This wheat cent does not look right

I was looking at Ebay auction # 170434539530 . The '0' portion of the
date does not look right. Has anybody ever heard of a 1909 year minted
cent error like this?

On Jan 23, 11:15*am, HeeHawkeye wrote:
I was looking at Ebay auction # 170434539530 . The '0' portion of the
date does not look right. Has anybody ever heard of a 1909 year minted
cent error like this?

Obvious circulation damage. I think it is a 1916, but perhaps some
specialist can confirm that.

It's an obvious punch. i can't believe it's up to $100.




"HeeHawkeye" wrote in message
...
I was looking at Ebay auction # 170434539530 . The '0' portion of the
date does not look right. Has anybody ever heard of a 1909 year minted
cent error like this?

Jan wrote:
It's an obvious punch. i can't believe it's up to $100.

The two bidders have feedbacks of 1 and 3 respectively. Several possible
explanations come to mind, none of which are pleasant to contemplate.

James

Bob wrote:
On Jan 23, 11:15 am, HeeHawkeye wrote:
I was looking at Ebay auction # 170434539530 . The '0' portion of the
date does not look right. Has anybody ever heard of a 1909 year
minted cent error like this?

Obvious circulation damage. I think it is a 1916, but perhaps some
specialist can confirm that.

Looks like intentional damage to me.

I don't see a VDB on the shoulder, so it has to be a 1916.

James

Mr. Jaggers wrote:
Bob wrote:
On Jan 23, 11:15 am, HeeHawkeye wrote:
I was looking at Ebay auction # 170434539530 . The '0' portion of
the date does not look right. Has anybody ever heard of a 1909 year
minted cent error like this?

Obvious circulation damage. I think it is a 1916, but perhaps some
specialist can confirm that.

Looks like intentional damage to me.

I don't see a VDB on the shoulder, so it has to be a 1916.

James

Collector value, one cent.

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Jan wrote:
It's an obvious punch. i can't believe it's up to $100.

The two bidders have feedbacks of 1 and 3 respectively. Several possible
explanations come to mind, none of which are pleasant to contemplate.

Obvious shill bidding can be reported to eBay he
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/selling-coins.html

Petronius wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Jan wrote:
It's an obvious punch. i can't believe it's up to $100.

The two bidders have feedbacks of 1 and 3 respectively. Several
possible explanations come to mind, none of which are pleasant to
contemplate.

Obvious shill bidding can be reported to eBay he
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/selling-coins.html

Thanks for the suggestion, but after logging five hours total elapsed time
reporting over 100 illegitimate auctions to HQ and watching them consummate
in spite of it, I'll take a pass and let someone else enjoy the pursuit.

James the Disillusioned

On Jan 23, 1:44*pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
Jan wrote:
It's an obvious punch. i can't believe it's up to $100.

The two bidders have feedbacks of 1 and 3 respectively. *Several possible
explanations come to mind, none of which are pleasant to contemplate.

James

The seller's feedback, the character of the other items he sells, the
colorful language and text, the veritable grab bag of extras and the
lack of a picture of the reverse (despite his emphasizing that it is a
"wheat pennie") also seem like points against.

So it's a damaged 1916 being listed as a 1906 with the "possibility of
an inverted 9?" Whoever "wins" this bid deserves it!

On 2010-01-23 13:11:52 -0500, "Jan" said:

It's an obvious punch. i can't believe it's up to $100.


"HeeHawkeye" wrote in message
...
I was looking at Ebay auction # 170434539530 . The '0' portion of the
date does not look right. Has anybody ever heard of a 1909 year minted
cent error like this?


--
John Gentile
Newsletter editor
Rhode Island Apple Group