HELP! 1956 wheat penny error!!! No reverse side

Discussion in 'What's it Worth' started by Motherofallcoins555, Apr 7, 2020.

  1. For real :) thanks girl :)
    steve westermeier likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.
  3. Kevin Mader

    Kevin Mader Fellow Coin Enthusiast

    Looking at your one-sided coin, it does look like it was ground. But it's a distant shot, so a closer photo would have helped. But as noted, uniface coins are a minting error. I found one during a CRH event and wasn't sure what I had until I did some research. The key was that the coin weight is normal...just less the reverse details. Postage scales are pretty inexpensive off of Amazon or the like, so if you have the means, buy one. But if you have a Popsicle stick, an old AA battery and scotch tape, you can construct a crude, but effective scale. If your coin is legitimate, you can take another copper coin (not a zinc cent) and see if you're coin weighs the same or less. Good luck and welcome to CT.
  4. Well I weighed the coin on my neighbor's "medicinal herb" scale and it was 2.91 :(
  5. That sounds like some seriously impossibly possible life hack! I'm googling that now lol
  6. Kevin Mader

    Kevin Mader Fellow Coin Enthusiast

    @Motherofallcoins555 I came across this in a drawer...illustrates the idea. That's a 1988 LMC Zincoln taped to the stick. And a spent AAA battery. I used a LWC (copper) to illustrate when a heavier cent is introduced. And also a 2019 LSC for when is should be somewhat even. I think you'll need to get the postage scale, but neat for sorting more significant differences in weight.

    IMG_3911.JPG IMG_3912.JPG IMG_3913.JPG IMG_3911.JPG IMG_3912.JPG IMG_3913.JPG
    Motherofallcoins555 likes this.
  7. That's impressive!!!! I'm trying it lol! But I did weigh it and it was 2.91.... does that mean it was probably for sure ground down also I found some others too... but different coins
  8. Kevin Mader

    Kevin Mader Fellow Coin Enthusiast

    I think we can see some witness marks on the reverse which suggests mechanical removal. A closeup would confirm it (closer but not unnecessarily close). Weight might make the low side of tolerance. I don’t know what that is offhand. But the photo should be all that’s needed.
    Motherofallcoins555 likes this.
  9. Also the reverse side has no ridge 20200412_231905.jpg 20200412_231905.jpg 20200412_231905.jpg 20200412_231905.jpg 20200412_231743.jpg 20200412_231905.jpg 20200412_231743.jpg 20200412_231905.jpg
    steve westermeier likes this.
  10. Whoops lol well that definitely worked! lol
    steve westermeier and Kentucky like this.
  11. Kevin Mader

    Kevin Mader Fellow Coin Enthusiast

    Those confirm for me that the coin was altered by some one. The lines in the surface appear to travel in the same direction like sandpapered to remove details. This would reduce the weight slightly. I might speculate a time-saver machine at a shop. That would offer better control.
    Motherofallcoins555 likes this.
  12. What about my dimes though
  13. frankjg

    frankjg Well-Known Member

    Maybe someone was going to turn it into a love token. Not really the right era but all sorts of people do all sorts of things.
    Motherofallcoins555 likes this.
  14. Love token?
  15. lehmansterms

    lehmansterms Many view intelligence as a hideous deformity

    As for "Love Tokens" -
    It was a common custom (mainly in the Victorian age) to have a jeweler plane-off one side of a coin (typically silver, but they exist on coins in gold and Æ alloys too) and engrave a name, initials, a date (birthdate, anniversary, etc.) and/or some endearance - often given as a keepsake/memento when someone close was going off to war or to sea, or as a memorial for someone dear who had passed, etc. I have also seen some highly elaborate engraving jobs including decorations and/or a scene like a ship or crossed swords. These were given to (or created for) loved ones as mementos/keepsakes. You find similarly altered coins from all over the world and going well back in history. The practice seems to have fallen out of vogue in the present day - or maybe it's because few jewelers are still able to do the fine engraving work necessary to create a "love token".

    I would like to suggest a different possible origin for this piece. 2.91g is a little light, but not much outside the "standard deviation" of weights for Æ cents - they can vary + or - 0.1 or 0.2g without being improbably light or heavy.
    If, therefore, it wasn't planed or ground down to remove the struck details of the reverse there is a small chance that some misadjustment of the minting press was allowing more than one blank to be introduced between the dies, but still remaining within the collar. This would yield two single-sided coins - one just a reverse, one, like yours, just an obverse. Modern minting machinery turns out small struck coins like cents to the tune of hundreds per minute (rather like a machine gun) so the actual process is only able to be viewed via inspection of the results. Usually errors like this would be caught and pulled out of the stream, but the faster the machinery goes, the easier it is for "mistakes" to get by the inspectors watching the output stream of coins.

    A similar thing used to occasionally occur with hand-struck coins and dies. When a struck coin remained stuck to the upper (reverse) die, the minters might not notice it was stuck there. Then, after introducing another blank, the struck obverse of the previous (struck and stuck) coin acted as a die to impress a negative image of the obverse on the reverse of the second coin. This is called a brockage. This is a very clear example of a brockaged Roman era "Provincial" or local coin from a city.

    Although I grew up basically "down the street" from the Philadelphia mint, I know somewhat more about the presumed details of ancient minting processes, so I don't really know from a practical standpoint how likely it may be for two blank planchets to be introduced and struck together. However, there are a number of other sorts of modern minting errors in which objects or whole additional coins/blanks wind up being "struck-through", the resulting error coins making it past the inspectors for collectors to discover.
    thomas mozzillo and Kevin Mader like this.
  16. Kevin Mader

    Kevin Mader Fellow Coin Enthusiast

    Regarding the process for creating uniface coins, it is as suggested above. 2 planchets are in place when the press cycles. One coin emerges with the obverse and the other with the reverse. The facing sides remain blank.
  17. Kevin Mader

    Kevin Mader Fellow Coin Enthusiast

  18. thomas mozzillo

    thomas mozzillo Supporter! Supporter

  19. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    No one is implying that at all. This coin was answered by @furryfrog02 within the first couple of posts.

    This coin is altered not a real uniface strike. A uniface strike will have a ghostly image from the details of the struck side. Yes it can happen. But it takes at least two coins to be in the chamber at once. This coin was ground down to deceive the buyer or collector.
    Kevin Mader likes this.
  20. Kevin Mader

    Kevin Mader Fellow Coin Enthusiast

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page