| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 1,025 |
|
|
New Member
United States
28 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7174 Posts |
I think the difference is circulation damage.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Looks normal to me.  to the CCF! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3402 Posts |
Interesting...not unheard of on coins...inverted MM. We'll have to wait for others to comment. Didn't see a '70-S inverted MM in the CherryPickers' Guide. KK |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2260 Posts |
I think Cujohn is right about circulation damage. The "0" of 1970 looks a little flattened on the side towards the mintmark. The top of the "S" is probably flattened as well.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
|
|
New Member
 United States
28 Posts |
Okay I see your picture Coop but what are you trying to say with it?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
On Variety Vista, this one was the only with two images. So they Mintmark punch looks like it was replaced during that time of that design. They look different in wear/shape enough they showed two images. But on your coin the lower right loop was altered with slight damage. Thus making it look like it was an upside down mintmark punch. But if this had happened, there would be a million of these out there. So far your coin is the first known. So changes are that is not the case. Otherwise there would be many of these out there.
|
|
New Member
United States
28 Posts |
Well all it takes is one discovery coin I guess. I won't hold my breath, but I wouldn't deny that it would be super cool if my coin was the first.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Well a I mentioned, there should be a million of these out there just like that if it were an inverted mintmark. They mintmarks are added to the dies, not to the coins.
|
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 1,025 |
|
Posted 08/12/2022 6:31 pm
