| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 2,252 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1372 Posts |
I was looking through my N0 2 set of Mercury dimes today and noticed that I had mistakenly placed a Denver minted coin where the San Francisco issue is supposed to be ... so I had two 45-D's. This is a picture of both reverses in the same frame. It appears to me that, similar to the 45-S and "micro-S" ... there are 2 different size mint marks for the Denver issue as well. The size difference isn't as dramatic as the San Francisco issue, but the mint mark on the coin on the left, is clearly smaller than that of the coin on the right. Chance  |
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
Yes, you are correct, but there were a number of placement and size differences for the mint marks on the hand applied dies.
The micro S is known because it is so different.
|
|
Rest in Peace
10197 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1372 Posts |
The 1941 is listed (at NGC) as having a "large S" and a "Small S" ... maybe the designation is reserved for only San Francisco minted coins ...
...that's a lot of questions ... and I wouldn't have any idea where to start that research.
Chance
Edited by Chancellor Sutler
09/19/2017 8:13 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
7234 Posts |
doesn't seem enough difference to be considered a variety. And that's probably why there aren't any listed.
Edited by Mark1959
09/19/2017 9:10 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
18456 Posts |
Say what ?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1372 Posts |
The San Francisco comment was made "tongue in cheek" ... NGC does list the 1934 Denver issue as seen with both large and small mint marks.
Chance
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
Is that 34 an actual variety? I hope not. The 34 mint set is already an angry bear.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1372 Posts |
2 1934 Denver minted issues received variety designations .... and both are RPMs.
Chance
Edited by Chancellor Sutler
09/19/2017 9:07 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5838 Posts |
The 34 D small D is scare.
I am not certain size variation with the 45 D, some may have slight variation due to being hand punched. Closer examination is required for your coins.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12477 Posts |
I created a side-by-side using your photo, Chance. I find it easier to compare very closely without all the blank space in between.  What I noticed is that many of the surrounding design elements are "thickened" or appear larger. This might be a case that includes die wear as well. The lower end of the fasces and branch are noticeably thicker on the right coin. My idea is that the coin on the right was struck with a later state die than the coin on the left. There's also the MM-punching pressure thing to consider.  I really have no solid idea but, I hope this helps prove or disprove something.  In Memory of Crazyb0 12-26-1951 to 7-27-2020
In Memory of Tootallious 3-31-1964 to 4-15-2020
In Memory of T-BOP 10-12-1949 to 1-19-2024
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1372 Posts |
I noticed that the strike of the coin on the right seemed to have been more "mushy" for wont of a better word. The Logotype looks (almost) as different as type 1 and type 2 Eisenhower dollars. The third leaf in the olive branch, adjacent to the mint mark, is nearly absent, showing a faint suggestion of where it would be, if you know its supposed to be there. Having discovered my error ... I went and double checked my no 1 set, only to find that I had 2 29-s issues, and no 29-D ... dag nabbit. The set is mostly AU/BU, so its not an inexpensive error to correct. The good news is that I found a very high grade 45-s that I had placed in a 2x2 snap-tite to place in my no 1 set, which allows me to correct set no 2. Chance |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Spruett's comments make a lot of sense.
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 2,252 |
|
Posted 09/19/2017 7:47 pm
