Coin Community Family of Web Sites
Click the image to visit our official website.
Royal Estate Auctions - $1 Coin AuctionsRoyal Canadian Mint products, Canadian, Polish, American, and world coins and banknotes. Coin, Banknote and Medal Collectors's Online Mall 300,000 items to help build your collection! Vancouvers #1 Coin and Paper Money Dealer Specializing in Modern Numismatics
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?


This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.

Welcome Guest! Register Now! It's free!

Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads and vignette (between pages) ads.

1953-D Possible RPM / Doubling?

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 10 / Views: 323Next Topic  
Valued Member
MintedNotPrinted's Avatar
United States
410 Posts
 Posted 10/03/2025  2:37 pm Show Profile   Bookmark this topic Add MintedNotPrinted to your friends list Get a Link to this Message Number of Subscribers
Not to see the same thing repeatedly and expect different results, but does anyone else see an RPM &/or doubling on this one?

I know there's evident deterioration doubling, but beyond that, certain parts look truly doubled similar to other mid-50's listings.

I understand the remote likelihood of this, but have to ask, or I can't move on with these... I have two out of two dozen 1953-D's that look like this (different MM's however) from a collection of rolls I keep finding legitimate varieties in, so I'm hesitant to disregard immediately and miss something

1953-D-Possible-RPM-/-Doubling?

1953-D-Possible-RPM-/-Doubling?
(Eidt: Corrected picture, apologies!)

1953-D-Possible-RPM-/-Doubling?
1953-D-Possible-RPM-/-Doubling?
1953-D-Possible-RPM-/-Doubling?
1953-D-Possible-RPM-/-Doubling?

Probably deterioration, I know, feint doubling at absolute best. Tilted RPM at least, perhaps? Thank you for looking!
Edited by MintedNotPrinted
10/03/2025 2:45 pm
Valued Member
United States
409 Posts
 Posted 10/03/2025  3:00 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add snailking1 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I'd agree with DDD and possibly RPM.
I'm certainly not very strong with RPM's, though, so someone else can give you a more knowledgeable thought on that.
Moderator
Learn More...
Spence's Avatar
United States
33739 Posts
 Posted 10/03/2025  3:55 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Spence to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
@min, clearly there was something going on with the punch when this mintmark was put into the die as the vertical stroke is so much wider at the bottom. If it was a RPM though, I'd expect a nice split serif on the bottom. There is a small ding, but no split serif at least as far as I can see. So perhaps the punch was a bit damaged when it was used?
"If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb

"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
Moderator
Learn More...
jbuck's Avatar
United States
171009 Posts
Bedrock of the Community
Errers and Varietys's Avatar
United States
63514 Posts
 Posted 10/03/2025  4:20 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Errers and Varietys to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I'm thinking, Die Deterioration Doubling, Machine Doubling, and maybe a damaged mint mark punch?
Errers and Varietys.
Valued Member
MintedNotPrinted's Avatar
United States
410 Posts
 Posted 10/03/2025  4:25 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add MintedNotPrinted to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
snailking1, Spence, jbuck, thank you.

Spence, I'd thought the top-left shows a feint split, but certainly not much if at all! I'm very much in agreeance that, for as wider as it is at the bottom, I'd expect a stronger split...

Edit: Errers, I was typing and missed your response, thanks as well! Indeed, I'm leaning toward broken/chipped punch...
Edited by MintedNotPrinted
10/03/2025 4:27 pm
Moderator
Learn More...
Dearborn's Avatar
United States
77073 Posts
 Posted 10/03/2025  5:16 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Dearborn to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I'm not too sure on this one. I don't think it is either doubling or RPM.

that MM looks like it could be MMS-003 to me. (used on 1946 to 1953 Dies.

http://varietyvista.com/25%20What%2...20Styles.htm
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
-makecents-'s Avatar
United States
7529 Posts
 Posted 10/03/2025  5:28 pm  Show Profile   Check -makecents-'s eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add -makecents- to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
that MM looks like it could be MMS-003 to me.
It actually looks more like MMS-005 to me but MMS-005 looks like nothing more than a damage punch of an MMS-003, which is odd, never noticed it before.... There were a total of three different mm styles used for this year, also odd. 003, 005 and 006.
-makecents-
Moderator
Learn More...
Dearborn's Avatar
United States
77073 Posts
Valued Member
MintedNotPrinted's Avatar
United States
410 Posts
 Posted 10/04/2025  5:54 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add MintedNotPrinted to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Dearborn, makecents, I honestly hadn't noticed MMS-003 up there in the list. Having looked at 5/6 for 1953 I didn't think there would be an earlier one.

Very interesting. Thank you, both!
Moderator
Learn More...
Dearborn's Avatar
United States
77073 Posts
  Previous TopicReplies: 10 / Views: 323Next Topic  

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.



    





Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2025 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2025 Coin Community Forums
It took 0.41 seconds to rattle this change. Forums