Ok, here's what I've done...I ordered two typical sets of, "1959-2010 BU Cents" from ebay just to feel the waters, get my feet wet in the copper/Lincoln Memorial Cent world. I've been going through them and I have a few, probably overly simplistic questions. First, here's a coin where I learned my cent anatomy: On the obverse I notice high areas of the cheek bone, beard, and hair. Fine details noted in the corners of the jacket, beard hair, and facial lines. I figured the more circulated a cent becomes, the more flattened these high areas would become and the more dulled the fine lines of the jacket and face become....right? For MS grades, I'm looking for more luster and less markings in the field with bolder letters. On the reverse I notice the pillars and steps are hallmark spots for wear, especially being in the middle of the coin where most put their fingers. The details of the bushes and steps seem to vary however and I'm still gaining a feel. Again, look for strong details of minute structures and less contact marks for those MS grades. (At least, that's how I'm assuming the grading would work, so correct me if I'm wrong or missing a vital aspect) Now, let's look at something a little more different: This is a reverse of a 1983 D cent. I have two minimal questions regarding this cent...first the steps. This cent has fairly good steps. Does separation of a step by a contact mark deminish the grade...is there a full step designation for the LMC? Secondly, I'm seeing wear on the upper right corner/section of the monument. I am assuming the completion of the details along the upper portion of the monument and above the pillars factors greatly into the grade of a MS coin, correct, as less evident detail shows less strike or more wear? And then there's this piece... It looks to me as the obverse has grease-filled effect. Liberty, In God We Trust, and the last 1 in the date are all faint. Lincoln....hard to say but I'm leaning toward that grease filled die as if it's wear, it's uneven when comparing to the reverse...seems odd to me or am I just imagining things? The major thing I want to point out on the reverse is the steps. Some cents have steps all the way up, others, looks like there's a separation to where there are two levels of steps. Is this a typical design change for the LMCs or is it a result of wear? If it were wear, I would think that the steps levels would be more blended globally, yes? Then, a little more modern: First, is it acceptable to compare/attempt to grade when composition is different? Can I compare strike qualities of this 2008 to that of a 1959 or is that faux pas as mint processing may have changed? The reason I ask is simply because of the beard. A lot more detail is present on the 2008 beard than in any of the coppers I have. Second question I have regarding modern cents would be concerning those black dots. What are they and what caused them? They are more typical from modern cents as I have them on obverse and reverse from 2004-2008 for both of these sets. Is this a result of some sort of mint finishing or washing process? Thanks for bearing with me as I learn and for putting up with my silly questions over a "simple" series. I did order Lange's guide to Lincoln Cents, most notably because I enjoyed his Mercury Dime book, but it was on backorder, then retraced....long story short, it's in the mail. Again, much appreciative of your help.
Nicely said and you made some very good observations! Some answers/opinions... No, there is no full step designation for Memorial cents as there is with Jefferson nickels. The '71-D is probably the result of a very worn hammer die. Since the reverse strike is fine it is probably not due to a thin planchet or improper die spacing. Grease in the obverse working die's incuse spots does lower the relief of raised lettering and devices but it is rarely so widespread. My guess is die erosion. A die of that era pumped out many millions of Lincolns. There is nothing wrong with using the same grading perspective when looking at coins of another composition or series. Your trained eye will pick up a lot. Keep in mind a few things like harder metals, differences in striking pressure, die relief and maybe most importanly, series/MM anamolies, more common with much older coins than modern Lincolns. Lance.
Also, some of the difference you see is real. I believe there have been 10 obverse design alterations ( including the large/small varieties) and 7 reverse changes in the memorial cents, not including the 2009, 2010 changes, close/far AM varieties. When a change is made, designs are often touched up too. Jim
Modern zinc cent planchets (zinc core with copper plating) are softer than bronze planchets so the zinc cents strike up better than the bronze cents.
For the early memorial cents the obverse wear characteristics are very similar. The jaw, cheek and top of head typically show wear first. You can also see wear on the lapel. The reverse shows wear firstly on the cornice, the little pillars at the start of the steps and the steps themselves. You have to VERY careful using the steps because this part of the design is often weak and dies tended to show their age here. Ditto with the cornice, it's the highest point on the reverse, but also tends to show weakness in the strike and die wear. The TPG's are too easy on memorials IMO. I've seen many slabbed examples in MS holders when the coin is clearly AU. They also tend to grade them a couple of points higher than wheat cents. You are off to a good start! Buying a complete BU set on ebay is what I usually recommend for newbies. Close examination will reveal to you all of the problems that plague the series. Mid- and late- die states, poor strikes, hits and spots are the norm. The vast majority are MS-63 and less....with most falling into the 61/62 category. I've been working on a premium LMC set for years now. It's the hardest challenge in collecting I've taken on! I've cracked open literally hundreds of rolls looking for primo coins. I venture to guess I've rejected some 99+% of the coins I've looked at. I also pay VERY close attention to any dealers I see selling LMC's because most dealers don't want to mess with them. The bonus is they are so under-priced that you can snag some awesome deals when you find a supreme example...usually just a couple bucks or less. My advice to you....take a DEEP breath and take your time. If you want a premium LMC set, it's going to take you years of hard work. And don't think you can buy high-grade slabbed examples because the TPG's simply don't grade them right IMO. They tend to ignore things like die state and strike in favor of glowing luster. A serious collector will seek well-struck coins which are tough, tough finds in many years. And, usually, when you do find a well-struck coin, it will have spots and hits. LOL
Yes, that is a greaser and a nice one at that. I see no wear on this coin. Error collectors seek greasers that have design elements completely missing like this. I wouldn't use this at the main 71-S in my collecting for obvious reasons, but I'd put it along side my nice one as an example coin. It's worth a couple bucks.
