I know im newer to this forum. But I have to say I have found it rather fun. As well as somewhat informing. Anyhow I had to go out and buy yet again another safe. So While digging thought my stock I pulled these two cents out. And thought lets see what people thought of them. They are both errors well one I know is because it came out or a fresh bank roll of 56Ds I was digging threw years ago, I just don't know what kind. The other one I got in a roll about 2 years ago. That was in a back box of roles that as I remember sat for about 30 years in another guys collection. Feel free to say what you feel about these. As well how the hell they happened. http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l...rrent=Scan10039.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch4 <> 56D http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l...rrent=Scan10040.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch3 <> 56D http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l...rrent=Scan10041.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch2 <> cant tell the date http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l...rrent=Scan10042.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch1
The 1956 Is right from a original mint role. I cracked out about 7 years ago. As for the other onel I have no idea.
Not meaning to be picky, but the coin is a '56-D. But more to the point, there is no such thing as an original mint roll from the '50s as the mint did not sell them. Rolls from that period could only be obtained from banks. And in bank rolls it is not at all uncommon to get a mix of new unc and circulated coins in the same roll. Regardless of that, on the coin itself, just at the bottom of the split area there is a raised spot where the metal appears to be pushed up. It is this raised area that makes me think it is the result of post mint damage. If it were not for that raised metal I would consider the coin was the result of a split planchet or a very severe lamination error. But since the metal is raised - I think it's damage.
You could be right about it happeing post mint, but how did this happen. The roll it was in where all 1956-D BU and so are the other rolls i still have unopened. Ill dig them out and get a pic of one ,, Also theres a few things i forgot to mention. there is a slight bow/ bend to the whole coin and the pieces that look bent up and out, look up close in person and you can see light threw them.A very small curling over. That you can see much better from holding it on its side. That might be what you are seeing as a raised spot. My scanner is a crap.
The 56 D cent looks to be a defective planchet. As for the other cent I would say it was whizzed. Lou
Speaking in regards to one with the unreadable date. >>>------> Whizzzed? you think. I think its a little more then that. If there is a way to explain it as an error and if it is a error.Then I think what happen is the die jammed down on it while in final rest of the pressing and twisted down on it, do to the exteame pressure.
You could be correct, but why would it only affect the outer ares of the cent and not Lincolns profile. Lou
Could have been the only part of the die left intact when it. smashed in to pieces before it was shut down? But you question is my question.
Whizzed is polishing a coin with a fine wire brush or using some other polishing substance to artificially make a coin appear to be higher in grade than it really is. I don't see how that word applies to the one coin that is shown. Both coins were damaged, the 1956 D looks like it was perhaps soldered to a ring and then broken off. That would account for the two "solder" spots on the reverse and the bent shape. There are an infinite number of ways to damage a coin so it is difficult to tell just what occured but both coins are post=mint damaged. Bill
