Grading One of One Or PMD: The Difference Between $10 and $1,000

Introduction: The Mystery of the Raised Symbol

Condition is everything. When examining a coin, every detail matters—from the luster in the fields to the wear patterns on the high points. Today, we’re examining a fascinating case that highlights the critical importance of proper grading: a 1963-D Lincoln cent with a mysterious raised symbol on both sides. At first glance, this might appear to be a rare mint error, but upon closer inspection, the truth reveals itself through careful analysis of the coin’s characteristics.

Historical Context: The 1963-D Lincoln Cent

The 1963-D Lincoln cent was produced at the Denver Mint during a period of high production. With a mintage of over 1.7 billion pieces, these cents were struck in bronze (95% copper, 5% tin and zinc) on planchets weighing 3.11 grams. The Denver Mint typically produced coins with good strike quality, though some variation exists depending on die wear and striking pressure.

Design Elements and High Points

The Lincoln cent design features several critical high points that are essential for grading:

• Abraham Lincoln’s cheek and jaw
• The hair curls above and behind the ear
• The coat lapel
• The wheat stalks on the reverse
• The lettering and date

Wear Patterns and Surface Analysis

When examining this particular 1963-D cent, the first thing that catches the eye is the raised symbol. However, a professional grader must look beyond the unusual feature to assess the coin’s true condition. The wear patterns on this coin tell an important story.

The fields of the coin show moderate circulation wear, with the original mint luster largely diminished. On the obverse, Lincoln’s cheek shows the first signs of wear, followed by the jaw and hair details. The wheat stalks on the reverse exhibit similar wear patterns consistent with a coin that has seen moderate circulation.

Most tellingly, there is a flattened area visible on the reverse, in the vicinity of the memorial design. This flattening corresponds to the raised symbol on the obverse, indicating that the symbol was created through external force rather than being a mint product.

Luster and Strike Quality Assessment

The original mint luster on this coin has been significantly compromised, both by circulation and by the post-mint alteration. In areas not affected by the raised symbol, what remains of the original luster appears somewhat subdued, suggesting this coin circulated for a period before the alteration occurred.

The strike quality of the underlying coin is actually quite good for a 1963-D cent. The details in Lincoln’s hair and the wheat stalks are well-defined, indicating proper die preparation and adequate striking pressure at the Denver Mint. This good base quality makes the post-mint alteration all the more unfortunate from a collector’s perspective.

Eye Appeal and Overall Grade Determination

Eye appeal is significantly impacted by the raised symbol. While some collectors might find such alterations interesting as curiosities, they fundamentally alter the coin’s character and value. The symbol itself appears to be a counterstamp, likely created using a punch tool.

Based on the wear patterns, luster condition, and the presence of the counterstamp, this coin would likely grade in the Fine to Very Fine range (12-20 on the Sheldon scale) if the counterstamp were not present. However, the counterstamp itself prevents this coin from receiving a numerical grade from professional grading services like PCGS or NGC.

PCGS and NGC Standards for Altered Coins

Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) and Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC) have strict standards regarding altered coins. Any coin that has been intentionally modified after leaving the mint cannot receive a standard numerical grade. Instead, it might be labeled as “Genuine” or “Details” with an appropriate problem description.

In this case, the coin would likely receive a “Details – Altered” designation from both services, with the alteration specifically noted as a counterstamp. This designation significantly impacts the coin’s market value, typically reducing it to bullion or face value plus a small premium for its curiosity factor.

Authentication and the Counterstamp Theory

Several forum participants correctly identified this as a counterstamp rather than a mint error. The raised nature of the symbol, combined with the corresponding flattening on the opposite side, is classic evidence of a punch being applied to the coin’s surface.

The process likely involved:

1. A punch tool with the desired symbol
2. A firm striking surface
3. Application of force to create the raised impression

This type of alteration is surprisingly common. As one expert noted, many people acquire letter-punch kits and experiment on readily available metal objects—coins being the most convenient choice.

Value Implications: From Potential Rarity to Commonality

The original poster’s hope that this might be a rare mint-marked coin highlights an important aspect of coin collecting: the difference between perceived rarity and actual market value. While the poster searched extensively for similar examples, finding none, this absence of documentation actually supports the PMD theory rather than contradicting it.

A genuine mint error of this nature would likely have been documented in error-variety references. The fact that it appears undocumented suggests it’s a relatively recent alteration rather than a historical mint product.

Market Value Comparison

A normal 1963-D Lincoln cent in circulated condition might be worth $0.10 to $0.25 to a collector. In uncirculated condition, values range from $0.50 to several dollars depending on grade. However, this altered example would likely bring only slight premium above face value, perhaps $0.25 to $1.00 as a curiosity, despite the original poster’s hopes for something more valuable.

As one forum member humorously noted, genuine rare varieties like the 1909-S VDB are “scarcer than” this altered coin—highlighting the vast difference between true rarities and altered pieces.

Educational Value: Learning from PMD Examples

While this coin has little monetary value due to its altered state, it serves as an excellent educational tool. Understanding how to identify post-mint damage is crucial for collectors at all levels. The flattened area opposite the raised symbol, the lack of corresponding die evidence, and the overall context all point to post-mint alteration.

For collectors looking to avoid similar mistakes, studying resources like error-ref.com and educational YouTube channels can provide valuable knowledge about what constitutes genuine mint errors versus post-mint alterations.

Conclusion: The True Value of Knowledge

This 1963-D Lincoln cent with its mysterious raised symbol teaches us an important lesson about coin grading and authentication. While the initial appearance might suggest something rare and valuable, careful examination reveals the truth. The coin’s true value lies not in its market price but in the educational opportunity it provides.

For the original finder, the journey from thinking they had discovered something unique to understanding the nature of the alteration represents valuable growth in numismatic knowledge. As one forum member suggested, rather than being “humbled” by the correction, collectors should embrace these learning opportunities.

In the world of numismatics, knowledge truly is the most valuable currency. Understanding how to properly grade coins, identify alterations, and recognize genuine mint errors can mean the difference between a $10 coin and a $1,000 coin—or in this case, between a potential treasure and an interesting curiosity worth only slightly more than face value.