1992 Lincoln cent FG Error?

I know a little, but would like to hear what you all have to say about it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not sure whether it's a large or small date, I believe it's ddo#1 tho. I hope so.

 

The rightward-curving top of the G fails to reach a vertical line defined by the upward-curving bottom portion of the G. In that respect it resembles RDV-006. On the other hand, it looks like we're missing the downwardly-directed serif of the G. In that respect it resembles RDV-005. Since no "hybrid" initials have been reported to my knowledge, I suspect the downward-pointing serif was removed by die abrasion.

What we need at this point is a high-magnification view of the FG of your cent, one taken after removal of the gunk that obscured the bottom of the G.

 

There is no FG.

 

Nvm. I see it.

 

Here's the back. can u tell what dd version it is?

 

does the grade look good?

 

You need to start Your own thread for that coin cause it will cause confusion with this one.

 

Thanks Mike I took photos without the gunk also. there is no PMD and there
is no die abrasion. The top of the G looks like an RDV-006 and the bottom
looks like a RDV-005. its weird! I also noticed the bottom of the G on the RDV-006 is
more rounded where as the bottom of a RDV-005 is more flat. mines has the
same type of flatness as the RDV-005.

 

Thanks for the improved photos. It does appear to have qualities characteristic of both RDV-005 and RDV-006. It's definitely worth a closer look by someone better versed in these matters than me. You might wish to submit it to James Wiles or Mike Ellis of CONECA. Other worthies would include Robert (BJ) Neff, Jason Cuvelier, Bob Piazza, and Chris Welch of Lincoln Cent Resource. You would do well to post your inquiry and photos there. Who knows, maybe you've discovered a new style of designer's initials.

 

Now that would be interesting...would that imply a completely different reverse design that has not been used before?

 

ok thanks. Im going to post it on Lincoln Cent Resource and also contact Jame Wiles
I believe I have his info.

 

I went ahead and posted a link to this thread on LCR.

 

Ok thanks a bunch Mike let me know what You hear.

 

Tommy, here is a photo that another member has allowed me permission to use. It is a 1989 cent with the initials suffering from die abrasion. It looks almost identical to yours (flat bottom of the G, almost no distinct serif, top of the G not extending far enough for an 005). I believe that your coin is simply one that suffered from die abrasion. I think I can also see some polish marks in some of your photos in your first post. But again I am just learning, so I will wait for the experts to make the final determination...

 

that is 1989 mines is a 1992 The FG is clean theres no PMD and no polish marks I
doubt Die Abrasion. They look similar or maybe that photo isnt die abrasion and it
is in fact different Initials. also the length of the bottom of my G is longer and The FG
isnt as thick as the photo You posted.

 

The dates (comparing 1989 to 1992) wouldn't matter, as both of them under normal circumstances would have the same reverse design (RDV-006). Plus, die abrasion would not affect each coin exactly the same...there can be differences in the lengths of certain parts of the initials, but the overall effect could be attributed to the same thing.

 

Lets wait for another opinion.

 

This may be of interest to you Tommy. http://varietyvista.com/1989PRDV005 cent.htm
I know this is about an '89 but as non cents said it's the same reverse design as your coin.

 

Look at the horizontal lengths of the F the upper bar being longer as a 6, then look at the inside of the left vertical of G, drop that down to the right edge of the memorial foot. Still points to 6. This is a RDV-006. Yes?