Can anyone help me identify this error? I bought it as a Lincoln 'thin cent' about 20 years ago. Thought it might be a dime planchet but it doesn't look like one. Definitely thinner and lighter than it should be. thanks!
Might be struck on a thinner than normal planchet, or it may be struck through grease. To know for sure we need a weight , in grams to at least one, preferably two, decimal places.
I think the absence of rims is because the planchet was so thin. This may have been struck on a split planchet, it looks too thin to be a thin planchet. can you get a weight, I would guess it is 40% light. The woodgrain effect may be indicative of a split planchet.
40% light sounds about right. I'll try to get an exact weight as soon as I can. Not sure exactly how but I'll figure it out. thanks
Yep. .62 of normal. Maybe a more experienced member will chime in here, but that seems very light. I wonder what other copper planchets weigh 1.7G. Any other members have an opinion here? Split planchet? (Edit- I meant struck on a split planchet)
1.35 grams lighter than it should be. It just looks like wear, post mint damage and a reverse, grease-filled die to me.
Given the degree of what looks like lamination peeling on the obverse I wouldn't rule out a split planchet.
Even though the coin in the following link is not as well struck on the Obverse as the OP's coin(perhaps it was even thinner), notice the lamination peel look to the entire coin. The op's coin also demonstrates those characteristics on the Obverse, especially on the portrait. http://www.lincolncentresource.com/Errors/Split_Planchet.html
The reason your linked coin "is not as well struck" is because that coin split AFTER it was struck. The OP's coin split (if that is what it is) BEFORE it was struck. As to just what caused the OP's coin, I am not sure you can really prove that it is a split planchet as opposed to just a thin planchet, but that is the most likely answer I can see.
You're right. I could have sworn I read that it was split before the strike. Still though, even before the strike the planchet would have had that "textured" look to it and the OP's coin has that look exactly where I would logically expect it to most likely remain after the strike, which is in the area produced by the incuse portions of the hammer die, where on a thinner planchet there would have been the least amount of smoothing pressure in these areas.
Thanks to each of you for your opinions. What a great forum and I learned a lot just be following all the reasoning. I found this 1960D cent that sold on eBay. It was certified by ANACS and has the same characteristics and looks eerily like my coin. http://cgi.ebay.com/1960D-LD-Lincol...16?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item45f51fffb0 I threw mine on eBay and I'm going to buy a US 19th century coin with the proceeds. I haven't decided which yet but there are a lot of good choices.
I sent Mike Diamond a message asking him about this one, and he just sent me a message back confirming that this is indeed a split planchet that was split before the strike. Syarnie, Glad we could help and glad you like the forum. Jody
