I think I have a improper alloy mix 1980p penny error

My only issue with the roller theory: Could someone please explain why is there no signs of an incuse part of the planchent if this was caused by the rollers having some form of contamination leading to this discoloration?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Since it's merely a stain, there's no reason why the lines should be raised or incuse. Also, any microscopic deviation in height could be eliminated by the strike.

Another point: I've never seen an improper alloy mix error on a clad coin, but I have seen many clad dimes and quarters with roller marks. Again, the lines are quite superficial (i.e., easily worn through) and they are never associated with cracking or peeling cladding.

 

@Insider, still waiting for your proof of what you are certain this coin represents.

 

@JCro57 - Joe, when is your book due out?

 

Hopefully before Columbus Day in October

 

Be sure to let us know. Thanks.

 

Will it be available outside the States? Not sure there is a market for it in Spain, but I definitely want to obtain a copy so when the time comes I may have to ask you where I can place an order, if this is OK

 

As long as you cover international shipping, I will ship it anywhere

 

No problem there. Keep us informed, thanks

 

enamel7, posted: Ok, now I'm just seeing someone that wants to be argumentative. Of course I was replying about the original coin! Not my fault you have trouble comprehending. Obviously you convinced yourself long ago that you had coins that were bad alloy mix and now you refuse to except it. Why do we have to prove our view, but you don't yours? They are roller lines. The fact they are entirely uniform geometrically proves that. No way that happens randomly. Now your turn. Prove why they can't be roller lines."

Mountain Man, posted: "Insider, still waiting for your proof of what you are certain this coin represents."

LOL. I'm letting you guys prove it for yourself by asking questions about what you see. Unfortunately, few are looking at the OP's coin and commenting. I lost the silver spoon.

IMO, this coin represents an alloy error. Two coin error experts and many members disagree. I've posted several reasons to defend my opinion. I gave one and others gave two. There are more. Look at the coin.

Roller marks exist on many coin types. Rollers get dirty. Questions for the error experts:

1. WHY DON'T WE SEE STREAKED MORGAN DOLLARS? Many have roller marks that were not struck out completely and surly the rollers had to get dirty for dollars and cents.

2. The streaks on the unnecessary coins that were posted are virtually identical. Did you notice how THE SAME LINE ON THE OP'S COIN CHANGES IN WIDTH while the lines on the other coins are virtually uniform.?

3. Do you see any laminations on the OP's coin? Do you think the rollers split the planchet surface BEFORE THE COIN WAS STRUCK; or did it result because the mix was not homogeneous?

 

@Insider I've always enjoyed your columns in the numismatic publications and learned a lot from them over the years, but I disagree with your conclusions on this coin. From a materials science and metallurgical standpoint, it doesn't make sense for the discoloration to be so uniform if it was caused by inhomogeneities in the melt. I would expect any poorly melted/mixed area to be random in size and shape. While the rolling process elongates these grains/domains, the thickness should vary due to the original shape of the poorly mixed region. Think of the old silly putty ads. When you transferred an image from a comic and stretched it, did it deform at a consistent size and shape across the entire piece?

IMO, I believe that the mint was doing something in the early 80s with the rolling process. The lines in the OPs cent look like stains, not a composition variation. Process Engineers are always looking for ways to make things "better, faster, cheaper" (I've spent a chunk of my career as a process engineer). I suspect that they made a process change that somehow resulted in oils/lubrication being pressed into the surface as the ingot was rolled. It may have taken a little time for this to discolor, but once it was noticed, the process was changed. This would explain the @mikediamond comment about seeing this discoloration on cents from this time period. I can also add anecdotal information about seeing these thin, even stripes on cents from the 1980-81. If oils are forced slightly below the surface during the pressures from the rolling process, I would expect stains from environmental exposure, not laminations.

I hope this answers some of the questions you posted in previously. I'm not 100% convinced that roller marks are the explanation, but it makes a lot more sense than improper alloying (at least to me)

 

First, I really enjoy your posts and thank you for sharing your knowledge. I have to ask since rollers are round what says any surface materials that may be attached/ embedded must be uniform around the circumference?Think of a new paint roller that is not fully saturated, it will leave streaks that may or may not be uniform. I use many materials that are rolled in my profession, to be specific MLS (multilayered steel) gaskets. Most of these are “impregnated” with some type of chemical, supposedly done in the rolling process. I do know if you get one that is streaked, uniformed or not, it will eventually fail.

 

Looking at this image


the delaminations around his face could definitely be caused by barriers between dissimilar materials which you would find in an improper mix. Also, although the lines are pretty much straight and parallel, the color/shading seems to change along with the thickness at selected places. I still tend to think it is a woodie.

 

I can send you a couple of rolls if you want. These are not uncommon.

 

Kentucky's image does show a retained lamination peel. It's the only cent I've encountered with purported roller stains that is associated with a lamination error. I suspect the association is coincidental because the cracking and peeling is not aligned with the streaks.

 

Rolls of books?

 

mikediamond, posted: "Kentucky's image does show a retained lamination peel. It's the only cent I've encountered with purported roller stains that is associated with a lamination error. I suspect the association is coincidental [Like one in a million?] because the cracking and peeling is not aligned with the streaks.

 

Look everyone, I appreciate the comments but please treat me as just a member here asking questions. Most of which I am still waiting to be answered. The ONLY coin that counts at this time is the OP's.

A rough (and dirty?) roller can leave an impression in the strip. I suspect the finishing mill rollers were kept cleaner. A strip is spread lengthwise possibly adding to the "streak" effect we see. Most of the time, planchets with impressions from the rollers and other blanks will still produce coins with no evidence of these minor defects. Alloy mix errors of all types are not struck out and leave traces of color or crystals.

One thing to consider is the strip is no longer made at the Mint. They buy it. If I were an error expert, I should contact the factory producing cent strip when it was entirely bronze. It would make a great article.

PS I believe the marks on the OP's coin resulted from something besides dirty rollers which have been blamed for the other coins in this thread that I'd like to learn more about later.

 

IMO. That sums it up, doesn't it? Without the coin in hand, all any of us can do is put forth our opinions and without a large number of "experts" agreeing with it, it doesn't even buy a cup of coffee.

 

Mountain Man, posted: "IMO. That sums it up, doesn't it? Without the coin in hand, all any of us can do is put forth our opinions and without a large number of "experts" agreeing with it, it doesn't even buy a cup of coffee."

Absolutely not! Unless a person is a "sheep" who does not care. There are two expert error guys in this discussion. One writes a column and one wrote a book. This coin is a black or white example of one or the other opinion. The "clues" on the OP's coin are very obvious to me. We know the coin has streaks of a different color and different width. We can see the coin is laminated, a characteristic very often found on alloy errors and NOT SEEN up to now on the error type he defends: roller marks.

This has been a respectable discussion. I believe there is a clear answer. I've asked several questions to make folks think. Anyone who is satisfied with the present state of this discussion is free to drop out. I am waiting for anyone to change my mind. The image of the OP's coin has all the evidence needed to make a determination. I've seen thousands of incorrect alloy mixed coins under the scope. So far, this is one of them.