There was a temporary design change in LMC where they reduced the fineness of the steps to the coarse 8 step design. It has nothing to do with wear, the steps don't wear like that. They just tend to smooth out but keep their definition. Before the steps show that much wear the cornice will be almost gone. There is no official FS designation on LMC's like nickels....it's very unfortunate! The step design on the LMC is MUCH more intricate than you find on a nickel and finding FS examples is VERY challenging. Personally, I go the extra mile to find LMC's with full and complete steps. One of the toughest years is the 1968-S, which is the key date (lowest mintage) to the series. Almost all 1968-S's do not have FS. This is an example where you'll see the TPG's completely ignore the steps as most of the high-grade, slabbed coins I've seen do not have full steps.....but strong luster makes them MS-67 up. LOL A dedicated LMC collector will reject coins with less than perfect steps where possible...however, there's at least one or two years where the reverse master hubs had a steps almost obliterated....so it's not always possible.
Sorry for the multiple part answer...but you ask some tough questions. You absolutely CANNOT compare a 1959 to a 2008. There were a lot of significant design changes made over the course of the LMC series. The evolution created completely different coins over the years. The spots are due to the metalworking fluid and the post-production rinse to remove the fluid. It's something us LMC collectors are forced to deal with. I suspect they are more prevalent on newer issues because they produced more coins and increased the time they used the various fluids for. Over time, the fluids become contaminated with dirt, bacteria and metal fines. Eventually, they become very dirty and start leaving spots after drying on the coin surface. These spots CANNOT be removed without damaging the coin....I have tried everything at my disposal to address them (I am a chemist in the metalworking fluid industry)....they are permanent.
On a final note, most have heard me rant before, but I have to say it again. LOL The LMC series is likely the most difficult of all US coins to build a premium set of. There's tons of crappy BU sets out there, but they are just that....crap. You won't discover that until you attempt to put together a collector for yourself. Most BU rolls have been stored improperly and are spotted and corroded.....believe me, I've cracked a ton of rolls only to be disappointed. Where's cladking? I'm sure he'll put some of his wisdom into this thread if he sees it.
Brass (not bronze, no tin since the early '40s) has higher malleability than zinc. The "improved" strike was due to new hubs with reduced relief. Lance.
Some tin returned in I believe 46 and it remained until the tin was finally removed in 1963 so the 59 -62 cents are Bronze, the 63 - mid 82 cents are Brass. And of course the mid 82 to 2008 are Zincolns.
You are correct. Tin was used in some of the 1942 cents. Others, including those from 44 and 45 were brass (no tin). 46 too? In 1947 tin found its way back into the mix until 1962. So those were indeed bronze. And from 1962 (63?) through part of 82 it was brass. Man, how do you keep all this straight? Lance.
It's been awhile since I've been on-darn school work anyhow! I just wished to express sincere thanks for all the advice. It's nice and reassuring to know I'm heading in the right direction with my eyes looking at Mr. Abe and his monument. Book did arrive yesterday so I'll have some fun reading ahead of me once I graduate. Couple of more questions: Regarding the '71 D, Ikeigwin noted die erosion, badthad notes greasing. For future reference how do I tell the difference between the two? Unless I'm wrong (and I very well could be) I was under the impression that die erosion would leave more global clash marks on the coin and items would be more distorted, though present. Grease filled typically leaves out elements of the coin (such as seen in the "in god we trust in the 71D). Finally, to add complication in the discussion, can't a coin have both die erosion and grease filled appearances or is that impossible to discern one from another when present on one side of a coin? Another question, I figured the design elements changed by looking at the 240+ cents I have from one generation to the next. And, as Badthad confirmed, I can't compare recent productions to those from earlier productions such as 1959. First question, if I'm not allowed to do so, how does one compare grading? Do they do it by design/die consistency, element of manufacturing (copper, clad, tin, whatever), or by time period? On that note, is there a site that lists all of the die changes made to the cent from '59-present? I'm sure the reference book I have will have great mention of it, but it's always nice to have confirmation data to rely on. I'll relook at the cents, hopefully more wholistically without such emphasis on the steps. I guess after collecting Roosevelts, Mercs, and Frankies I've been brainwashed to focus on multiple tiny lines. Again, thanks so much for the help you've already provided.
Of course we're all just taking educated guesses. Some folks have better insights than others. I would take Conder's opinion over any one else's on most matters. Don't confuse die erosion and clashing. Two different things. Dies wear out in different ways and leave impressions accordingly. A very worn die, common to 1920's MM cents, let's say, often leaves a mushy, vague look. Some dies crack, leaving spectacular raised marks on coins they strike (more common on early Mint coins). Sometimes edges break away leaving interesting rim cuds. Clashing occurs when the two dies come together without a planchet and take on details of each other which are later transferred to the coins they strike. Capped Bust halves often show such clashing, e.g. And yes, any die can suffer from grease. A layer of grease can turn a coin into one just like the one in question. Lance.
