Question about 1983 doubled die reverse

[GarryN]

Here is a question for my fellow copper wizards.

I saw a 1983 doubled die reverse today and had the opportunity to buy it. I havent yet. It is an MS66 red. When I looked at it closely, I noticed both surfaces of the coin are pock marked with little lumps. The lumps literally cover the entire surface of both sides. Is that the way the coin was minted or is that carbon spots about to surface?

[GarryN]

I will answer the question. I saw an ad for the coin in Stacks' website and they described the coin as having a "bubbly appearance" similar to other zinc cents. So I have to decide whether to buy the coin. Its NGC MS66, just one hit on the obverse. Reverse is hit free. Any thoughts?

Albanese Rare Coins has 2 1983's here and if you look at the field around "Liberty" you will see evidence of the lumps. Those lumps cover both sides extensively. Also the steps of the Memorial are pretty much obliterated even on high grade specimens.


http://www.coinace.com/Inventory/SmallCent.htm

[coop]

Garry: The lumps are a residue under the plating due to a bad rinse before plating. There are a lot of Cents like that. Sometimes called as "Orange Rind" look. I would go for the ones without it if it is in your budget, as they will be a great prize to your collection. Prices vary according to collectors, but if you can see them in hand it is best. Nice images on the site.

[coppercoins]

Coop is right, if it were carbon it would be black. Sometimes the lumps can also be caused by contaminants in the copper bath that plates the zinc planchets, and that eventually reacts harshly with the zinc under the copper.

I remember seeing these come out of bank rolls when they were new, so it's not an aging thing...they were like that more or less when they left the mint.

As for having a die variety that's afflicted with this problem - I wouldn't do it.

[GarryN]

Thanks guys, the coin I saw close up is filled with these lumps. It is MS66 and going for $450. The other two in the link also have the same characteristic and the MS65 there is $390. The MS66 is not a bad mark up from the MS65 as cents go. But it definitely is not "eye appealing"


One thing for sure, I am going back to Lake Charles LA. this afternoon. Matt at Lewis Coin there has a nice uncirculated 1903 Indian Cent, that has some amazing gold and red and blue toning. He only wants $20 for it, so I will get that and try to get some decent pics of the color in the Indian Cent board.

[Robert]

How can an MS65 or MS66 coin be "lumpy"?

Should lumpy cents be considered planchet flaws?

[GarryN]

I dont know the answer, Robert. But I am not inclined to buy the coin. If there are ones with less distracting lumps than this one, I would consider it. This is the first 1983 DDR I have ever seen up close.

[Gabe]

Robert, errors in planchets are ignored when grading a coin. Since they are errors from the mint, they do not affect the wear of the coins.

[Robert]

I'd agree with you except for that I believe this particular planchet flaw may be apt to do more long term damage to the coin. Sort of like a dust particle at the mint. If a dust particle landed on a proof coin at the mint, then began to make a spot, would you buy the coin at bid? I'd want a discount, even if the dust came from the mint. (how else can a sealed proof set become spotty?)

My 2 (proof) cents.

[coppercoins]

Robert, errors in planchets are ignored when grading a coin. Since they are errors from the mint, they do not affect the wear of the coins.

This is not true. Planchet flaws and other mint problems are certainly taken into effect in grading. If not in the surfaces and luster categories, certainly in the eye appeal area. A 1980s era zinc cent with zits all over it cannot grade above MS65, and likely lower considering the horrid effect these have on eye appeal.

[Gabe]

Chuck, a clean non spotted zinc cent after 1982 can grade oer MS65. In the example you give, I dont know if you actually proce your point well, since you mention the spotting in the coin, and the spotting in the coin has nothing to do to the fact that the copper layer was ommited in that planchet. Get what I mean?

[Robert]

You lost me, Gabe. The original post, I thought, was concerning a "normal" plated cent but with lumps/bubbles between the copper and the zinc. Who said anything about omitted layers?

[Gabe]

Lol... when Chuck said zinc era cents, I thought of cents missing copper layer... Just ignore that last post of mine... Btw, go Marlins!

[GarryN]

The 1983 doubled reverse I saw was NGC ms66. Looked awful. It might be one of those suspected cases of NGC overgrading from the "NGC vs PCGS" string in one of the boards. I am not going to buy that one. Its the first Ive seen and not a priority in my collection. I want to see if I can find better ones. I have other nice doubled dies already.

[coppercoins]

NGC and PCGS along with all the other companies are notorious for overgrading copper. It would be nothing new to see a horrid bumpy zinc cent in a 66 holder.

Zinc pimples and 'spots' on coins are two completely different things, but as for eye appeal they are treated similarly since they both have a detrimental effect on the coin's overall eye appeal. Spots, depending on what they are, are very damaging to the coin, and the pimples mean that the coin already has problems underneath the copper layer and will corrode over time - nothing you can do to stop it - period. Neither are good at all, and both are treated very harshly in grading.

Part of the problem in this thread is that it has been raised and considered that a problem, if caused by the mint, is not taken into grading consideration, and this is completely wrong. All flaws, regardless of where they come from, are considered with the same weight in grading. This is one of many reasons why I don't see grading mint errors as a realistic practice.