Steel fool me must of the time.the obv has luster but a little on cheek wear also by trust rev looks to a have just little of wear so I going Au-58
I'd say the coin is uncirculated but not super high grade. From those pictures I'd call it a nice 63. What our friend is seeing is the result of a weak strike and not wear. 1943 cents are notorious for not being the best struck pieces on the planet.
The coin is not a weak strike as you could see by the reverse the upper cheekbone is due to wear ,and there are so many abrasion marks on the obverse fields which does not make this coin MS please look a little harder my friend. JCFormerly Jazzcoins Joeencil:
I'm going ms. It's to bad the obverse isn't half as nice as the reverse. Nice wheat. The reverse is awesome.
What i'm saying you have to take into consideration on the size of the coin/ The wheat cent has a slight cheekbone wear with plenty of abrasion marks which was probably due to some circulation so how could it be an uncirculated coin, contact makrs are different those are bag marks When it comes to abrasion marks when you have an excess amount on a cent in comparison to a Morgan the cent will not grade an Ms coin. The coin you are showing does not have alot of abrasion marks for the size that's why it graded a MS coin and it has great eye apeal and no wear very logical grade to me/ I feel you can't compare a Morgan dollar to a cent when it comes to grading they are different denominations and sizes. The more abrasion or contact marks on a coin the more the grade will drop.and size does count get the drift JCFormerly jazzcoins Joe
Point well taken! but 98% of Morgan have 1 or more bag marks. the 1943 maybe as well an MS-61-63 Au-58 was just a opinion I am not a good grader when come to steel wheat cents
Point well taken! but 98% of Morgan have 1 or more bag marks. the 1943 maybe as well an MS-61-63 Au-58 was just a opinion I am not a good grader when come to steel wheat cents sorry for the D/D post!!!!:computer:
I am curious. What grading standards are you using and which one is it that specifies different size coins get graded differently?
I don't use any different grading system i don't think you understand what point i'm making. The 1943 steel has alot of abrasion marks for a small coin like that and are more noticable, if those same amount of marks were on a morgan dollar they won't apear to be that many on the fields of the coin for the size . Now if those same amount of marks were on the morgan the coin wouldn't grade as bad because it;s a larger coin understand the complexity of what i'm saying. I use ANA grading standards i prefer that method of grading since i was 14 years old. I;m not trying to make this confussing for the novices here. Thank you JC
Don't let it get you down. There's a first time for everything. What do you call this? I call it what's on that '43 rim. These zinc-coated steels experience this kind of "flaking." On this 43S, it's all over the reverse, too. I don't know if it's from the bonding, or what. OK, you're next, Joe. Just want to say, just looking for your honest opinions, pal. As such, no, I didn't pull any bait-and-switch on those wheat tips.
No, not a replate job, not covering any corrosion. I know exactly what you're referring to, there, as I have those replate jobs. Besides covering corrosion, sometimes the plating material simply doesn't adhere flush to the surface, and that causes noticeable foul-ups, in and of itself. I'm charging the battery right now. If you want, I'll show you the whole '43S later, when I get a chance.
Do you know what? I think I want to take that back. That '43S could very well be a replate overlaying corrosion or damage. It's just that it's not the kind of overlay material I'm accustomed to seeing. It has the same overlay attributes though as my replates in terms of how it makes the surfaces appear. It's a dead-ringer for a replate, in that respect. Maybe when I get the chance to post this "43S, if it looks like a replate to you, you can help me identify the overlay material. So don't go anywhere.
I have to agree with rim cents on this one it could very well be a form of corrosion but not sure on that ,steel is not the greatest metal you now after awhile the bridges will corrode in due time ,and so will a steel cent.Not like copper or nickel or silver, more resistant to corrosion Jazazcoins Joe
OK, here we go. Does this '43-S look plated to you and if so what do you think the plating-material is? The thing that throws me about it is it doesn't look metallic (like you'd expect?) but rather powdery-white. Look at the '43 just below it and notice how similar the overall tone of the surfaces are. I'm inclined now to say the '43S is overladen with something. But what, I can't figure out. What do you gentlemen think?
Yes, it looks plated to me or at least something done to it. Plated with zinc. I do not see the white stuff you are referring to, but white stuff is common on these pennies. If nothing else, zinc oxide is white and powdery.
I see no wear at all, but I do see rim issues. 61 at best if it were to grade. And yes, smaller coins do get more scrutiny in grading. This is a known fact. When a cent or dime falls into the hopper after striking, they are much less likely to damage the coin they fall on than a silver dollar of 10X the weight..... Read Travers for more info.
I'll bet that's it. This was dipped in zinc oxide in an effort to restore the zinc-coating. A lot of that surface is white and powdery, it just doesn't come across as such in these pics. I actually have a small pile of these at various stages of wear and I've always wondered at them because they don't look "metallic" as I'd expect from an electroplating job. What about those surface breaks, do you call that zinc-plating overlaying corrosion? That's the "flaking" I was referring to, earlier, back when I had no clue as to the plating-agent.
Back to the main event, here it is out of the flip. I don't know why these pictures came out so dark, but in spite of that I think you can see the luster, overall condition and issues better here.
