New observations on 1988 RDV 006 FG

[Novicetoerr]

This is a follow-up on the 1988 / 1989 overabraded FG initials revival discussions.

Has the MINT neither confirm nor deny that they made reworks on the erroneous 1988 FG initials? (This is the logical action that they would have implemented when they would have discovered the problem. Would unable, though, to quarantine all, so some would have escaped that became this variety.)

I have attached photos of one of the many several 1988 coins I have, that seemed to show characteristics as if having been reworked, by laying over the
correct 1988 FG initials over the erroroneous 1989 FG Initials.

If a rework has been done, how will you categorize the reworked/corrected variety?

Thanks!
NVTE

[Steven]

This is a follow-up on the 1988 / 1989 overabraded FG initials revival discussions.

Has the MINT neither confirm nor deny that they made reworks on the erroneous 1988 FG initials? (This is the logical action that they would have implemented when they would have discovered the problem. Would unable, though, to quarantine all, so some would have escaped that became this variety.)

I have attached photos of one of the many several 1988 coins I have, that seemed to show characteristics as if having been reworked, by laying over the
correct 1988 FG initials over the erroroneous 1989 FG Initials.

If a rework has been done, how will you categorize the reworked/corrected variety?

Thanks!
NVTE

Am I missing something here??? The first sentence in the above post made the most sense to me indicating "OVERABRAIDED FG INITIALS".

Is this an attempt at discrediting coins minted with transitional dies by calling them re-worked or layed over???

[NearDateHound]

I believe the question was whether the mint noticed the previous year's reverse die was being used and if an attempt to correct the designer's initials on the 88 die to make it look like the 89 die during the 89 production run. And further, if an attempt was made by way of abrading off the designer's initials and reengraving them/touching them up, where a die which had been treated that way would fall in the error/die variety spectrum. Novicetoerr, let me know if I've interpreted your question accurately.

If that was done, it would fall under die variety, I'm not sure if there's a specific subtype description of die varieties which would address this specifically.

[Novicetoerr]

I apologize. I have mixed up the topics. Thanks Neardatehound for helping clarfiy my points. Let me further clarify.

I was referring to the over-abrasion on the April 2010 post, where the 1989 FG has shown some over-abrasion that made it look-like a 1988 FG initial.

Then I switched to another topic... which is my observations to some 1988 coins with real 1988 FG initials but seemed to be layed over with seemingly
1989 FG initials. I'm trying to drive the theory that these 1988 coins iniitially have really erroneous FG initials but corrected by laying over with the real 1988 FG initials. And if they do, how do we clasify them?


Let me know if I'm still unclear.
Again, my apology, NVTE

[NearDateHound]

Layered over as in restriking the die with the corrected initials in a second/third/whatever "squeeze"? Or as in striking them into the die over top of the old one with a tool of some sort, either similar to the ones used to put the mint mark on earlier cents or via engraving? Which of those it fell under would likely determine how it was classified (highly unlikely that I may think any of those possibilities are in this case).

[Novicetoerr]

Opppsssss... Correction to the sentence below... delete 'with' from
the sentence as below...

Then I switched to another topic... which is my observations to some 1988 coins with real 1988 FG initials but seemed to be layed over (with) seemingly
1989 FG initials.

NVTE

I apologize. I have mixed up the topics. Thanks Neardatehound for helping clarfiy my points. Let me further clarify.

I was referring to the over-abrasion on the April 2010 post, where the 1989 FG has shown some over-abrasion that made it look-like a 1988 FG initial.

Then I switched to another topic... which is my observations to some 1988 coins with real 1988 FG initials but seemed to be layed over with seemingly
1989 FG initials. I'm trying to drive the theory that these 1988 coins iniitially have really erroneous FG initials but corrected by laying over with the real 1988 FG initials. And if they do, how do we clasify them?


Let me know if I'm still unclear.
Again, my apology, NVTE

[wavysteps]

Your hypothesis is ungrounded. This is a simple case where the Mint used some 1989 reverses in 1988, more than likely because they ran out of reverse dies for that year (1988). The mint would not "overlay" (which I am not to sure what that means) or rework / redesign working dies (which would involve making a new master die, then working hubs) so an insignificant design change would match its corresponding year.

One must think in simpler terms. The Mint had a choice; either make a few new 1988 reverse working dies (it does not make an difference if it was for Denver or Philadelphia) or grab some 1989 reverse working dies off the shelf and use them for the quota of Lincoln cents that needed to be struck for the year 1988.

The Mint took the easiest of the two choices and used what they had on hand. It is as simple as that.

BJ Neff

[Novicetoerr]

Hi ALL,

Just would like to know if you see what I have observed on the photos,
a real 1988 FG initial on top(or mixed with) a 1989 FG Initial.

Thanks,
NVTE

[coin-crazy]

Hi ALL,

Just would like to know if you see what I have observed on the photos,
a real 1988 FG initial on top(or mixed with) a 1989 FG Initial.

Thanks,
NVTE

This thread is so crazy..I too came up with some of the same thoughts as you but just a little different. I believe if there could be an over abraded fg for 1989, the same could happen for 1988.I have a 1988-D that look like it too has the abraded look. I think this is a variety yet recorded.

[Novicetoerr]

Hi ALL!

Have attached photos of my 2nd and 3rd 1988 coins with FG's that seemed to be laid-over on "abraded" 1989 FGs; while my 1st coin photos (at the start of the thread) showed laid-over on what seemed to be "non-abraded"1989 FG.


Thanks,
NVTE

[diamond]

You seem to be imagining things again. There's nothing here but die abrasion and the effects of die deterioration.

[wavysteps]

Novicetoerr - explain your term "laid-over". Since there is no definition in place, in numismatics, for that expression, we should know what you are referring to.

BJ Neff

[Novicetoerr]

I apologize for my late indulgence.

BJ,
I took the term from the "overlay" frequently used on subjects of "clash",
and first kiss 'DD' when trying to identify unknown images not belonging to the design. I, however, used it "literally" in my assumptions, as laying the
'1988 FG' over the '1989 FG'. But how it got laid (punched?, engraved?, squeezed?, others?) is unknown (if really laid).


Mike,
On the DDD assessment, with its minimum physical charactertistics of
being symmetrical in shape and location, if there are no images there,
I should not have observed the most distinguishing characteristics of the
1989 FG (that are not found in the 1988 FG), i.e., the flare, horizontal bar, rounded and shorter top loop of the G, or its thicker body. Unless, I'm really imagining or trying hard to see things that aren't really there.

Thanks both for the expertsise insights. Aplogize again if I'm wrong.
NVTE

[wavysteps]

In this case the designer's initials, since they are part of the original design on the reverse of the Lincoln cent, are on the master hub. Yes, those initials have been changed and this is presumably how the mint accomplished that change.

A master hub was taken and the designer's initials were polished off that hub. That hub was then used to make a die, which then had the NEW designer's initials ENGRAVED into that device.That die, with the newly engraved designer's initials then made a NEW master hub, which in turn made a mater die, working hubs and working dies.

Since the dies that are in conversation were made during a gray period (they may have been single squeezed or multiple hubbed), it would have taken at least two days to accomplish the task of making a new master hub. The mint would not go to all this trouble over an insignificant design element change.

The differences of appearances of the designer's initials in both 1988 and 1989 are caused by die wear and die abrasion, nothing more.

BJ Neff