If it's copper/brass, and not plated zinc, it may be worth something.....to me it looks like the usual bad job by our mint.....
Teachmind, remember this is a 1982, the year the composition changed from copper to zinc. Judging by the spots on the coin, the color and the staining, it's probably zinc and that wears out faster. Also makes for ugly coins.
Why do you suggest it "may be worth something", as in carrying some sort of (any) premium? Like you later suggested, and from what I can see in the iffy photos, the "issue" appears to be nothing more than a mixture of circulation wear, perhaps an overused/worn die, and the generally low quality of large date cents of this year.
I'm willing to wager its a 1982 D Copper, very week strike, or LDS, cent which has just been circulated for 33 years...they get beat up pretty bad. Just got done searching through 9 pounds of copper...still seeing them in my dreams. Saw plenty of these weak strike beat up examples. Also came across plenty of well struck XF to AU examples.
1982 copper cents are worth more than zinc composition. Some were made during the transition. You can tell the difference by weight.
I can only assume this was in response to my question, which was in regards to this.... My apologies if I misunderstood you, but your use of "may" certainly seemed to imply something beyond simple composition, and is why I asked... I thought that, perhaps, you were seeing something I wasn't. I'll also respectfully add that such a statement, if only talking about the nauseatingly common (and false) belief that a "copper" cent is worth its copper content at grade A prices, is misleading, especially to new collectors who are not likely to equate "worth something" to mean an additional cent or two.
Thank you all If it was what you say would it be worth something? i know this coin is a weak, pmd or enviromental damage. Now i can go on searching. Thank you! 3.1OZ
