| Author |
 Replies: 19 / Views: 4,741 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
Posting a picture here would be more helpful, many dealers would not know the difference between a WAM and Wham!. Edited by biokemist6
06/04/2013 12:33 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2651 Posts |
There are plenty of people that will be able to give you the answer on your coin. Post a pic and you'll have the correct answer.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
561 Posts |
I second the motion!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2624 Posts |
In 1992 they made cents with the 007 type reverse ( Close AM). The logical explanation was they ran out of 006 ( Wide AM) reverse dies and had to use the new design. If this was the case then a 006 reverse being used in 1993 would be very doubtful. I do not know this to be a fact just an assumption. The proof ,as they say, is in the pudding. If we could see the coin,close up of the AME and a pic of the whole coin, we would be able to give the answer. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2624 Posts |
Quote:Hi, a picture would be very nice. If the coin is in fact a WAM, it's worth from 1 dollar to maybe 5 dollars. If it is a 1993 WAM it could be worth more (or less), there has been none found to date (that I know of). |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3640 Posts |
Wonder if he will be back  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3592 Posts |
If it is a 1993P WAM, it is worth much more than 5 dollars...much,much,more. |
|
Valued Member
United States
207 Posts |
I remember reading about two months ago an article stating that a very, very small number of 1993-D's were accidently struck with the RDV006 reverse. Quote:In 1992 they made cents with the 007 type reverse ( Close AM). The logical explanation was they ran out of 006 ( Wide AM) reverse dies and had to use the new design. If this was the case then a 006 reverse being used in 1993 would be very doubtful. I do not know this to be a fact just an assumption. Another explanation about the 1992 CAM that I have read is that at the end of 1992 the Mint did some test-strikes of their new RDV-007 design (intended for 1993 and beyond) on a few 1992's (about 2 dozen P&D) to see if this new design would be compatible. Edited by coinaki
06/05/2013 03:17 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3592 Posts |
Quote:
I remember reading about two months ago an article stating that a very, very small number of 1993-D's were accidently struck with the RDV006 reverse. That would be big news in the Coin World and I think you misread something.But if you have a link I would like to see it. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1915 Posts |
Four days have passed, not another word from the OP, nor any photos provided to collaborate. I smell a troll.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
207 Posts |
Quote:That would be big news in the Coin World and I think you misread something.But if you have a link I would like to see it. Even though I read it about 2-3 months ago the article itself was several years old. It may have been Ken Potter's article linked below. He mentions the 1993 in the last paragraph. And it could be possible that I may have misread it. When I got into coins in Feb I was trying to read & absorb as much info as possible from the web, and so I copied and wrote down several keynotes on just about every year of the cent. And that was one of the notes I had for the 1993. Perhaps it was the 1993S and I probably jotted down 1993D on my notes. http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis...ticleId=7661btw, as a side note: the 1998/1999/2000 weren't the only post-1992 years that had the WAM; it appears the 1996 also had it. http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis...ticleId=6075Edited by coinaki
06/05/2013 10:03 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1915 Posts |
The 1996 is believed to be a hoax perpetuated by Billy Crawford. It has never been verified nor seen.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
207 Posts |
Quote:
The 1996 is believed to be a hoax perpetuated by Billy Crawford. It has never been verified nor seen. Interesting. Never knew that. Thanks Seal. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2651 Posts |
Quote:
The 1996 is believed to be a hoax perpetuated by Billy Crawford. It has never been verified nor seen True...but I still check every 1996.... (i also check every other year between 1993-2008) Edited by Jayman931
06/06/2013 11:34 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
207 Posts |
Quote:
True...but I still check every 1996.... (i also check every other year between 1993-2008) Same here, Jay. Every single one of them. The unexplored always intrigues me more than the already explored. Edited by coinaki
06/06/2013 12:22 pm
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 19 / Views: 4,741 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 06/04/2013 12:42 pm
