A 1982 D, 3.18 grs with Repunched date!

[excoin]

Hello, it 's Eve from Holland.

I was curious to your opinion:

I found this Lincoln cent, it's from 1982,
mintmark Denver and it weighs 3.12 grams.
At first sight it is a Large Date, because of te known characteristics
like the straight and ugly number 2. But I believe that that 2 is punched
over a 2 that belongs to a Small Date. In other words: This coin
used to be a Small Date. .. And weighs 3.12 grams.

I checked Coppercoins and Wexler, but a 1982 D repunched date is nowhere to be seen.

What do you think? Tanx! Eva

[SensibleSal66]

Could it also be something else like DDD or Die deterioration
doubling.http://www.error-ref.com/die-deterioration-doubling/

[excoin]

To be honest, I think that it is a clear case of a '2'that is punched over another, the more because the Denver Mint
had those two 'two-types ready for use...

[Paul]

"because the Denver Mint had those two 'two-types ready for use..."

Do you have information on this I could read about please?

[excoin]

Well, not exactly. I meant that merely as a matter of speaking, like
'reading between the dies'.
Ofcourse it will stay rather misty around Denver trying to 'hide' a particular coin/variety,
because that is what we see all the time? Isn't that also the reason why
people are collecting coins? Trying to through-see the secrets of the mintage.
I can't help losing myself in thoughts like that. Sorry for that, but still, I see that
date as repunched, or am I wrong? Exitement is free.
Regards, Eva. I will post another pic of the coin

[JTCC]

I'll say die deterioration dubling, nothing major here. JMO.

[Paul]

This looks like a lighting issue to me, in conjunction with "Reading" the images you have.

[Daniel]

It's a normal large date with a circulation hit, there's NO over date for this.

[excoin]

This pic to answer the lightning-question.

Daniel, thanx for your reply, but it's certainty confuses me. When I see
a date like that, the first thougt is a repunched date, or am I wrong?
In that case I would like to learn from this how I have to look at
this in the future... Tanx in advance,

[Earle42]

Let me give you some help:
Save Yourself time, effort, and disappointment...don’t learn the coin hobby backwards.

Looking for random anomalies on coins and hoping they match up to something collectable will take you a lot more time, wasted effort, and disappointment repeatedly finding out you have nothing but post mint damage.

Spend some initial time at places like error-ref.com, doubleddie.com, varietyvista.com, conecaonline.org, coppercoins.com etc. to find what actual and collectable coin errors look like.

A good way to start is, for instance, separate a bunch of pennies by date. Go to varietyvista.com and, date by date, use the reference there to see what errors are known for that specific coin/mint mark. Look for those specific errors/varieties using the pictures provided. After doing this for awhile you will KNOW what an actual error looks like and not have to waste time on face value and damaged coins.

If you go to error-ref.com, please do, you will find how doubling occurs on coins in many ways.

Ofcourse it will stay rather misty around Denver trying to 'hide' a particular coin/variety,
because that is what we see all the time?

I am not sure what you are referring to here. The mint has no interest in hiding design elements.

The way the smal date and large date cents were made makes it totally impossible for what you are seeing to happen as you are suggesting.

A master die had the small date image engraved into it, this die was used to make many (therefore identical) working dies to strike small date coins. Another master die was engraved with the large date design, used to make many working (identical) dies, and those were used to make the large date coins.

This is how coins are minted.

Isn't that also the reason why people are collecting coins? Trying to through-see the secrets of the mintage.

There are no secrets out there the mint withholds from the public. Sometimes legitimate errors are made with the dies or with the machinery minting the coins. People do hunt/collect those. These things like doubled dies and RPMs. Neither are intentional by the mint. in the past things like RPMs and re-using a die by engraving a new date into it was done, but that has not been done in a very long time...well before the 80s (someone please correct me correct me...was the last example the Mercury dime 42/41?).

...but still, I see that date as repunched, or am I wrong?

Impossible to happen as has been explained above.

Excitement is free.

