Not what it seems to be

I must've looked at this 2000 D cent 100 times it just does not look right in the face. When I first looked at it everything tells me PMD. But the more I examine it more I think there's something else going on. Please have a look and tell me what you think, please take a good look at the whole head. This is one that photos do not do it justice.USMC60

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It could be the lips. The design of Abe's lips like this was a one year thing. They are odd but I have seen dateless off centers that you can tell at a glance of the lips they are from 2000

 

My best "guess" would be a plating issue that is allowing the zinc to show through. Had you caught this at a later time the zinc might be bleeding by now. Edit Looking at the other post by Stoneman, there have been many changes over the years to Lincolns head, including the hair, ears, etc.

 

Abe's lips are that way because he replaced all his computers because of Y2K and then nothing happened.

 

I'm nearest tommyc03 in opinion, except I'm thinking lamination(s) rather than plating.

=====
Could this be one of the custom-mutilated cents put into circulation by Chapstick? The marketing guy was later fired, and his severance pay was 75,000 left over...

 

Sorry for going off topic, but my wife tells me that I don't look right in the face periodically.

 

Especially after she gives you the Honey Do list?

 

Lamination , when speaking of cents, is a term usually reserved for coins with a composition of 95 percent copper . An issue with the plating of the plated zinc core years is considered just that , a plating issue.

 

Amen, brother.

 

Agree.

 

You guys that are able to make such decisive determination based on the images shown are simply amazing. Now if the pixels were about ten times larger and 1000 times fewer, I might be able to tell something about it.

 

Only speaking for myself. The older I get, my hearing not what it used to be my eyesight gets worse each year and definitely can't remember a lot of things. So if you can kindly remind me which old fool are you the one on the left are the one on the right. USMC60

 

That's me on the right - Waldorf.

 

I don't know much about anything other than I can look at or photograph a coin in high-quality mono view and errors show that don't or aren't as pronounced under quality stereo inspection, seldom vice versa.

If I were using your device to photograph coins, that I am pretty sure lends itself well to photographing a series of the same shots with having a focal point somewhere around 0.001 to 0.003" from each other in a progression. Then you can take the jpgs, tifs, pngs or whatever it churns out and lay them on top of each other and generally, the result is a large photo-file having much better detail. You can tinker with the 'transparency' when layering and often to good effect.

Microscopes for that specific purpose have micrometric click stops on the focus knobs, similar to the fine click adjustments on some ol Lyman, or any number of manufactured rifle sights.

To make do, you can put a dial indicator in the mix and zero it. Then go at it but, it is tedious, especially if you are not just doing 5 layers, but 20.

This can also be done in stereo using R and L eyepieces of a stereo optical device.

With a mono device, offsetting the subject R and L a very specific calculated distance from the dead center 0,0 coordinate on the X axis can produce simulated, not true, stereo results unless you change the angle of the line of sight of your scope off vertical, for right and left. That is quite complex since you must also move the subject too. It is also subject to high probability errors since the process is tedious. The QA verifying accuracy is beyond the scope or ability for quite a few mammals that might wish to try it.

Does any of this make sense?

I have one of those 2009 Lincolns that using various devices/lighting for visual inspection or photography, his fish lips (different than what your curious coin presents) can look like a crazy error, possibly variety, or PMD.

Have you seen that lincoln professional years coin where his mouth looks much like fish lips?

It is nice enough that one day I'll shoot it as described in stereo and stack all the images hopefully for a very lifelike digital rendering.

I'm behind the curtain with ms. piggy.

 

I'm sure it will make sense to someone. When it comes to me I'm cheap I'm lazy and have too many other projects, to really get involved in coin photography. I still have my old Kodak 110 and it still has film in it from 1976. But I truly do appreciate your come back. Like I said this coin is not what it seems to be. Take for instance this next photo it looks like Lincoln has a mustache. USMC60

 

110 - gone; 126- gone; even 240 (aka APS/Advantix) - gone. 'Tis sad. It's more than half my career, right there.

All that's left in roll films are some 135 and 120, plus some sheet films for the ultimate masochists.

 

One question where can you still get 110 film developed.?

 

We should settle this like gentlemen. How about you just send me the coin for all the missed Monkey's Uncles past and we'll call it square? I would like to see some better pix of this and several other of your coins, seriously. I wish I could see what I know you must be seeing, clearly. Looks like he got his lips smashed into a waffle house flat iron.

Now for a random invective diatribe; I picked up a higher end GTE off brand cellphone the other day for 20 bucks. It's a pretty amazing handheld touch screen computer that just happens to have a phone, internet, wifi (cast images wirelessly), great camera (sound controllable), gyroscopic goodies, GPS and all sorts of cool sensors/functions. Just saying is all. Add a magnifier in front of it's lens and it gets kinda amazing for what it is.

I snagged one of those phonescope trinkets. The magnification is too strong to be useful for coin work. The magnifying apps will do most cell cameras to around 5-7X max and most also have a great light too.

Eventually, I'll get around to substituting a more appropriate lens to provide less magnification at a longer working range, along with whittling a better diffuser out of a milk carton or something...for the Phonescope failure. At least it is for my purposes. Meanwhile, the magnifier app works well as an illuminated loupe and a good high-density touchscreen does render pleasing results to my eyes. I hardly carry a loupe with me anymore.

 

The few remaining one-hour labs can do it. Or wherever you would take a disposable camera.