Not a rare or valuable error type. Keep it as an error, and as an interesting conversation piece, but it's only worth a few bucks or so.....
Looks like a 'struck thru', caused by grease or machinery oil.
That's not a Rockwell Test piece. It's damaged, that's all.....sorry
There are numerous 'Transitional' and what I call "Reverse Transitional' errors for 1965 to 1966 coins.
That's called a die chip too.
I helped authenticate TWO 1943 Copper Cents last year. (both sold in two diff. Heritage Auctions). Your coin is NOT a 1943 Copper Cent. It is...
A very very very common die chip in those letters of Liberty (or the date, in some cases). There are literally thousands more of them in...
It's called an edge ding. (and it's a bit bad one) That's damage - the coin was hit by something in that area. Not an error coin, I'm sorry to say.
Correct - it's the outer manganese layer only, not an outer layer still bonded to the copper core. I've never seen one of those on a blank or...
At this time, NGC is the only service I'm aware of that differentiates between a Type 1 Blank and a Type 2 Blank. The Type 1 Blank is just...
I see bag marks/contact marks in that area, and all over the face. There's no initials, in the field, in the area you're describing.
acid, chemicals, environmental damage It certainly didn't leave the Mint like that.
die gouge, it appears to be.
No, please advise what's different on your coin.
you 'nailed' it. Actually, doesn't look like a nail; looks more like a BB Gun pellet. In any case, it didn't leave the Mint like that......
No
Not copper, not an error. This is what some circulated coins look like - it's possibly that there was liquid on the coin that dried, or something...
That's damage under the "T"
It would be much faster, friendlier, and more efficient for the OP to tell us what they see as a potential error on their coin, rather than ask...
....and I was just tryin' to be nice.......
Separate names with a comma.
