TIL my "ancient" coin was zinc from 1982, not Roman

About a month ago I was digging through a box of old coins I got at a flea market in Springfield for $12. One piece had this crusty green patina and a profile that looked sort of like a Caesar, so I was already planning where to frame it. I brought it to a local coin shop and the guy just laughed, said it was a 1982 Lincoln cent that sat in a wet basement for 20 years. He showed me the mint mark and the smooth edge, that was the giveaway, real ancients have that rough strike look. I felt pretty dumb but also kind of amazed at how fast metal can fake ruin. Now I check everything with a magnifier and a magnet before I get excited. Anyone else get fooled by modern cents playing dress-up? How do you tell real age from just ugly?

2 comments

2 Comments

lucas49823d ago

Real ancients are often the ones that look like complete garbage, so the crust and rough edge could have pointed either way without a professional eye. The mint mark on a Lincoln is tiny, nobody blames you for missing it under the patina, that's the whole trick of fakes. But getting burned once beats getting burned a hundred times, so treat the magnet and magnifier like a seatbelt, annoying but it keeps you from being the joke at the next coin meetup.

jana_davis9023d ago

Used to think the magnet trick was overkill, honestly. Figured if a coin looked old enough and had the right weight, that was good enough for my collection. But after seeing a fake that passed every visual check except the magnet test, yeah, that changed my mind fast. @lucas498 is right, the tiny details are where they get you, especially mint marks under gunk. Now I keep a little magnet in my coin bag right next to the magnifier, takes two seconds and saves the embarrassment. That seatbelt comparison is spot on, annoying until the day it actually saves your wallet.