1972 d penny error

[Hinkle]

Don't know if this is a cud, On the right side of the building. The outer end of the error ,can't tell if it's a half shape of a 0 or D.

[Just Bob]

From the picture, it appears to be a die chip.

[Double Dan]

Hi Bob,

I'm pretty big into fonts, studied for years in print school.

You can tell that if this isn't a chip, it's half of a zero. The width at x-height gives it away. Cheers!

[Double Dan]

Hey question,

The first columns moving away from the statue, is that doubling or are those lines running parallel always there? 'Cause these look strong.

[Just Bob]

3 hours ago, Double Dan said:

Hi Bob,

I'm pretty big into fonts, studied for years in print school.

You can tell that if this isn't a chip, it's half of a zero. The width at x-height gives it away. Cheers!

If it is a zero, how do you suppose it got there?

[Mohawk]

Definitely not seeing a zero, and I don't see how there would even be a chance of there being a zero on the reverse die of a 1972 D Lincoln Cent.  Even if there was some kind of a die clash and the last number was present on the reverse, it would be a 2, not a zero.  But this cent doesn't even have the proper appearance for a die clash error.  It's likely a large die chip, as Bob said, or possibly a cud.  Double Dan, when it comes to evaluating coins, it is a good idea to rule out every possible mundane cause for what you are seeing before jumping right to some sort of crazy error.  Just some advice.

[Double Dan]

15 hours ago, Mohawk said:

Definitely not seeing a zero, and I don't see how there would even be a chance of there being a zero on the reverse die of a 1972 D Lincoln Cent.  Even if there was some kind of a die clash and the last number was present on the reverse, it would be a 2, not a zero.  But this cent doesn't even have the proper appearance for a die clash error.  It's likely a large die chip, as Bob said, or possibly a cud.  Double Dan, when it comes to evaluating coins, it is a good idea to rule out every possible mundane cause for what you are seeing before jumping right to some sort of crazy error.  Just some advice.

Thanks for the advise Mohawk. I'll remember that.

From the prospective of someone with twenty years of experience in fontography, it appears to be a zero:)

[Double Dan]

I understand what you're saying. Die cracks and such.

All I'm saying is that to a VERY experienced designer with a VERY extensive knowledge of font history it looks like a letter.

[JKK]

1 hour ago, Double Dan said:

I understand what you're saying. Die cracks and such.

All I'm saying is that to a VERY experienced designer with a VERY extensive knowledge of font history it looks like a letter.

Yes, you've made those credentials quite clear. I think everyone realizes that you have very extensive understanding of fonts, typefaces, and all manner of related technical issues, and would not challenge your dominance in that area.

This, however, is not a font design question, but a question of what happened to a coin. What is missing from the above dominant font knowledge is the knowledge of how coins are minted, because the relevant question was posed: how does one explain a capital O or number 0 finding its way to that spot without becoming a recognized error produced on a large scale? Typically, if the error belongs to the die, that is what happens; a double die is created at the point of production, and will be reflected on every coin that die may strike. But if the error is temporary--cuds, loose chunk of broken metal, something else--it may strike only a limited number of coins, perhaps even only one. In numismatics, the usual way of assessing a die error is to figure out where the normal process went wrong.

Thus, until you present a numismatically educated way to explain why we should interpret it as a letter or number, you probably will not convince people no matter how extensive your font design knowledge may be--even if you keep reiterating that knowledge as if it constituted evidence.

[Mohawk]

Agreed with everything JKK said. Being, to quote your own words:

Quote

 a VERY experienced designer with a VERY extensive knowledge of font history

does not make one an experienced numismatist.  You're using a field which has nearly nothing to do with coins to try to add weight to a response about a coin which is not only clearly incorrect, it's an impossibility.  Double Dan, we're not trying to attack you and this isn't personal, but there is a lot of misinformation about coins out there.  A quick look at Etsy or You Tube will show you how bad this problem really is.  On these boards, we try to fight that and provide real information and answers regarding coins.  A lot of new people come here looking for help and they need real information.  However, this continued defense of an impossibility is coming close to creating misinformation on this board.  Your design experience and font history experience are not relevant to this discussion.  There is not a zero or an "O" on the reverse of that cent and it would in fact be impossible for there to be either one on that coin.  Some very experienced people have added to this discussion to explain why that is the case.  It's like Lancek said:

Quote

Die breaks, chips and inclusions have to take some form.  Sometimes they randomly look like something else.  A zero, an "s", a "z" a lighting bolt.  Sometimes clouds look like bunnies but that doesn't mean they are bunnies. 

This coin is a clear case of just that.  It's a weird die break or cud.  Nothing more.

[Conder101]

On 2/4/2019 at 10:08 AM, Double Dan said:

From the prospective of someone with twenty years of experience in fontography, it appears to be a zero:)

From the perspective of someone who has spent over fifty years with experience in numismatics, it appears to be a die chip.

[Double Dan]

LOL Yup. It's a die chip

[Mohawk]

22 hours ago, Double Dan said:

LOL Yup. It's a die chip

There we go!  Exactly, it's a die chip and just a die chip.

[Double Dan]

A diechip and nothing but a diechip so help me g~