Question About OMM Pennies After 1955

Sigh. Okay then, let's search this forum for "1969 D over S". Here are the top three hits:

This guy imagined they saw a "repunched S" behind/underneath the 6 in the date: http://goccf.com/t/381207

This guy imagined he saw an S under the D, but sideways: http://goccf.com/t/365297

And this guy reckons he can see a tiny little "S" inside the hole of the "D": http://goccf.com/t/325032

So, which one of these highly improbable configurations are we to believe is "the real 1969 D over S"? Or are they all equally bogus?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying "I've got a 1969 D over S penny" is the numismatic equivalent of saying "I saw Bigfoot". The two scenarios are scientifically identical, in the sense that all prior evidence indicates that neither Bigfoot nor 1969 D/S pennies exist. If you want to propose that either of them exists, you will need to provide some very convincing proof. Otherwise, gentle skepticism - which can come across as "arrogant dismissal" - is totally warranted.

As for your hypothesis about mintmarked dies floating about the place and accidentally getting double-mintmarked and then used, let's consider this.

Mints are government entities. They are legally responsible for the artifacts under their care. While things may have been slack at times in past centuries, these days they're pretty rigorous. Two things they are very, very meticulous about record-keeping with are the coins themselves, and the dies used to make coins. If a coin die goes astray, counterfeiters might find it and use it to make 100% foolproof counterfeits - and that's a nightmare scenario for a government. Ask the Canadians about what happened to their original concept for the circulating $1 coin in 1987, to find out how governments typically react when a coin die gets lost in transit between mints. And the best way to stop them from going missing, is to avoid shipping them across the country in the first place. Such transfers therefore only happen if and when it is absolutely necessary.

Dies getting transferred between mints is therefore a big deal, and something that records are kept for. There will be records of the die leaving one mint, and arriving at the other. A mint worker doesn't just shove an old coin die in their pocket while they go off to visit their buddies in another mint. And they're pretty big hunks of steel, too; not something you could smuggle out in your pocket easily.

There are no such records. And, after 50 years and hundreds of thousands of people meticulously examining 1969 pennies, no-one has ever actually found a D/S that was verified as such by neutral third-party authorities. Therefore, until and unless concrete, definitive evidence arises otherwise, the hypothesis that they do exist can be dismissed. Arrogance, however, is optional.

Thanks SAP and Silviosi. I am just curious about the question if its possible as this says: The truth is that both the S and D mintmarks were punched at the Philadelphia mint where all dies are prepared. So a mint employee could easily change a D to an S for a variety of reasons before the dies are shipped to their respective mints. http://lincolncentresource.com/OMMS/OMMS.html So if they did do the punching which is different than even silviosi mentioned, then we cant eliminate a theoretical claim based on that.

Like the Repunched Mint Mark (RPM) varieties, the Over Mint Mark (OMM) varieties, and the Dual Mint Mark (DMM) varieties, it is the result of the mint mark being hand-punched into the working dies. The culprit so far has been the S mint mark. https://doubleddie.com/58243.html The mintmarks were added to the business strike dies by hand until 1989 and so the position of the mintmark placement and its shape will vary on each individual die. Slight variation in position is perfectly normal.

Although Proof coins were being struck at the San Francisco Mint at the time - the 's' mint mark, the Philadelphia Mint was responsible for making the Proof dies (and adding the mintmark). Apparently, at least one die was sent from Philadelphia without the mintmark, and a small number of PROOF "S"-less Dimes were struck and released before the error was discovered. This is the 1975 dime, after the date mentioned and seems to collaborate the punching is done at philadelphia.

And current: The Mint adds mint marks to the master hub, the first stage of the die making process. The Philadelphia Mint makes a master hub for each facility that will strike the coin. The Philadelphia Mint produces hubs and dies for every stage of the process. The Denver Mint receives master dies from Philadelphia to produce its own working hubs and dies. Both Denver and Philadelphia also make working dies for the San Francisco and West Point Mint facilities https://www.usmint.gov/learn/produc...s/die-making

A major turning point for hub and die production in the U.S. Mints came in the summer of 1996 when the Denver Mint opened its own die making shop. Prior to this, all aspects of the die making process were done exclusively at the Philadelphia Mint. The die shop at the Denver Mint does not produce master hubs or master dies. All master hubs and master dies are still produced at the Philadelphia Mint. Master dies for coinage production at the Denver Mint are shipped to the Denver die shop from the Philadelphia Mint's die shop. The Denver die shop then produces the necessary working hubs and working dies in their die shop. The Denver die shop also produces the unfinished working dies that will be used at the San Francisco Mint. Once received from Denver, the working dies receive their special finishes for proof coin production at the San Francisco Mint. https://doubleddie.com/58201.html

I didnt see anything that said in this year the mint started sending the mint mark punches to the other mints and they took over the punching of mint marks for example or were applying to the working dies outside of philadelphia mint, but ran out of time.

To be clear though, I didn't say anything about the mimt mark dies being shipped to other mints in 1969 specifically, I was saying that because they did at one point in time, it would surely be possible for a mint mark die to be shipped and then left at another mint when they stopped doing this.

Also here are other examples of the same mint mark

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/19...er-s.351902/

http://goccf.com/t/381207

@ M TeK 9 It is not you to be arrogant or not. If you was arrogant, believe you know this from the begin. I will go to see the Talk, I am member so I can see everything. I will come back for those treats.

I understand been confuse about different sources of big errors or such. Look of them and try to find the true, which always come to the routs, the Mint. It is the only way to know the true.

The TPG's it is another question. Except as this moment, personally only ANACS and VSS has no error in attributions (what I check). The others I do not make confidence in varieties and error attribution.

I hope you and others reader learn from your post. Thanks to bring UP.

Very interesting post and before I will find the final explanation of Cincinnati to the Congress I put you here two interesting facts:



PS: Just an example of the Mint Reports. I will find and post the MM study from the Mint. I love this discussion because represent what this forum is about: Learning, teaching and share not evaluations or others.

Every thing was to tell you that was impossible to occur. First the dies was done in Phil with no MM and the ship. DATA has some suppositions but not facts. The reports speack more then we imagine or believe.

@Dutch-Tigger thank you brink up the chain of custody. You brink, I never want to say about. What you say is 100% right. We go to-day by suppositions and not by facts.

Behind the suppositions, facts we find and the reality are the really facts of what was. Those facts are the true and was as was and we can not change, just accept. Thank you brink this because I was slam brink what the "Chain of Custody" permit me to say. I have 15 years non disclosure term.