The D that I am seeing is slightly raised but behind the date. Would someone tell me their thoughts? Thanks in advance. Hopefully the pics will turn out.
That's different looking. It's probably corrosion between the zinc and the copper plating. I can see other areas on the coin with it.
Nope no corrosion on the coin. I am aware what corrosion looks like on a coin and this isn't even close. I will probably send this coin off for evaluation as I believe it to be a dropped letter.
Dropped letters leave an incuse image on the coin. From what I can see from your photos the mark in question is raised. It is an interesting coin, but my inclination is to go with the others and say that it's a plating issue. The first few years the mint used the copper plated zinc planchets they had all sorts of problems with plating issues. One sees these gas bubbles and "streaked plating" all the time, and they sometimes bubble up in some interesting patterns. When those patterns happen to resemble a familiar shape, our brain does the rest and sees something that is not what it appears to be.
It is not, I admit it does look somewhat like a "D" but It is not, I admit it does look somewhat like a "D" but if you understand the minting process the logic is not there. First, it's "P" mint coin so no "D" punch was near it, (the die). Second it's way too big for the normally used "D" on these year cents. Third, just because you think you see no erosion it is there and that's the answer as you already have been informed - the erosion is under the copper plating. This is the first "full" year of copper coated zinc cents. They still were working on problems with the copper coating adhering to the zinc core. Forth, the image (if you think it's a dropped letter) is way to big for any device found on any Lincoln cent. As I have said many times on CoinTalk we do not just make determinations based on what we see or think we see or don't think. We make them with a knowledge of the minting process first, and then see if it could be possible, not the other way around. It must fit some portion (or problem with) minting procedures. If it does not it is most likley not possible and therefore cannot be explained - if then it cannot be expained it is not reality. We see hundreds and thousands of unusal things on Lincoln Cents but we don't, at that point jump to a conclusion - the conclusion needs to proved.
First let me thank you all for your replies, they are educational and appreciated. Second, yes it is a P coin but in this case the mint mark has no bearing on the issue. I believe the D could be from the D in God, it is the same size and shape. Third, yes there is some corrosion on the coin at the forehead where the metal has a gouge in it post mint, and there are even a couple of bubbles under the surface of the coin but they are not the same structure as the D in question. As far as the letter being incused I agree that that is the case most of the time. However, according to Arnold Margolis in his book The Error Coin Encyclopedia page 262 paragraph 7 continuing to page 263 he states "We must remember that the letter-bearing flake has come from a previously struck coin. Therefore, the metal which makes up that flake has been struck and its internal structure has been compressed by the force of that strike. This has the effect of harding the metal in that flake. When it is later impressed into the surface of the next coin, its hardness will resist the forces which deform it. The result will be a fairly well formed letter or numeral in the surface of that coin. It will be sightly raised if the flake sticks to the surface." I believe that is what I'm seeing. I will be the first to admit I am not an expert and have a lot to learn but until I can be convinced about an issue I will continue exploring until I convince myself I'm wrong and that is often enough. I think I do pretty much understand the minting process as Mr Margolis explains it well in his book.
I'm glad you have that reference, I wish more on here had read it. Plus I hope you have a winner here I just don't think it's going to turn out that way but I've been wrong a few hundred times before. One last thing, when I opened the first picture and blew it up it, it was fairly easy to see a large area of plating lift around/under the area of your letter in question, like a puffed up area bigger than the letter itself in and around the entire area so keep this in mind - the chances of a true "dropped letter" landing right on that precice area are pretty slim. Just think about it the exact area in question also being puffed up under plating, well, you just got to go (in 9 out of 10 cases) that the corrosion or lft is the cause. We really do try and give well thought out answers and help on here.
Sitting here with the coin in hand I swear I do not see any plate lifting or separation anywhere around the date area. But lets just take a hypothetical. Suppose that it is a dropped letter and the "scrap" piece of metal containing the letter started to separate, would that describe what you are seeing? I may very well be wrong but I'm almost convinced enough to send it off and let someone else see it with their eyeballs. If it is only worth a cent the education is priceless. I do appreciate the feedback.
It is not the same shape as the D in God. To begin with, it's too tall. Also the problem with the notation, "It will be slightly raised if the flake sticks to the surface" has nothing to do with this as the anomaly is a part of the coin itself and not a flake stuck or struck into the coin. Also, that notation is doubtful as the pressure of a strike would distort any detail on a "flake". I don't buy the concept described in that notation anyway
