1909S VDB on error planchet?

Hey all! CoinTalk newbie and collector x2 yrs.. looking forward to feedback! That being said, I found a 1909S VDB penny CRHing last week(yeah me! lol) on a 2.8g planchet. Also noted secondary faint images in the fields on both obv/rev. Initial web search does not reveal any other similar(? planchet) error coins.Would like to sell soon but need suggestions where to check for approx. value. Thanks in advance!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Pics please

 

It could be a doubly-rare 1909S VDB struck on an incorrect planchet, with the triple-play of being found in circulation. Or it could be a not-the-least-bit-uncommon fake.

As the previous poster said, we'd need good pictures to offer a more informed opinion, but... the odds certainly don't appear to be in favor of it being real.

 

Perhaps he wants to sell it sight-unseen?

 

Pictures are required but it's probably a fake or highly worn.

 

I guess in my concern with wording my first post correctly I neglected to mention my tablet does not meet my photog needs but I was only requesting information. I did research to some extent,including counterfeits for this date, but the info was extremely limited and the fake coins I saw were all in newer shape. Hence the reason I was seeking an alternate avenue for information. So, here are some the pics.Thank you.

 

Looks real to me. Just very very worn.

 

Yes, I think you may have landed the triple-play after all!

Edit: Not a triple-play, actually; as @rooman9 says, this is very heavily worn, and it could easily have lost .3 grams of weight. So it may be "just" a normal 1909-S VDB.

 

Hmmm. Interesting. Only one of the two "major" attribution features for this one is available - the mint mark position and appearance of "VDB" - as the reverse is too worn for usable data. The mint mark position and tilt are pretty accurate for Mint Mark #3 (of the four known), but the appearance is off. The serifs are parallel, as they should be, but the top serif ought to be flush with the right curve of the S, and it's too far left. In addition when your image (which ain't too bad ) is magnified, I see an incongruous area of darkness around it from about 1:00 to 9:00 (therefore not explainable by light) which makes me believe the mint mark is added rather than original. It is not inconceivable that a postmint hit caused the serif to be moved.

If it's an original Cent at all. 2.81g is 10% light, and generally speaking once one reaches 5% weight loss, details are just about gone. Not much of a coin's weight is contained in the devices. That said, I'm not expert-enough with Lincoln Wheats to be positive that a 10% weight loss precludes this much remaining detail.

All the same, added up I do not believe this coin to be a genuine 1909-S VDB, and likely not a genuine Cent. These are broadly and widely counterfeited and faked, and a cautious collector must be pessimistic and pleasantly surprised when wrong, not the other way around.

 

Well if it is an added mintmark, really all you have to do is soak it in some acetone and if you can get the mintmark to fall off you will have your answer.

 

Not always. That would work if the mint mark were glued on, but some added mint marks are actually soldered on, and there's a third method to add a mint mark to a coin with a plain edge that's more commonly used on Buffalo nickels, but might work on a cent.

 

The dark area I noted is what I think could be the source of metal from which a mint mark was raised from the existing planchet.

 

That coin is a fake - probably an added MM. The only MM below the 9's (#4) has the S nearly directly under the 0 and not where this one is.

 

Here's an error 1909 S VDB. This coin is on consignment with me. It's neat, but lots of people don't really like lamination errors.

 

A little greater due diligence than images of that resolution is required. When placed "horizontally," - if we define "horizontal" using the baseline of the letters in LIBERTY (problematic in itself because they're not on the same baseline themselves, LIER are on one plane, BY are on another, and T a third; at least those baselines are parallel) - the 9's are not on the same baseline. The rightmost is higher than the left, so a line drawn between them is not horizontal and therefore deceptive regarding the vertical positioning of the MM.

Here's the OP coin at 400% of posted size:



Below is a Position #3 coin from Heritage, specifically this auction:

http://coins.ha.com/itm/lincoln-cen...38-254.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515



In both of these images, LIBERTY is horizontal; I had to rotate the OP coin to get it there. It's plain in the Heritage coin that the 9's aren't on the same baseline. The OP mint mark is a little left and a little too far tilted, but IMO meets my choice of the term "pretty accurate" for Mint Mark Position #3 when you consider the size at which an evaluator will be looking at the coin. It wasn't meant to fool PCGS - it's likely a contemporary fake - it was designed to fool a collector's eyeballs. You can also see the area around it which has me thinking it was raised from the adjacent fields. It should also be noted - and this may be a "killer" pickup - that the OP's 9's are closer to even horizontally than the Heritage coin.

And to address your comment concerning the "only MM below the 9's," well, the OP's MM is higher than Position 3.

I have today off. I'm going to grab images of all 4 positions and define them a bit more accurately than the tiny images currently being held as gospel.

 

I messed up I guess. I took your images and overlaid them. When you make both images the same size, the MM's overlay perfectly. Here are some images at different opacities. It may not appear so here, but the date does line up safe the OP's coin is much fatter mostly on the second 9.

 

It's hard to tell either way, really. We don't know how square the OP's camera was to the coin, and in macro shooting the slightest tilt distorts perspective and details all out of proportion to the tilt. We also have to factor the level of wear - another "killer" pickup because 10% is simply_too_much_wear unless Lincolns lose more weight than other issues for a given level of wear - which makes lettering look "fatter" as wear progresses since it's a bit tapered when punched into the die. All the same, I consider the mint mark appearance here proof positive that it's not a genuine coin.

It's your observations, since I know you're pretty decent when it comes to Lincolns, that finally convinced me I need to create the MM location set in high resolution. I know what Heritage's imaging setups look like - a friend in another forum toured the place and posted pics a while back - and I trust their imagery is pretty much spot-on for squareness to the subject.

 

That was one of the things I paid close attention to. As different as they seem, the shape and position of the serifs appear to be identical in my overlay as did the rest of the letter. I know it looks odd, but it really looks nearly perfect to me. The only oddity I see would be the 0.

BTW, not only are the date et al tapered, but the die wears them wider as it gets used. And, from the looks of that second 9, it took a hit further widening it.

 

If we assume it's a raised MM, compliments must be paid to the dexterity of the craftsman who created it. All the same, a line drawn through the left edge of the OP MM parallel to the tilt passes through the 0 much farther right than the same line on the Heritage coin. It's a shame that we have to get into such detail when authenticating coins, but there it is.

 

I will repeat. The mm lines perfectly with the Heritage. That includes the line along the left edge. What you are seeing on the OP's MM is much like the second 9. The left is bulged out, but the top, right, and bottom fit Heritage.