| Author |
Message |
joefroMember
Posts: 30 Joined: 03 Jun 2005 Location: Las Cruces, New Mexico
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:16 pm |
|
|
Hey everyone,
I was just looking at the following auction
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=39457&item=8310385339&rd=1
This coin was apparently not struck at all on the reverse leaving the planchet blank. I was always under the impression that these were very rare. Why is this cent only going for $10?
The L in Liberty also appears to be gone. Is this more common than I thought? To me this seems like a neater error than a 1955DD but I guess its all about populations?? Some help would be great. Thanks
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
 |
murphySenior Member
Posts: 573 Joined: 02 Sep 2004 Location: New Albany, Indiana USA
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:26 pm |
|
|
Hi Joe. I'm no expert, but because it has flat rims and seems to be flat across the entire reverse of the coin, I'd be afraid someone just smoothed it down. It would be great if the seller had posted the weight of the coin so it could be better determined what actually has happened to it. But, that's probably why it's only selling for $10.
_________________ ~ Murph ~
|
|
|
|
|
 |
coppercoinsSite Admin
Posts: 2809 Joined: 29 Jun 2003 Location: Springfield, Missouri.
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:37 pm |
|
|
Fake, no doubt about it. There is no mint-produced error that can result in a completely smooth coin side.
A brockage or struck through die cap would not only have a rim on the reverse, but would also show mottling or some sort of design feature.
A struck-through error would work much like the die cap, it would still have some sort of unevenness on the reverse.
Without a doubt in my mind, if that coin were weighed it would come in at 2.5 grams or less, not the 3.1 grams it should weigh...because the reverse was ground off with a machine.
_________________ C. D. Daughtrey
owner, developer
www.coppercoins.com
cd@coppercoins.com
|
|
|
|
|
 |
joefroMember
Posts: 30 Joined: 03 Jun 2005 Location: Las Cruces, New Mexico
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:44 pm |
|
|
Wow, thanks for such a definitive answer! Thats a good point that there is no rim. Even the blank planchet has a rim then?
Can you define the term "brockage"? This one is new to me. Is it when there is no strike on one side of the coin?
Someone is making a killing selling pennies for $10. It must be nice to be so knowledgeable, I can't wait.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
 |
RobertSenior Member
Posts: 896 Joined: 05 Jul 2003 Location: Oklahoma
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:49 pm |
|
|
Strictly speaking, not all blank planchets have a rim.
In the coin making process, the blanks are punched out of a metal strip, then "upset" to make the rim, then placed between two dies and struck. The "upset mill" is a machine that raises the edge.
Some blank planchets that escape the mint have not been "upset" (type 1) and some do have the upset rim (type 2).
Type 2 coins/planchets are much more common than type 1s.
http://www.fredweinberg.com/inventory/categorylist.asp?t=c&ID=3
But basically I think everyone agrees that the subject coin is not real. There's no way to get a full strike on one side and have the other side completely blank. The closest I can think of is a completely filled die, but that's not very likely.
Save your $10.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
coppercoinsSite Admin
Posts: 2809 Joined: 29 Jun 2003 Location: Springfield, Missouri.
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:59 pm |
|
|
Technically speaking, those without the upset rim are called "blanks." They are not "planchets" until they are upset, thus all planchets do have rims.
The "type 1" and "type 2" thing is a dealer's simple-speak for not having to explain the difference between the two terms.
_________________ C. D. Daughtrey
owner, developer
www.coppercoins.com
cd@coppercoins.com
|
|
|
|
|
 |
pennyhoundVeteran Member
Posts: 414 Joined: 04 Aug 2004 Location: Central Texas
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:51 am |
|
|
Joe,
Had one of those earlier ... that we had discussed on the forum here, 1960.
Even tho, it is ... within limit/s ... weighing in at 3.0 grams.
Weighted: 46.296 grs (3.0 times 15.432)
and the book calls for:
it's weight to be: 48grs, plus or minus ... 2 grs.
| Quote: |
1960 (3g*) = 46.296 grs [48grs (+/-) 2grs] "within tolerence"
(- 1.704 grains ... Not enough, to remove all of reverse die, I would think.)
*1 Gram = 15.432 grains |
| Quote: |
| Without a doubt in my mind, if that coin were weighed it would come in at 2.5 grams or less, not the 3.1 grams it should weigh...because the reverse was ground off with a machine. |
Not to confuse the matter any, but the weight doesn't always tell the story either, as the above example ... shows.
But in saying that, I have to lean toward what has been stated ... as this couldn't have been produced by the mint, all things being taken into account ... I wouldn't think.
(but still wander about the one I found ... just because of the weight factor, 'only'.)
Happy hunting.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
joefroMember
Posts: 30 Joined: 03 Jun 2005 Location: Las Cruces, New Mexico
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:46 am |
|
|
All of your advice is most greatly appreciated. And dont worry, I wasnt even thinking of spending the $10. Too many people out there know too much about coins to let something like that slip by on E-bay for so cheap. As a matter of fact, I find e-bay is a good way to tell which varieties are rare and which or more common. At least in terms of demand. I know it would be suicide to judge your purchases on this alone, but I've found if you see a coin going for over $100 with 15 bids, there's probably a reason. Same thing goes for this one-sided-cent, if it were genuine it would have been going for well over $10. I just wanted to find out why it was fake. Thanks guys!
joe
|
|
|
|
|
 |
coopExpert Member
Posts: 3402 Joined: 17 Sep 2003 Location: Arizona
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:09 am |
|
|
Joe: I seen several poeple bid on useless, common stuff such as mechanical doubling, so even that is not a sure bet.
_________________ Richard S. Cooper
You may be only one person in the world, but you may also be the world to one person.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|