| Author |
 Replies: 27 / Views: 1,671 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
Very nice this RPM. I never find but it is on my list to have. Crawford was great on figuring out those.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
301 Posts |
Thank you Silviosi, I am as proud now as was when first placed into my collection.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
877 Posts |
Ya'll gotta help me out here. Am I missing something?
As far as I understood things, the dude with the MM punch received the die after all the other stuff was on it. He took the die, placed his punch on it, and struck the die in a relatively correct position.
I have to consider the odds of positioning the punch and then striking it in this way off base area. Especially without leaving a hint of a hit on the 9.
Are you suggesting the MM strike was prior to the ingraving of the date. If so, please explain.
I must be missing something. Help me understand.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
97162 Posts |
No, the MM under the date was added after. Take note that it is shallow compared to the date, which means that the die was finished and ready to receive the MM last. Besides I believe that all the dies were made in Philadelphia, then shipped to Denver or San Francisco. Then each mint added their own MM on site.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
DEAR is right. Was the mint procedures in that year. Is not clear, clear but it is the most plausible explanation till now.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
877 Posts |
Yes, just as I stated in the first paragraph in my previous reply. Therefor, for this to be a RPM, one must surmise that the punch was carelessly placed above the 9, and struck without leaving any visible damage to the numeral. This seems highly unlikely to me. Coincidental similarity to the D. Probably a die dent. Also, if it is PMD, one would expect some damage to the 9 as well. Just my opinion. |
|
Moderator
United States
97162 Posts |
Right, Which is why in one of my earlier replies up above (when I was playing 'Devils Advocate') that I asked if this could just be a die dent - just like the feature just to the right of the date could also be a die dent.
If not a dent, then yes, an RPM is what it would be.
|
|
Moderator
United States
97162 Posts |
Quote:
Therefor, for this to be a RPM, one must surmise that the punch was carelessly placed above the 9, and struck Is it possible that when the Mint Mark placer guy (gal?) was about to hit the MM into place , just suddenly sneezed and their had jerked a tiny bit as a result? In my books - yes - it is possible. I have a condition that causes me to 'just start sneezing without any pre-curser of one coming up.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
877 Posts |
Leaving no discernable damage to the numeral? That would suggest an extreme angle on the punch.
I'm on the side of a damaged die.
|
|
Moderator
United States
97162 Posts |
Well you have to remember that the numerals are incuse on the die (recessed) and if the MM was lightly tapped onto that area over the 9 it would only mark up the field a little bit.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
877 Posts |
Ah-hah. I totally missed that point. Now I have no opinion.
|
|
Moderator
United States
97162 Posts |
yeah, it is an easy thing to forget.
(and your opinion is ALWAYS welcome - no matter what)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
981 Posts |
Nice set up Dutch-T....and gesundheit DB.
"We are all flawed, some MD and some PMD." NYI Edited by NY Islander
07/02/2023 10:29 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
301 Posts |
@Dearborn  I am glad to see the discussion on this intriguing and controversial Example of what is being labeled as "MMM" not RPM. As DearBorn mentioned the cavity of the 9 was not struck at its base so bears no trace of the said MMM. The overlay of Billy G. Crawford has puzzled me for decades, as Cujohn mentioned. Quote:
To me that mark looks like the vertical of the D turned 45 degrees to the right. I don't see how Crawford's image even looks like a mint mark. @Dowhat, I do think pushing such questions as you had does a world of good when it comes to such unique and quite possibly an unknown event that occurred, this keeps us from Jumping the Shark" and is an integral part of examination. @silviosi Quote:
DEAR is right. Was the mint procedures in that year. Is not clear, clear but it is the most plausible explanation till now. This is a very accurate mention about the past practices. @NY Islander Thank you, I will need to take a breather from the Forum Follies, all of them have been taking up what little time I have with working, I will be re shooting some coins so as to fit the requirements to fit here of some more interesting and controversial coins.  I vote "Good Post" and thank all of you for joining in on such a healthy debate, I have displayed this example in other places and found an equally strong debate.  |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 27 / Views: 1,671 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 06/18/2023 5:10 pm
