Is this legit?

[Robert]

http://www.teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=2317&lot=1046

I thought the 1980 D/S was proven to not be an OMM.

[coop]

Robert: It was proven a die scratch/gouge as it was not visible on the EDS examples and happened after that die state. So it could not be a OMM. BUT..... Coins slabbed that way will still have the identification as they were slabbed before the debunking as an OMM. So if they were slabbed before the new information they would read as such, but now we know they are not. So buy the coin and not the plastic. If it is proven false, they are false regardless who slabs them.

Buyer beware...........

[eagames]

You're right, most experts said it's not an OMM but it still can be graded with the FS number.

The graders may stop noting it as anything other than the FS number as they do for contaversial varieties. Most experts agree the 80 D/S is not an omm. Still it's a well known variety with contraversial aspect so collectors might want one. If a person buys varieties they should read before they buy so they don't get surprised.

Other similar examples would be 1952-D D/S FS021.52 everyone doesn't agree it's an omm but it's still collected.

Another is 1971 FS-030.7, most folks agree it's an abraded die but it can be graded with the FS number and has a decent value. I like it, it's unique and Abe's mouth has teeth!

Another contraversial one would be the 1997 doubled ear but opposite of the 80-D/S most experts agree it's a DDO.

Then there's the 22 plain, some folks only accept die 2 strong reverse is legit but If you find a BU weak reverse die 1 or 3 I'll happily take it

Bottom line these are all still collected varieties and neat to find. If I sold one I would mention the contravsial part in the add. Some folks might want it and others won't.

[coppercoins]

Coop - The 1980D cent die that had been believed to be a D/S was debunked BECAUSE an early die state specimen was submitted that showed the marks to be gouges rather than a mintmark punch...but the marks are there on EDS coins. That's how it was debunked. No die wear on the coin made it plainly clear that it wasn't an OMM.

[coppercoins]

Oh...and also don't forget the 1958/7 coins that are still slabbed with the Breen number. That still bites considering over half of all 1958 cents show this gouge.

[coop]

Chuck: Thanks for that clarification. Always better to hear it from someone who was involved in the process.

The 1937-D three legged buffalo Nickel. (This one still bringing big bucks.)

Also any so called "Poormans doubled die". Any year. It happens on several years as the die were used way past the normal die life. Most think of them on just 1955 as the BIG DDO was found that year. Just worn dies. Just worth really what the current value is for a regular cent in that condition. (I used to say what is marked on the back, but some even circulated coins increase in value over time. (IE: wheat cents)

[coppercoins]

The difference between the 3 legged buffalo and the poor man's doubled coins is a very important one.

First, the poor man's coins are simple die wear - a part of the normal coin making process. The three legged buffalo is an example of over zealous die polishing, which should not have been allowed to leave the mint.

Second, the poor man's coins are known to exist in many different years with a large number of different dies per year. In other words, millions upon millions of coins were made with this shadow doubling. The three legged buffalo is one single die that didn't make a whole lot of coins. Big difference there.

Yes, the three legged buffalo is a misnomer as a variety - it is actually a die error. This, however, doesn't change the fact that they are exceedingly popular and are relegated to a single die which naturally limits the number of possible examples out there. Might as well accept that it is in the market at a premium to stay. It isn't just "still" bringing in big bucks, it "always will" bring in big bucks.

[coppercoins]

Also forgot to add that all the coins to which Ed refers are also single dies. While their cause may be in doubt to some, they are very limited in quantity.

The 1958/7 coins I mentioned are very widespread and exist on hundreds of dies from both mints. They aren't worth squat no matter what you do to them, and people are still buying them for excessive prices in slabs with the Breen numbers on them. Now THIS is a problem.

[eagames]

What Chuck said reminds me the 22 no D is a lot like the 3 leg buffalo.

Both aren't varieties just a die state that should not have got out of the mint but are only one die and very scarce.

The 22 no D is an oddball! My OPINION is it's not a variety, to be a variety the die needs to start out with the variety.

The die probably started out as a normal 22-D.
Later after use and polishing it became the weak D.
Later after more use it became the no D weak reverse.
Later after more polishing and some rework and swapping out the weak reverse with a strong reverse die it became the no D strong reverse.
(I'm not sure this covers all 3 supposed dies but atleast 2)

It breaks every rule, not a variety and is reffered to as different dies when the obverse die seems to be the same die going through it's life cycle.

Like the 3 leg buffalo it shouldn't have got out of the mint and is limited to the specific die and is rare.

As a "variety" collector I'd think about it before putting $ into one. Myself I'd rather have a 55 DDO for the $.