1958 proof "ghost image" penny

Discussion in 'What's it Worth' started by Rick Gardner, Aug 17, 2019.

  1. Rick Gardner

    Rick Gardner New Member

    hi. total newbie here. was looking thru my old proof sets and this 1958 penny looks wild. the patina i guess has bled thru to reverse so theres a ghost image of lincolns head on reverse. any value or worth pursuing? any feedback is greatly appreciated as id like to sell/auction it if it has some value. thanks!
     

    Attached Files:

    Stevearino likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Pete Apple

    Pete Apple Active Member

  4. Rick Gardner

    Rick Gardner New Member

  5. Pete Apple

    Pete Apple Active Member

    I do not recall seeing one on a proof. Common on circulated. Don't know if has value on a proof.
     
  6. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    Ask Paddy. He is familiar with indirect die transfer (if that's what this is.)
     
    paddyman98 likes this.
  7. John Burgess

    John Burgess Active Member

    My opinion is that it's Progressive indirect die transfer (PIDT) and that the toning is just making it more easily observable at this point. Which would be commonly called "ghosting" or less commonly called "internal metal displacement phenomenon" (imdp).

    This generally happens on coins struck with a late die stage die. and would be considered die deterioration.
    It's a bit common on 40s to 50s S mint coins

    Now as far as value goes... no. There's no added premium to the coin for it. It's an oddity that shows up on coins struck by worn dies. I'm willing to bet the obverse side is really strong and the reverse is weaker in comparison. Maybe they used an older reverse die and a new obverse die together? It's interesting and it's an oddity, but as far as collector interest is concerned, any one of any year would do for an example so they pretty much have the entire history of Lincoln cents to go through to find an example if the want one, it's not collected by dates or anything and once you have one... meh.. lol

    Someone more knowledgeable than me in this area may be able to tell you if there's a premium for a proof coin that exhibits this, since generally proofs are stuck more carefully and less of them, but from what I know it adds no value because to get an example of it, if a person wanted one, you wouldn't need a proof coin for that and as I said they happen frequently enough as part of die wear progression.

    Although I suppose if a handful to a dozen of collectors wanted to build sets of PIDT coins and an example of each year for their set a premium would have to occur, and they would fight to get them at that pint and pay more... I'm not aware of this particular situation existing in the market though. :D
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2019
    Rick Gardner and Luster_Bump like this.
  8. Rick Gardner

    Rick Gardner New Member

    yes i thought it odd that they would strike proofs with worn dies. its really cool i hope to hear from more of you pros. thanks to all! cheers
     
  9. Collecting Nut

    Collecting Nut Borderline Hoarder

    What a wonderful coin and a great example of indirect Die transfer. And on a proof to boot. Not what a would call common but very interesting and a definite keeper. Protect that coin! The toning is making the design more noticeable. Welcome to CT.
     
    Rick Gardner and PlanoSteve like this.
  10. Inspector43

    Inspector43 70 Year Collector

    That set doesn't look like it was US Mint packaged. so, it is difficult to know the source of the coins.
     
  11. paddyman98

    paddyman98 No Common Cents! Supporter

    Not really.
     
    Rick Gardner likes this.
  12. paddyman98

    paddyman98 No Common Cents! Supporter

    I totally agree! Especially the toning issue.
     
    Inspector43 and Michael K like this.
  13. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    Inspector brings up a good point.
    Is this a US Mint OGP set, or was it compiled?
     
    Inspector43 likes this.
  14. Islander80-83

    Islander80-83 Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't say common but not rare either. It's an excellent example!

    Here's one of mine...
     
  15. Islander80-83

    Islander80-83 Well-Known Member

  16. John Burgess

    John Burgess Active Member

    It's not a mint issued set in that manner. The mint sets of 1958 would of come in a manilla envelope and packaged in that in sealed cellophane plastic.

    Many people at that time would have removed them from the cellophane and put them into something like this rigid plastic screwdown holder... not sure but maybe it's a capital holder?
    Anyways the rigid holders keep them from getting banged or moving and offer more protection to hits than the cellophane. It's relatively common to find sets in these types of holders, but it's not mint issued originally like that.

    Few years earlier and they would have been shipped from the mint in a small cardboard box with the coins wrapped in tissue paper only. I think that where putting them into these rigid plastic screw down cases became popular and likely someone that was doing it in earlier years would have stuck with it so their collection would be uniform.
     
    Rick Gardner and Inspector43 like this.
  17. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    My point was, if it was OGP the IDT on a proof could be a special thing.
    But if the set was compiled that diminishes that possibility.
     
  18. John Burgess

    John Burgess Active Member

    No. Generally speaking it doesn't matter if it's in the OGP set intact or not unless the whole set were errored. just the one coin in the set would be the one that mattered, like a no S proof dime, or a clear S SBA proof. A proof is a proof. There's no confusing it for a circulation strike.

    The issue with this coin is that it's not a mint error, it falls into "die deterioration" damage. It's not like a double struck or and off center strike, or double die, or a missing mintmark, or struck through, it's more like a minor die chip or chips or machine doubling category. IDT isn't a special thing it happens to some extent with cents and dimes, the thinner coins, pretty regularly before the die pair needs replacing every year and any date or strike type would do for an example if you wanted one. Nobody collects them by year or strike types that I am aware of so IDT on a proof coin as far as I'm aware carries no premium over IDT on a business strike for instance just as nobody collect split plating lincoln zinc cents so there's no premium for a proof coin or business strike that has that issue heavily around the devices either.

    Being in OGP wouldn't make a difference to a buyer or a TPG unless it was mishandled when it was removed from the set. Many of the early proof coins that didn't come in OGP sets besides shipped in the same small box are mixed proof sets pieced together. If that coin were desirable and had a premium it would make no difference to a buyer if they got the whole set or just the one coin. In fact he could take the coin out of this set and send it for grading and buy another proof cent of the same year and replace it in the set without issue as long as it was handled properly.
     
    Rick Gardner likes this.
  19. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    No one is disputing the non valuable factor of an IDT.
    I said that one in an untampered OGP proof set might be
    more special than a set that was put together.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2019
    Rick Gardner and Inspector43 like this.
  20. John Burgess

    John Burgess Active Member


    And I replied that no, any way you looked at it, it would not be seen as any more special or valuable.
     
    Rick Gardner likes this.
  21. Rick Gardner

    Rick Gardner New Member

    wow this all very interesting and even more subjective. ok back in the safe she goes. its def a beautiful and unique penny. save it for the grandkids. thought i had something. thanks everyone.
     
    Inspector43 likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page