Never seen this before. 2000D

The learning process here is not tough. The issue you brought forth can have many causes, in this case it is the movement of material and what caused that movement is speculation initially, followed by analysis of result and proximate cause. In most instances an answer is forthcoming, yet some become an opinion because there is no definitive response.. Answers to all questions will not be found here, IMO. Stick around and keep asking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I guess I'm just too sensitive sometimes...

 

Aren't we all at some point in time. When I first joined CT, I thought everyone was out to get me and actually they were knocking me off my high horse so they could talk to me face to face. My attitude sucked. Watch the posts that comment will generate.

 

Just gonna say, if it takes a microscope and 40x+ magnification to see it, it's not significant or important,,, or valued.

that goes for die cracks, die chips, cuds and even doubled dies. It might be something to catalog, but it's not something of value or relevance.

This is why "little things" get dismissed around here. blow everything up big enough with a microscope and you're bound to see something eventually, even if it's just electrons.

 

I agree with your statement in a general sense, however, it is sometimes necessary to magnify an image to verify or refute a claim. Just saying...

 

Well sure, Robert, but that's beside his point. He's talking about these idiots coming on here day after day thinking they discovered the New World because they see a shape on a coin at high magnification they never noticed before and it looks just like their grandfather's pet poodle that just died and we'd better agree with and coddle them to the point of pathetic-condescension if that's what it takes otherwise we're egomaniacs! Tell me that's not how it goes. That's what we're bitching about, let's get that clear...

 

I can agree with this, however, in general it's bad practice to use it as your magnification, everything looks like it's major when it's something very minor. I'd agree when looking to judge authenticity, but it's kind of overkill for what may be a 10 micron long die crack.

I've got nothing to say bad about a new collector or someone that wants to use it but they will eventually wind up like Italy8686 and come on here day after days asking what it is and if it's valuable, and then argue why or why not, when it's a piece of lint on the coin surface that looks like a fissure under the microscope.

I'm not here it argue with or deter people, just trying to point out that even if it is something, it would be No Added Value because it's so tiny, Although you can pretty much sell anything for $1.00 on ebay, even a very common cent. So in that sense, magnify away.

 

I think you need an apple.
I totally understand the issue raised and agree with the premise. I have posted my position regarding DDO's, as an example, that they are no big deal for me because, in most cases, magnification is needed to observe the condition. The mint has done a disservice to the coin collecting community by introducing zincolns and their propensity to flake, peel, bubble and pit which causes newbies to think they have the "million dollar coin."
So, what are we to do with the newbies and their questions? Answer them, hopefully with kind words.

 

Allow me to rewrite my post. It should have read: I agree with your statement regarding the use of magnification, however, there are instances when it is necessary to verify or refute a claim.

 

Interesting posts, and all are well taken.

Believe it or not, I have extremely low expectations of "getting rich" from this coin or even the "more significant" finds I've had such as a 1936 DDO, a D/S and many of the less significant DDR's from the memorial cents I'm going through right now. I probably have a dozen or two of them. They have not been posted here because of the obvious lower significance and the fact that they are well documented and understood. A few of my finds may be worth 2 or 3 digits. I don't try to sell them though because I enjoy having them in my collection.

Regarding the argument of "if you need a microscope..." I'm going to disagree. First, my eyes are over 60 years of age and don't work like they used to. A loupe does not magnify most of my coins enough for me to be able to inspect them. I can see the anomaly of the coin photographed for this original post with a loupe, but not well. I would have missed both the 1936 DD and the D/S without the microscope. Additionally, many of the errors considered to have some value (such as listed on NGC Variety Plus and Variety Vista) require magnification to see, at least for many of us. Think about the less significant DDO's, the designer initials, etc. They are still significant and some even valuable. I remember the day I was able to see a pattern on 1mm surface mount capacitor without magnification. Those days are long past now.

 

Nice pics. Good job. Regular cent

 

These members are helping the OP out in their own way. Making a coin has speed bumps. The marks are truly marks.

 

What

 

Hear dat!!!!