1971 LMC extra thick reverse lettering of USA

Discussion in 'Error Coins' started by Jim sullivan, Apr 10, 2019.

  1. Jim sullivan

    Jim sullivan Toned coins rule

    I found this 1971 Lincoln cent and the letters in USA on the reverse are much much thicker than normal. I dont see any spread at all that would suggest a DD and there are no DDR listed for this year that I could find so what else could cause this? Posting pictures THAT INCLUDE a normal 1971 cent. Coin in question is on the LEFT SIDE.
    Thanks guys!!!! CM190409-205014006.jpg
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. alurid

    alurid Well-Known Member

    A worn Die can have that effect in it. I do agree they look thicker. The coin on the right looks to be struck with a newer die with less wear.
     
  4. Jim sullivan

    Jim sullivan Toned coins rule

    Yes, the coin on the RIGHT was included for comparison. My first thought after finding no DDR at all for this date was worn die. I suppose that is possible but nothing else appears to be that much weaker or displaying that "worn die" look in the fields. Everything else appears normal, to me anyway, and comparable to other strikes of that era. Idk....weird one....
     
  5. paddyman98

    paddyman98 I'm a professional expert in specializing! Supporter

    1971? 48 years of circulation wear I call smooshiness
     
  6. Oldhoopster

    Oldhoopster Member of the ANA since 1982

    So does that make it a PS (Paddyman Smoosh)?
     
    paddyman98 likes this.
  7. Jim sullivan

    Jim sullivan Toned coins rule

    I would tend to agree with you but I dont believe thats whats going on here. The coin is in a nice AU condition with minimal wear and no evidence of flattening to the letters like that. Too uniform also. Im 99.9% sure its that way right from the start...im stumped
     
  8. Oldhoopster

    Oldhoopster Member of the ANA since 1982

    Then the question becomes "how did this occur during the die making or minting process"? Coinage is a well defined process. Once it leaves the press, there are countless things that could happen to a coin. When confronting a possible unknown error you should ALWAYS try to explain, How it could happen during the manufacturing process, not using the default, "I can't explain how this could be PMD, so it must be an error".

    BTW: worn die or PS (paddyman smoosh PMD) makes the most sense to me.
     
  9. Jim sullivan

    Jim sullivan Toned coins rule

    I agree 100% with your assesment and therein lies the issue. Other than a DD, or a worn die I have not discovered a cause im aware of to cause this at the mint. Theres no DD listed, but the coin does not appear to ME to display overt signs of overused die to the extent to cause this. As for PMD i again do not see evidence for this being the cause. So with that said im left with unlisted DD, or die wear I do not recognise. Assuming those are the only 2 possible causes. I again do not see any evidence for Paddys "smoosh" theory...lol..although i will remember and use that term from now till death....lol....so then Akums razor would lead me to die wear. So until I find a reason otherwise, i guess thats it...
    If anyones got somethin else, let me know!!
    Thanks
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page