1980LMC-"Acid Coin"- Weighs the same as a Regular 1980 Cent!

[chuckster 125]

Mr Diamond:

Per your suggestion- I weighed this coin- its the same indentical weight as a normal 1980 copper Cent-

Here are pictures verifying the weight- the first 2 are of the"ACID COIN"
the next 2 are of a normal 1980 cent- no weight loss at all. 3.09/3.10 grams.

If this coin was wire brushed as you had first indicated, would that cause a weight loss,if so, that rules that out also.


BJ: What do you think about this , especially since this coin weighs the same as a normal cent- done at the mint as you first stated.

Where do I go from here with this .

Thanks again for all the expertise and help!!!

[diamond]

Hmmm. That certainly eliminates acid as a candidate. It may also eliminate the buffing wheel scenario. It's starting to look like BJ might be right about this one. If he is right, then it's a pattern of die deterioration I haven't seen before. Truly remarkable, especially as it affects both faces.

[wavysteps]

May I suggest that you chuckster 125 send this die to Mike for his analysis, We maybe missing something that a microscope would reveal to the trained eye.

While both of us are familiar with die deterioration doubling and die fatigue, Mike has by far the more experience in this matter and I trust his opinion to the fullest.

This is the fun of a forum, finding things never seen before and trying to analysis just what has happened. While we must search through the sometimes mundane, it is occurrences like this that make forums, such as this, an invaluable learning tool, not only for the ones posting, but also the moderators.

BJ Neff

[diamond]

I'd be happy to look it over. Just e-mail me at mdia1@aol.com to arrange it.

[chuckster 125]

I'd be happy to look it over. Just e-mail me at mdia1@aol.com to arrange it.

Mike,

Sent you an e mail -along with these pictures of what definitely appears to be rim damage caused by holding this coin in a vise or pliers or whatever.



I'll still send you the coin if you want to still look at it.



*Post mint - maybe someone can figure out how it was done and not loose any weight for all of our educational benefit.*

I've caused enough of problems with this coin.



Chuck.

[chuckster 125]

Mike,

Sent you an e mail -along with these pictures of what definitely appears to be rim damage caused by holding this coin in a vise or pliers or whatever.



I'll still send you the coin if you want to still look at it.



*Post mint - maybe someone can figure out how it was done and not loose any weight for all of our educational benefit.*

I've caused enough of problems with this coin.

Chuck.

Thanks Mike for the possible "'Minor Rim Damage" explanation.

The coin is being mailed to you first thing tomorrow morning!

[diamond]

I've looked over Chuck's 1980 cent, along with a similar-looking cent that is less seriously affected. Regrettably, they both appear to have been altered outside the Mint.

On the more severely affected coin, the evidence for fakery is as follows (some of this I've said before).

1. The pattern of ripples is unlike any other pattern of genuine die deterioration I've come across.
2. While the surface texture is grossly affected, the thickness of the letters has hardly changed. With die deterioration this severe, you'd expect gross expansion of the letters and a narrowing of the gap between the letters and the design rim.
2. The likelihood that both faces would show an identical pattern of equal severity is almost nil.
3. The surface color is unnatural-looking.
4. The clincher is that the odd texture appears on the edge at about 1:00. This will never be the case with geniune die deterioration, as the collar does not develop this kind of wear. And even if it did, its appearance would not likely coincide with anything going on with the obverse or reverse face.

The second cent presents similar problems, including the repetition of an odd texture on the edge.

I don't know what was done to them, but their appearance is incompatible with a genuine error.

[chuckster 125]

I've looked over Chuck's 1980 cent, along with a similar-looking cent that is less seriously affected. Regrettably, they both appear to have been altered outside the Mint.

On the more severely affected coin, the evidence for fakery is as follows (some of this I've said before).

1. The pattern of ripples is unlike any other pattern of genuine die deterioration I've come across.
2. While the surface texture is grossly affected, the thickness of the letters has hardly changed. With die deterioration this severe, you'd expect gross expansion of the letters and a narrowing of the gap between the letters and the design rim.
2. The likelihood that both faces would show an identical pattern of equal severity is almost nil.
3. The surface color is unnatural-looking.
4. The clincher is that the odd texture appears on the edge at about 1:00. This will never be the case with geniune die deterioration, as the collar does not develop this kind of wear. And even if it did, its appearance would not likely coincide with anything going on with the obverse or reverse face.

The second cent presents similar problems, including the repetition of an odd texture on the edge.

I don't know what was done to them, but their appearance is incompatible with a genuine error.

THANKS MIKE!!!

I really appreciated you taking the time to at least look these 2 coins over again.

Also a big THANK YOU to BJ for his help in trying to get this pinned down!

Although this was not the answer I was hoping for, the knowledge I' ve gotten out of this has been great.

If another one of these surface's, at least we will all know its not real!

Thanks again,

Chuck.