Yep!
1938-D OMM-004 would be my guess.
Good catch! I missed that. I don’t think so, of course I could be wrong, but I have a couple of 65 graded coins with this.
Congrats! Get this cent out before it ruins the rest! [ATTACH]
DDD. Unfortunately it a worn die issue.;)
I still think this is die deterioration, maybe with some grease. I think this because of the ridge ring. [ATTACH] Correct me if I’m missing...
I’m with @Collecting Nut. It’s a fairly common date and has rim marks, a mark on the bust, and some marks on the reverse. I’m at 64 red. JMHO
Maybe, but it looks more like a worn die issue to me.
It’s PMD post mint damage. The 5 took a hit. Welcome to CT.
Yes they are small date 1960 D. The obverses on coin 2 and 3 are die chips. I can't make out what's happening on the reverses, but I would think...
Show the holder then.
This is mechanical doubling, flat and shelf like. Notice the mint mark. Mint marks were hand punched until 1989. If you notice doubling and the...
It's MD, mechanical doubling.
Yes it does, thanks for the pics. I'm leaning towards environmental damage. The edge as @cpm9ball mentioned looks out of place. The rest of the...
I'm with Kevin. Die markers are the key.
What!!!? No edge pics? Now you know better than that:stop:
It's misaligned on the obverse as said. The reverse shows MD, mechanical doubling.
The mm’s were hand punched until 1989. To be misplaced to the opposite die, it would have had to be intentional. Looks like PMD from your...
Misplaced to the obverse die?
It’s blisters in the copper plating. Environmental damage. The copper plating is broken exposing the zinc core. The zinc reacts with elements and...
Separate names with a comma.
