I'm not a Die Variety specialist, so my guess is Mechanical Doubling. I note there is no doubling on the lettering ("CA" area), and it doesn't...
worn/overused die Coins are a manufacturing process. They don't all look exactly the same after the dies strike a few hundred thousand coins,...
A normal 1979 Cent -
It's a common 'die chip', aka "BIE" They are still found today in change or groups of coins - mostly from the 1950's, but they occur before and...
Sorry, but I do not accept coins for evaluation. If I did so, from everyone who asks to ship me coins for my examination, I would not get...
The 2005 Cent is not a 'partial plating' coin, imo. It's been played with.
Given the appearance on the obverse,and the stained/discolored reverse, it appears to be PMD, and not an error. However, better photos would be...
Looks like the same obv. photo at the top of the post
Thanks for the additional photos. I believe it's a counterfeit too, now.
The coin has damaged surfaces, but beside that, there is no way we can tell (or see) any of the doubling you mention from those 'too faraway' photos.
I agree with FF02 - looks like it's struck thru a late stage, thinning, die cap.
Cud - no Cut - yes
PMD
A very minor, and common, filled die error. Grease or machinery oil was on the die when this coin was struck, preventing the design elements...
Some are damaged. The top row, last two coins - damaged 2nd Row - second coin - damaged There might be a few others, but your photos are too...
No, all damaged, and the dime is discolored. None left the US Mint looking like that.
As mentioned, it's a very minor filled die. More of an anomaly than a collectable error.
It's overstruck with fake dies - Not a genuine double strike, or any mint error. sorry...
That 1963 Cent was minted in Philly, with no mintmark.
Damaged on the reverse
Separate names with a comma.
