Hello all! So I came across two pennies, one a 1968-D and another 1969-D, obviously both from the same mint but they look very different. For example one has lettering to the edge and the other more towards the center. The other difference was the color, one looks like it has still some shinny copper left but the other is dull like brass. Why are they so different? Also, I wanted to brag on my 2nd Wheat and my first TRUE CUD Dime! Its small and the coin is very slightly offset but still cool.
Thanks for saving me the typing on the change. The reverse of that '28 looks similar to a dime, though I don't recall one having a red arrow attached. Hummm.....Strange.
That gave me a neat coin collecting idea. Last year a die was used and first year a die was cast for all denominations. Is there a way to find out when dies are changed?
So I looked at the Lincoln Cents again and also noticed that the 68 is thinner than the 69, am I correct in assuming that is also due to the worn die needing more punches and flattening the cent? What about the color difference?
Wasn't talking about the thickness, which could be explained because these coins are heavily circulated and bad examples to use. If you were to look at MS Lincoln cents from the mid-late 90's and the 1970's I think it is easier to see the design changes. Those cents used in the examples are the same size/ weight/ circumference and thickness when they leave the mint. If one is thinner now, it's not by design it is from wear.
Wexler and Flynn's book ~Authoritative Reference on Lincoln Cents has photos/descriptions of the changes for the Lincoln cent.
Talking about thickness on the struck coin is an exercise in futility. Most people try to judge the thickness of a coin by looking at the edge. But the apparent thickness of the edge tends to be a function of how well struck the coin is. The stronger or better the strike the more the rims fill in the thicker the edge of the coin. Another problem is if you will take coin and rotated around you'll notice quite frequently that the edge is not the same thickness all the way around the coin. Also the better the strike the more the devices fill and so they also appear to be thicker if you measured with a caliper at specific locations on the coin. A stronger strike will force the fields of the dies closer together so areas measured field to field will be thinner on a well struck coin that on a poorly struck coin. Taken altogether it's really not possible to make a thickness comparison between struck coins. Where thickness variations would show would be on the thickness of the blanks, not the planchets, the blanks. Even there you have problems due to mint tolerance ranges a blank at the low end of the tolerance will be thinner than a blank at the high-end of the tolerance. And you going to have real problems trying to tell a blank from one year from the blank of another year so you can make your comparison.
