Weird Lincoln Cent

[poppa501]

Hey folks! While updating my Lincoln cents, I came across this weird 1951 Lincoln cent. See attachments. The date and all the lettering are really fat. The WE in IN GOD WE TRUST is screwed up and the T's look more like Y's. On the reverse the I&T in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are almost invisible, the last A in AMERICA is filled in and the wheat branch ends are filled. Any thoughts? Bad die--soft planchet? Think its worth anything extra? Thanks for your thoughts.
Poppa

[youmeus]

Don't have any answers but it sure is interesting.

I've been searching through some old coins we inherited, don't know much about them but am enjoying learning.

[waterlily]

Just look well worn. Not really worth much more.

[burgyeb]

Just look well worn. Not really worth much more.

My take also! Doesn't look like errors just wear!

[poppa501]

You guys might be right, but does wear change the T's to Y's? The 50S has much more wear but the small lettering and the date are much clearer and half the size of the 50. Not arguing, just curious.
Thanks to all that have replied.
Poppa

[burgyeb]

You guys might be right, but does wear change the T's to Y's? The 50S has much more wear but the small lettering and the date are much clearer and half the size of the 50. Not arguing, just curious.
Thanks to all that have replied.
Poppa

It is also possible for you to be right. Your observation skills may be keener. Just can't see what you are seeing.

[guiderock]

It appears that your penny, is not so much worn, but was made FROM very worn obverse dies which were still in use long after their intended shelf life. As I understand it, every time a die strikes a coin there is a bit of wear on the inside of the letters and numbers at metal from the planchlet is forced into those tiny nooks and crannies. Over time, that tend to make those niches bigger, making the legend and date appear 'fat'. A secondary issue - also involving metal-flow - is responsible for the "T" in the upper legend looking like a "Y". Dies are designed so that when they strike a blank, metal on the surface of the planchlet is forced from the center to the edge of the coin. Otherwise there would be areas of detail that would come up missing, because the metal couldn't flow into them properly. Copper from the center of each cent blank is forced - not only INTO the "T" of "TRUST", but is also moving toward the rim of the coin at a fair velocity, wearing out the ends of the "T" cut into the die, just a little bit each time. If you let the die wear long enough, the crossbar will begin to turn upward, and again look 'fat'. I could also be completely wrong and this could be a little known double-die proof 1951 Lincoln cent, which somehow made it into circulation and became worn. It is the only known 'double-die' error for this date/mint, but it really doesn't seem to carry any of the earmarks of that particular error, in my humble opinion. Thanks for sharing the scans anyway. It certainly qualifies as 'weird.'

[burgyeb]

It appears that your penny, is not so much worn, but was made FROM very worn obverse dies which were still in use long after their intended shelf life. As I understand it, every time a die strikes a coin there is a bit of wear on the inside of the letters and numbers at metal from the planchlet is forced into those tiny nooks and crannies. Over time, that tend to make those niches bigger, making the legend and date appear 'fat'. A secondary issue - also involving metal-flow - is responsible for the "T" in the upper legend looking like a "Y". Dies are designed so that when they strike a blank, metal on the surface of the planchlet is forced from the center to the edge of the coin. Otherwise there would be areas of detail that would come up missing, because the metal couldn't flow into them properly. Copper from the center of each cent blank is forced - not only INTO the "T" of "TRUST", but is also moving toward the rim of the coin at a fair velocity, wearing out the ends of the "T" cut into the die, just a little bit each time. If you let the die wear long enough, the crossbar will begin to turn upward, and again look 'fat'. I could also be completely wrong and this could be a little known double-die proof 1951 Lincoln cent, which somehow made it into circulation and became worn. It is the only known 'double-die' error for this date/mint, but it really doesn't seem to carry any of the earmarks of that particular error, in my humble opinion. Thanks for sharing the scans anyway. It certainly qualifies as 'weird.'

Interesting. I'd take the "weird penny" to a coin shop & get their face to face take on the coin. Would it qualify as "an error coin"? See there poppa, I told you your observation skills could be keener.

P.S. I went back into the attachments & looked again! I was able to see your observations! I would take the coin to someone for another formal evaluation. I don't see why it would not be considered an error coin, but I'm not an expert grader.

[poppa501]

Thanks guiderock, that was my initial thoughts, but wanted someone else to verify. Think I will let a dealer look at it just out of curiosity. Thanks all for replying! Oh--have just listed a bunch of Buffalo nickels and some other stuff--Check it out! Am working on a banner and a store. I'm slow--may take a while.
Poppa