of the premise.

Your premise is that the coin pictured is conclusive forensics that this is one of several/many/all..... what ever quantity you intended.... that the TPG and, by extension CONECA, determined incorrectly and is garbage. You made this determination from the photos presented. I can understand your conclusion.

All I am asking, is that you explain and teach why/how and what forensics were used for the conclusion of infallibility based on very low quality dark and indistinct photos.

Stating you know you are correct, and basing it on a general statement that this TPG did it before, (I also am interested in this conclusive statement, btw, because I would think you would have wanted to disseminate this information to hobbyists/collectors/dealers before now), and there is no luster, and you are a professional, and read the book, is not teaching, or forensic proof of your adamancy. It is simply an opinion.

Why not teach? Why be offended? Why avoid? I am quite sure I am not the only person that wants to learn the specific finite conclusion that the coin is garbage, based strictly on less than clear qualitative photos, and without the piece in hand, and without any physical forensics.

I don't understand, and I am certain I am not alone, how your conclusion is not just an opinion.

Had you stated your opinion is, or your suspicion is, or the photos are not the best quality and you don't detect "luster" (but don't mention there may or may not be or had been luster), or had you stated the possibility of midnight minters, or nefarious coin doctoring is suspected, but you would have to physically examine the piece, then I would think that makes sense and I expect a "professional" to be impartial.

You did not. You deflected the teaching moment, and lapsed into haughty indignity.
I understand. You do not appreciate my cyberspace bluntness. That is not the point. The point is simple: how did you conclusively reach a finite conclusion by nothing more than horrible photos and without in hand examination or any physical forensics?

There is absolutely no reason for you to be condescending and feel the need to humblebrag, instead of professionally explaining to the audience your infallibility.

You don't want to share and teach and explain? No problem. You perceive it is an indignity to be questioned by a person on the internet, specifically me. I can even understand that. What I don't understand, is why you would not do so for the benefit of the OP, instead of leaving the OP with the definitive statement it is garbage, based on the photos. That seems selfish and targeted discourtesy toward the TPG and the OP and, again by extension, CONECA.

My opinion, and I readily and without hesitation acknowledge is not worth anything, is this avoidance is not professionalism. It is equivalent to the tenured professor replying to the 1st year remedial reading class student "because I said so".

Full disclosure: edited for a couple of spelling booboos and misplaced / thingys.

 

I know for sure coneca has specific people that do specific coins . Ken Potter does the cent .

 

Luster is created during the strike. If it is present, then the copper was not present, when the coin was struck. I the surface has corroded enough that the mint luster is no longer present then it is not possible to say whether the copper plating was present at the time of striking or not. And copper plated cents that have had the copper chemically stripped off tend to have the same color/surfaces as a corroded zinc coin.

 

Concur. That is not my thrust. It is the absolute infallible conclusion without any physical examination and without any physical forensics, based on very questionable "diagnostic" photos. I am just not and never have been a because I said so guy.. Amend that to say except when I was in uniform.

 

I found one a while back. Don't know if it's legit or not.

 

Honestly, I am not going to be telling you something you can easily look up for yourself. No offense but I don't reward laziness. Taking the initiative to look it up on your own makes you a better and more informed collector. It's how you grow and start to fine-tune your skills.

Another way is to do what I did. Go on auction sites and look up their certified examples. What are some differences that you see between those you think are genuine and those which might be suspect?

Also take some time to learn the minting process for different types of coins, and understand that how they've been produced has changed over the years.

Next, learn a little bit of metallurgy and the faults and benefits of using various coining metals. Look up and learn various ways metals, including those for coins, can become damaged over time. What types of natural damage can occur to Old copper coins? Zinc-plated cents? Zinc-plated steel cents for 1943 issues? What issues can cause laminations on alloy coins like silver and copper? What does environmental damage look like? Heat damage? Use of acids or other corrosives?

Then you can begin researching how coins become altered intentionally and the most common ways people do it to make them appear as errors to fool collectors. Move on to actual counterfeiting as well and look for signs to check for.

The purpose of my book is so that I don't have to keep answering the same questions over and over and over and over again (like the ones you ask). Or if not my book, there are a few other good ones along with some great websites out there. Oddly enough i already answered your question with specifics before you asked it on this forum. But I owe you no explanation despite the various psychological games and insinuations you use to try and extract it from me here. Don't think for one second you are dealing with a fool.

You learn much more by doing things yourself than relying on somebody else to just give you an answer. And as you can see with all the mislabeled slabs out there, as well as experts at grading companies totally getting things wrong like the featured coin in this post, it empowers you to start making those calls for yourself.

(Man, I wish I could like my own answer on this forum.)

 

natural corrosion to exposed zinc is more often indiscriminate rather than displaying evenly on both sides of the coin, which is one of many signs a corrosive substance including acid was used.

 

Sigh....

 

But not always. That is a fair and impartial opinion. And an improvement in professional opinion.
That is all you had to post concerning the OP piece.

 

Moviing on...