bronze 1982 small date 0

[Joe Knowbody]

I have found what appears to be a small date 1982 d bronze penny. It indeed weighs 3.08 grams and looks to be the right font for small date. There are strange smear-like imperfections randomly over the entire coin (front and back). Is there a way for me to determine if these inclusions are result of mint error or damage due to circulation? Is this indeed the fabled 1982d bronze small date? I would be more than happy to upload any other pictures  if requested. I can also take 500x magnification of any spot. Thank you and sorry if I am being a time wasting nube.

[Ronnie@NGC]

Hi Joe, 

This coin looks like it has the Large Date variety. Please see below for comparison. The top image is the Large Date, and the bottom one is the Small Date. The variation is particularly visible in the shape of the "8."

Thank you for your interest in NGC.

Ronnie

      

[Joe Knowbody]

Thank you for your reply Ronnie.

I have been under the impression that the shape of the 2 in 1982 was a recognizable difference between the small date and large date varieties. Were there large date's that are struck with the curvy small date style of 2's on the dates?

[Greenstang]

You still there Joe?

Just noticed this post now that nobody has yet  responded to.

There are 3 distinct markers for identifying a large and a small date 1982 cent.

1. The top of the 8 which has been pointed out.

2. The slant on the 2 where the large date is straight and the small date is curved.

3. The distance from the 2 to the rim. The large date is closer than the small date.

The marks on your coin are due to circulation damage.

Also the 2 on your coin started out as straight but has taken a hit which has moved the metal.

This is probably why you thought it was a curved 2.

Hope this helps

Edited May 4, 2019 by Greenstang
added copy

[Joe Knowbody]

First off, thank you for your help Greenstang.

  I was hoping for another reply from one of you Numismatic Ninja's. I do agree with you that the 8 is consistent with the large date variety. And the placement of the date is definitely wrong for the small date variety. And there is a quite significant amount of circulation damage. But after inspecting this coin very closely, for an embarrassingly ridiculous amount of hours. I am having trouble seeing how any sort of circulation damage could have caused the straight line of large date style 2 to become the exact small date style curve that I have trained my eyes to look for. (It is a personal goal to find a bronze 1982 d small date in circulation).

 Is there any possible way that the date on this coin could have been punched at the mint, with a small date style 2? Most of the 2, including the part with the curve has perfectly clean and straight edges that I feel would have been nearly impossible to have been created post mint. Also I don't think anybody would have counterfeited such a low quality specimen.  I would be more than happy to post, or send several more pictures. If you, or anybody else would care to take a closer look.

 Thank you for your time. I apologize for being such a notoriously naive nube.   

[Just Bob]

I am not a Ninja, but I can see that your coin is a  large date cent with damage to the "2".

Don't let your desire to find a rarity cloud your judgement. 

[Mohawk]

6 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

I am not a Ninja, but I can see that your coin is a  large date cent with damage to the "2".

Don't let your desire to find a rarity cloud your judgement. 

Exactly Joe Knowbody.  It's a large date with a damaged 2.  There's a lot more to attributing the Small Date than just the two.  This link shows the types side by side:

http://www.lincolncentresource.com/smalldates/1982.html

[Joe Knowbody]

There are also some blemishes that appear to resemble letters. They are clearly visible on the previously posted images. Are these possibly result of mint error, and if so could that possibly explain the mystery 2?  

[Mohawk]

24 minutes ago, Joe Knowbody said:

There are also some blemishes that appear to resemble letters. They are clearly visible on the previously posted images. Are these possibly result of mint error, and if so could that possibly explain the mystery 2?  

I'm not seeing anything that looks like letters.....just normal dings and marks that a cent would get over the course of 37 years of circulation.  I think you're looking way too hard at this cent in the mindset of finding something.  From what I can see, based on 20 years of experience, there is nothing unusual about that cent.  If it were mine, I'd throw it back out into circulation and keep looking.  There are good coins out there to be found but this cent isn't one of them.  It takes a lot of looking to find anything valuable in circulation these days. 

[Just Bob]

2 hours ago, Joe Knowbody said:

 Are these possibly result of mint error, and if so could that possibly explain the mystery 2?

No. Sorry.

[Just Bob]

2 hours ago, Joe Knowbody said:

 Are these possibly result of mint error, and if so could that possibly explain the mystery 2?

No. Sorry.

[Just Bob]

2 hours ago, Joe Knowbody said:

 Are these possibly result of mint error, and if so could that possibly explain the mystery 2?

No. Sorry.