Hi all you smart peeps again! Hey, I found a 1972 D Lincoln that does not have the "FG" mark on the reverse. I does have the designer initials (VDB) on the obverse. I keep doing a search for the 1972 D Linc, but keeps coming up with the 72 D Kennedy half or the 72 D Linc with no VDB. Help!
The 1969D cent with no FG and I mean no FG or any traces of it at all is worth a few bucks. I have some 1970, 1972, and 1969S cents with no FG but these are worth one cent. The "official" story I heard is that it was a mistake that the 1969D was ever considered collectable. Now that it has been it still retains some value and interest. No one cares about any of the others except possibly the 1986 no FG.
hmmmmm.....not sure I'm buying the polishing bit....I would buy it for a 1972 D with no VDB. I could see a VDB getting polished out or maybe some sort of strike through grease.....Wonder what happened to the FG in the 1972D Kennedy Half? Why is it worth a premium? But thanks for your comments
OK, let me explain. The high points of a coin match the low points of the die. The devices (bust, memorial, date, etc.) on a die are deeper than the field. As the die wears, the die's field is polished, not the devices, just the field. Some devices on the die are deeper than others. The FG being the lowest of the devices, will disappear before the deeper devices. The VDB is on the bust. Much of the bust would have to be polished away for that to disappear. I don't know the reason for the no FG Kennedys. I'm sure that someone else will explain that.
Thanks Rick, that make sense...I'm still trying to get my sea legs on this error thingy. I get all giddy when I find something a little different. I really appreciate you guys and gals educating me.
Take a coin, put it under your shoe and push it across a cement sidewalk for awhile, then look at it. That's PMD, or post mint damage, meaning it's not an error and did not occur during it's creation. Now take another coin and put it into a vice and turn as hard as you can, keep going...unnngg, really pull on that handle. Now take the coin out. See the grooves? That's PMD, not an error. Now take another coin and put it between the jaws of a wire cutter. Now squeeeeeeeeze as hard a you can. See the groove you just made? That's PMD, not an error. Take yet another coin and get a piece of sand paper and just start sanding that thing until your fingers are sore. See how you sanded away the entire image while leaving behind all of those nice sanding marks? PMD, not an error. Now go get a few rolls of coins from the bank. Look at just the ones on the end. Find one that has a ring around the inside circumference. That was made by the machine that rolled the coins. It's PMD, not an error. I know this post sounds sarcastic, but it's not meant to be. Just trying to teach something. lol
Very old post that I'm responding to but also very informative... ive just started getting into collecting and viewing for possible errors etc and have reviewed and studied as much as i can up until certain errors I have not seen mentioned. Such as this FG error which is the first I came across in a 1972-D cent. But the posts here all make sense, and to pennsteve, it does come off sarcastic but you are giving good knowledge.... especially for me with the PMD for a machine that rolled coins. I love to be apart of communities and forums where everyone helps to educate each other. It's beneficial to everyone. With that being said. I believe I found a cent coin with some errors and with one that I cannot even google.. it's a 1999 cent coin and the thickness of the coin from one end to the other had a difference if 0.5mm smaller on one end. Is this a common error? It also has some other errors such as off center strike and whatever else (I have it set aside and it's all written down) I can post a pic if needed. But I was just curious if this is something common with the side difference in thickness of the coin. I can't find anything on Google. Any and all info is appreciated. Thanks
