| Author |
Message |
shanegalangNew Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Location: Baton Rouge
|
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:46 pm |
 |
|
Hello All,
I'm brand new here but not so brand new to coin collecting. I have recently become interested in errors. So I started looking thru all of my coins and have found some interesting things. I'll start with this one. The cent has 199 but no 4th number in the date. I can barely make out a 7. I assume something, grease perhaps, was on the die??? thanks for any help! Shane
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 eagamesExpert Member
Posts: 3013
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
|
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:02 pm |
|
|
Welcome Shane 
I think you got it right, looks like it was struck through a filled die probably grease.
_________________
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
|
 JRoccoVeteran Member
Posts: 418
Joined: 08 Oct 2004
|
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:12 pm |
|
|
Hi Shane and welcome.
Ed is right, it looks to be struck through grease. In fact, Ed is usually right...except when it comes to cuds vs die chips... 
_________________
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
wavysteps2003Expert Member
Posts: 1344
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
|
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:38 pm |
|
|
Got to agree with both of you. Grease filled die is the answer to this one.
BJ Neff
_________________
Member of: Coppercoins, ANA, CFCC (VP), CONECA, FUN, NCADD (Editor), NLG, LCR, traildies.com. and MADdieclashes.com
The opinions that I express do not necessarily reflect the policies of the organizations that I am a member of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 coppercoinsSite Admin
Posts: 2809
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Location: Springfield, Missouri.
|
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:09 am |
|
|
If I could see the rest of the obverse and the entire reverse, I could probably tell you what date your coin is. And yes, grease filled die.
_________________
C. D. Daughtrey
owner, developer
www.coppercoins.com
cd@coppercoins.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
 creillyVeteran Member
Posts: 341
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Location: Minneapolis MN
|
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:56 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creillyVeteran Member
Posts: 341
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Location: Minneapolis MN
|
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:08 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 DickExpert Member
Posts: 5780
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Location: Rialto, CA.
|
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:17 am |
|
|
I cheated, and looked. Yes it is 1997-D, caused by a grease filled die.
Dick
_________________
" Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before".
|
|
|
|
|
|
carlbAdvanced Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: Illinois
|
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:58 pm |
|
|
Welcome to the Cent place. Now if you look carefully after the 199 you may see AD. This would indicate that coin was made in the year 199AD. It could not be BC due to the BC always preceeds the date whereas AD follows the date. 
I've found numerous ones like that in the 2000 years. Possibly the Mint should look into putting the date on two lines.
_________________
just carl
|
|
|
|
|
|
 smedSenior Member
Posts: 624
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: Zephyrhills Florida
|
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:31 am |
|
|
| carlb wrote: |
| It could not be BC due to the BC always preceeds the date whereas AD follows the date. |
Actually, "proper" usage is just the opposite.
200 BC (200 years Before Christ)
AD 2007 (Anno Domini (In the Year of our Lord) 2007))
Of course, the move has been on for a while to change BC/AD to BCE/CE, Before Common Era/Common Era. Even though I'm not religious in the least, I have no problem with BC/AD and see no reason to change. Who wants to change? I'm not sure...
*blowing steam*
All this touchy-feely don't say anything to offend anyone don't let kids compete because that means someone is labeled a winner and someone is labeled a loser heaven help the person who does anything to cause someone else to be anything but happy garbage drives me up the wall. We all turned out fine and some lame-brain know-nothing is trying to tell us our kids can't deal with life. My kids turned out just fine, thank you.
*steam blown*
Hmm, where did that come from at 5:30am?
_________________
Life Member American Numismatic Association (ANA), Pensacola Numismatic Society
Life Member American Veterans (AmVets), Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Fleet Reserve Association (FRA)
Member Loyal Order of Moose
Member American Legion
|
|
|
|
|
|
carlbAdvanced Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: Illinois
|
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:02 pm |
|
|
[quote="smed"]
| carlb wrote: |
| It could not be BC due to the BC always preceeds the date whereas AD follows the date. |
Actually, "proper" usage is just the opposite.
200 BC (200 years Before Christ)
AD 2007 (Anno Domini (In the Year of our Lord) 2007))
Of course, the move has been on for a while to change BC/AD to BCE/CE, Before Common Era/Common Era. Even though I'm not religious in the least, I have no problem with BC/AD and see no reason to change. Who wants to change? I'm not sure...
HMMM. I thought it was AD after the date. Got that from Whipedie the free Encyclopedia. They say just as I did. Of course who are they? I just went and typed in AC/DC and there is was. AD after the date.
Picky, picky, picky.
_________________
just carl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
