Double Ear Variety or not

[FRANK]

I don’t think that it’s a new error or maybe it is. I see a Double Ear Variety, which is normally found on the 1984 1C penny. As you can see this is a 1984-D 1C penny. The picture on page 120 of The Official Red Book shows a Double Ear Variety. Is this a Double Ear Variety on this 1984-D penny?

[occnumis2021]

it'll prob have to go through attribution services since there aren't any like it listed for the year/mm.

i do see the bump below the ear but i've also seen plenty of coins with such a thing NOT get a designation. fwiw

idk if doubleddie/wexler has any listed.

may need a better image and/or in-hand attribution.

[MintErrors]

When I look at this zoomed in, in my opinion, it does not look like it's part of the earlobe and is separate of the ear.

I cannot tell if it's a zinc bubble or worthless doubling from that distance, it kinda looks like a part of whatever it is was sheared off ?

[occnumis2021]

When I look at this zoomed in, in my opinion, it does not look like it's part of the earlobe and is separate of the ear.

I cannot tell if it's a zinc bubble or worthless doubling from that distance, it kinda looks like a part of whatever it is was sheared off ?

i just noticed this is in a error group but shouldn't be here?

it also looks like a PCGS image but i didn't see this coin on CF, so i presume it has been submitted?

[FRANK]

Yes, it is a PCGS image (1984-D MS68RD 3068.68/49802894). I know it is something there. I’m new at this and learning something new everyday. I have a few questions about this coin.

What is the issue with the E in LIBERTY?

What is the issue with the D mint mark?


What group should my question be in?

[occnumis2021]

I y?

it is contact, the damaging kind. it may not be Post-mint tho. that could have easily have happened at the mint.

this is why grading is subjective and an opinion based upon a somewhat agreed upon system.

major contact in a prime focal area (whether or not it happened at the mint) and a LOT of carbon spots on the rev. ms68 ain't what it used to be i guess. i havne't looked at the pops/values for the date/mm tho.

i don't see an issue with the mm. it is just stronger as it was punched separately from the making of the dies/designs.

https://www.pcgs.com/cert/49802894

[occnumis2021]

not sure why i didn't do this the first time around.