Absolutely! I have a great suggestion for you that will really aid you in all of this. Take some of the excitement with you and start hunting down online how modern American coins are made start to finish. There are videos etc. (I think usmint.gov has one?). Its fun to learn and will give you a whole new outlook on coins and coin errors/varieties

Keep up the excitement!

[DSCoins]

excoin: If your English is good enough I recommend these two sites that you can study about what errors and varieties look like on U.S. coins
Error-Ref and Wexler's Coins and Die Varieties.

[Daniel]

Stop thinking you have repunched dates on these modern coins, learn how contact marks can move metal, etc. You're not going to find a repunched date because they didn't hand punch the dates in modern times, so it's impossible. You got to learn the minting process.

[excoin]

Ofcourse I am happy with your reply and advice, but you are also a very demanding teacher.
I am already learning exactly the way you suggest, but you have to be realistic too.

What I mean is: imagine me, examining that 1982 D coin, and that I discover something that
looks like a repunch in many ways... You speak like if I had better not posted that pic,
because I should have known better when I studies enough about the subject.

I think that it will be very quiet on this forum when everybody is studying instead
of posting. And nobody needs no help no more.

But seriously, is it so dumb of me that I think that I found a repunch?... No, because
it looks very much like it...
Then you say that I must take the year of the coin, to compare mine to all the varieties
that are listed...
But the one who discovered that it actually said : E PLURIDUS UNUM on those nickels, instead of
PLURIBUS, should het have neglected his find because het couldn't find a precedent?

I believe that guts and curiousness are the most important ingredients for progress and development,
and comparing possible varieties to ONLY the already existing ones will result in a stand-still.

Therefor my question: without the pre-knowledge that there doesn't exist a repunched date for
that particular year, HOW can I , purely based on that 'wannabe' repunch that I see, come to the
conclusion that it is NOT a repunched number?... I would be very much helped by that knowledge.

Maybe you already get tired of discussions like this, and I will not be offended when you leave
this subject. I enclose a pic of a beautiful precedent... Greetz from Eva.

[DSCoins]

That is an entirely a different coin. The rules of the board are only ONE coin per topic. You need to open a new topic for your second coin.

[Earle42]

You speak like if I had better not posted that pic,because I should have known better when I studies enough about the subject.

Your first post was not the problem.

You refused the answer and asked the same question again:

Sorry for that, but still, I see that date as repunched, or am I wrong?

That is OK if you were just making sure, but then asked:

"Therefor my question: without the pre-knowledge that there doesn't exist a repunched date for
that particular year, HOW can I , purely based on that 'wannabe' repunch that I see, come to the
conclusion that it is NOT a repunched number?... I would be very much helped by that knowledge."

Reading the answer I took the time (my free time) to type would have given you this information.




You asked:

but the one who discovered that it actually said : E PLURIDUS UNUM on those nickels, instead of PLURIBUS, should het have neglected his find because het couldn't find a precedent?

B/c something else already known to experienced collectors is that people back then did not have the internet. For the past ~35 or more years coin collectors having internet access have been searching their old and modern coins and reporting errors to websites made to catalog them.

We are not being rude. We are trying to help.

What is rude is when a person does not read replies, and then they try again to get the answer they want to hear. We won't do that to a person and give them false hope.

[Daniel]

You're comparing coins when they DID repunch date digits to when they didn't. They stopped hand punching date digits in the early 1900's so anything after that isn't a repunch. If you looked up repunch dated RPDs you can see when they stop. I was new at this at one time, but I never thought I had a repunched date on a modern coin. I asked and learned when they stopped doing that so I would know if it's possible or not. I wanted to know how it can or can't happen.

So you can't do this backwards and think you have something that is impossible to begin with. I chose to learn the minting process first. Also, there will never be a time no one is posting stuff like this, since 2009 on here and it's happening more than ever. Plus, when you try to teach people how to learn about this, they get upset and defensive. You need to be more demanding of yourself. I am not at fault here.

Also, you intend on posting errors or varieties that DO NOT exist then you need to be posting them at CONECA's forum on their website, they specialize in that, here we don't.

[excoin]

Thanx guys! Forgive me my dumb stubbornness. I promise I will be a better student. Thanx again!