In the absence of any other evidence, the default diagnosis would be a planchet punched out of rolled-thick stock. Such errors occur in most...
I have tomfiggy's cent. As I expected, all of the extraneous design elements are incuse. This is an obvious squeeze job.
There are only a few circumstances that will generate raised, mirror-image design elements. None of those circumstances are present here. It is...
A double denomination error would features raised devices from both strikes. Here the secondary elements are all incuse.
No lamination here. It's a bi-level (stepped) die crack.
This is an obvious vise job. Despite tomfiggy's protestations, the extra design elements are clearly incuse. Raised devices on the 1969-D cent...
The lead-off dime appears to have been struck on an improperly annealed planchet. When Cu-Ni clad planchets are exposed to to much heat, the...
100% post-strike damage.
The first strike was normal. It was the second strike that was weak.
The dime was crushed between two smooth, flat surfaces. It's not an error.
I'd say it's worth perhaps $5.
It's a form of die damage that's seen on the reverse of wheatback cents from 1917 - 1945. It can be bilateral or unilateral, but is located...
Post-strike damage on this last specimen.
Yes, this part of the die is sinking in, and the edge of the subsidence zone is demarcated by a crack.
I think this last cent shows an isolated die gouge or linear die dent. Cause unknown.
As others have said, these are die scrapes from a feeder.
Just an odd manifestation of die deterioration.
As others have indicated, this cent was struck on a planchet punched out of zinc stock that was rolled too thick. It doesn't appear that the...
As you wish. I write the Collector's Clearinghouse column for Coin World. I've written hundreds of articles for Coin World, Errorscope, and...
The 1977 5 cent coin was damaged outside the Mint. Whoever purchased it for $300 flushed his money down the toilet. We see the typical...
Separate names with a comma.
