Hi all. I got questions! I chose these three errors because I see them frequently on different years, which makes me think it must be a common mint error and not a one-off? I don't expect ANY of these to have value or anything, I just want to know what makes them like this. I got that burning curiosity thang. And internet searches have yielded no results. So I'm asking you! Aren't you lucky! Here's the first, a 1990 with . . . . big holes in it. Like the top layer caved in when the die struck. A sort of 3d moth-eaten look. I've seen it a few times and this is the best example. The second: a strange "sandpaper" like finish? The front and back (not shown) are covered in many, many little raised bumps. This, again, is the best example I could find. What gives? And then these: some pennies with what I think is called "woodgrain". I LOVE how these look, and I save every one I find because they are so great. After my pile grew to about 10, I noticed that 9 of them were from 1980 and the other one was 1979, a year earlier. How come? Is the metal "bad" and that's what makes this finish? Why 1980? As always, THANK YOU for your thoughts. I'm feeling smarter already! ms. p
The first one is post-mint damage. Second is planchet flaws I think and the third is improper mixing of the metals.
For the first 2 pics it looks like someone was playing with some acid. On the first one it also looks like the verdigris got at it.
The 1990-D is definitely post mint damage. The 1983-D is plating separation. Common in the first few years of the zinc plated coins (83 - ~90). The wood graining is either due to poor alloy mixing or environmental. Without seeing the reverse, I cannot be sure. As to why 1980, the only reason I can give you is they released a batch in your area. I have found them to be rather unusual for any cent after ~1930 and quite scarce for LMC's. They were actually quite common in the early cents particularly "S" mints. I have an album of them at my home page if you would like to look at them.
THe first one is Zinc rot. It occurs on coins from 1982 to present. when the copper plating is scrached it exposes the zinc below ant the zinc starts to rot. I have seen cents wher just about all that is left is the copper plating. The second one shows classic gas bubbles that were common on the first few years of the zinc lincolns. poor cleaning of the zinc before plating caused gas bubbles to form between the zinc and the plating giving the look pf little pimples number 3, what rlm said Richard
Ziggy is right on the money with his responses. I will add that none of them are considered errors although some folks consider an improper alloy mix on the cents as an error. They really aren't though as it is not uncommon for cents to have a slight woodgrain look to them prior to 1982. Thanks, Bill
Looks like someone shot at the first coin splitting the plating and starting the rotting process. They're like ziggy says.
Thanks! Think of all the pennies I won't have to wonder about any more. Is there a book that would be good for me to read about Lincoln cents? That might cover some of these "errors" and processes, etc.
I saved my money on not buying a book and hung around this site for info. Or you can google 'coin errors' and get an accurate description.
I don't want to put a link in here as it can draw unwanted spammers to this site but if you google "Ask About Coins", with quotes, you'll find where I have my Newsletters designed to help folks know what to look for. It may answer several of your questions. The articles won't hurt either. Thanks, Bill
Funny.. I was going to ask about my '82.. which is just like your '83. As an added bonus, I also received a nice die chip on the obverse. Here's the pics..
It does look like a bubble, from the copper not fully bonding with the zinc. Happens alot with the 1982's.
True with the shot at. I've done that myself with shot shells from a .357. The powder starts that effect after a while. I've always liked that bad mixture of metals that creats those streaks. Used to be common on the really older coins. Not much quality control back then.
