1951 D Large Cent Error?

I found a 1951 D small cent with a blank planchet only on the obverse. The die strike on the face appears normal with typical coin thickness. Coin is in circulated condition but doesn’t have much wear or scratches.
How do I know if this is an error strike and does it have much value?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Altered.
Someone somehow removed the Reverse leaving it smooth. Not a Mint Error.

BTW. That is not a Large Cent.

These were Large Cents -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_cent

 

Not a large cent , small cents were minted from 1856 to date...
" how do i know if this is an error strike,and does it have value?"
You can start with buying a red book.... buy the book before the coin...

 

Can you see machining marks on reverse ?

Coin's weight ?

 

Benefit of the doubt, he actually put small cent in his tags and text, just a typo in the title

 

I was the first person to see this thread very early this morning.. his first post stated Large (I read it twice to make sure that's what he meant) so that means he edited it. But thanks for trying to point that out for me.

 

Este bien no pasa nada. I only saw the difference in his title and his text after i saw that the coin was wrong.

 

Machined, as mentioned

 

PMD

 

You can see on some areas of the edges grinding marks where the coin was not strictly flat to the abrasive device. In the last few months there seems to be more of these altered coins, must be a Utub video on it. Jim

 

In my opinion the coin's reverse is not smooth or flat. There appears to be minor tecturing on the reverse flat side. Good conversation piece, I would keep it,if for nothing else show and tell. Good luck!

 

I would like to see more pictures.

 

Well as usual on here I will have to disagree with everyone else . This one looks to a true uniface coin. I hope the op don't destroy it and has it checked out better. This happens when two coin blanks enters the coining chamber at the same time.This could be identified as a uniface coin by weighing it , If it has been ground down which I doubt from the looks of it the coin would weigh less than 3 grams .

 

Sure an odd one. I'd certainly keep it.

 

no uniface - those typically have a well defined rim on the blank side

 

You are correct about the rim and if you look closely the op's has the rim. Don't expect the rim to be defines as well as a normal rim on a uniface coin because two blanks were stacked together during the strike and this pushes the finished rim on the blank downward.

 

maybe, maybe not - better photos would be helpful, as well as an accurate weight

 

I think it's a safe bet to go with Mr. Weinberg's opinion in post #8. He is THE error coin expert in the US (world?) and has handled more error rarities than most of us have seen. If the major grading services use him as a consultant for errors and varieties, I'd say that is a pretty good recommendation.

The poster who thinks it might be a true uniface error is sadly mistaken. This is just another of his "highly questionable" responses in the last few months (almost as good as the plated quarter he insisted could be struck on a silver planchet even though it weighed the same as a clad planchet). He says he's been collecting errors for decades and occasional has good feedback on simple errors, but I wish he would stop confusing new collectors.

 

Incorrect. You are wrong again.

Evidence is upraised rim on the Obverse and missing upraised rim on the Reverse.
Definitely altered.

 

Yes a accurate weight would tell what it is or isn't .