| Author |
 Replies: 26 / Views: 913 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4038 Posts |
Why not use the image provided by the OP? This way you are guaranteed the images are at the same magnification. Proving the 54-D MM and the potential 54-S DMM are the same size is critical to proving the DMM one way or the other.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
8786 Posts |
coin rejector, this is very cool! Good luck on a possible new OMM, that would be fantastic!
-makecents-
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6556 Posts |
Wow, that is a truly bizarre place to punch a mint mark! If that is indeed a D, then it would almost have to be intentionally tucked away behind the 5 like that. Great eye to spot that anomaly! =)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
There are a couple of 54-S dies with damage to this area of the 5. I'm wondering if one of those just a later die state of this die where the MM has worn such that it looks like damage instead of an underlying D mintmark.
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8786 Posts |
Quote:
There are a couple of 54-S dies with damage to this area of the 5. I'm wondering if one of those just a later die state of this die where the MM has worn such that it looks like damage instead of an underlying D mintmark. Can you post them? I and sure others would like to compare. -makecents-
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4618 Posts |
@rmpsrpms I'll redo the overlay with the OPs images.  I did make sure that the magnification was correct by doing a straight overlay of the date and mint mark then adjusting the position of the D to match the possible mint mark under the 5. I also want to check some of my error books. I seem to remember something about possible damage in that area, as you pointed out, I just haven't found it yet. Edit: I did find a listing for a 1951-D with a D under the 5 in almost exactly the same position. It's in the CherryPickers' Guide Fifth Edition Volume 1 (page 120) FS-01-1951D-521 (021.51) It's almost exactly the same positioning of the D under the 5 as coin rejector's 1954-S. This may be the coin that I was thinking of. I'll keep searching to see if I can find anything else. It seems that the 1951-D coin has been delisted and deemed to be a die chip instead of an additional mint mark. Still searching for more on the 1954-S that coin rejector posted. ANA ID: 3203813 - CONECA ID: N-5637 Clean a coin that may be worth collecting? Please DON'T! When in doubt, leave it dirty!! 
Edited by Yokozuna
06/08/2024 9:01 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4618 Posts |
Here an overlay using coin rejector's image. The lighting makes it harder to adjust the depth aspect of the mint mark, but it still seems to be a good match. Back to the books to see if I can find anything on this.   ANA ID: 3203813 - CONECA ID: N-5637 Clean a coin that may be worth collecting? Please DON'T! When in doubt, leave it dirty!!
|
|
Moderator
United States
97433 Posts |
looks good to me. an errant D MM over the date on a San Francisco minted coin.. Very nice!!!!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6556 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
Hmm, not so fast. I don't see a good match. I think the extra "D" is smaller than the 54-D, and you have the 54-D rotated too far CCW. Perhaps if you did the high points only again it might be closer to the right size. You mentioned an animation, and I think that might give more information.
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
781 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
United States
97433 Posts |
I could try - but them I'm not that good at overlays.. (not at all)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2860 Posts |
Quote:
coin rejector, this is very cool! Good luck on a possible new OMM, that would be fantastic! .... Thank you makecents! Quote:
Wow, that is a truly bizarre place to punch a mint mark! If that is indeed a D, then it would almost have to be intentionally tucked away behind the 5 like that. Great eye to spot that anomaly! =) Thank you BM Quote:
I'd be happy to work up an overlay. Thank you Yokozuna for the help! Quote:
looks good to me. an errant D MM over the date on a San Francisco minted coin.. Very nice!!!! Thanks Dearborn, I'm hoping anyway. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2860 Posts |
I guess for now, I'll put this one in the "possibly" category. Maybe once tanman starts taking submissions again, I'll send it into him. Thanks everyone for the comments, most appreciated.
Edited by coin rejector
06/09/2024 12:38 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
I went ahead and made an animated overlay of the mintmarks. In first animation I highlighted the secondary MM in red, compared with the original. I then used the highlighted image with the 54-D mintmark to show the way the D may have been punched into the 5. Overally I give this a 90% chance of being a DMM: - much of the MM is missing due to being punched over the recess in the die due to the 5 - the small piece of the curve of the D happens where the die is just high enough to catch the edge of the MM punch, explaining why it is slightly smaller than the high points of the punch. The high points simply could not make contact with the die due to the recess due to the 5 There are 2 issues I see: - the lower part of the MM with serif should show, but it could be explained if the D was punched at an angle. This is supported by a slight taper to the vertical part of the D - the upper part of the curve should show more within the 5, but that part is shadowed so I can't analyze it. @coin rejector, can you take another pic that shows the upper inside curve of the 5 to see if any more of the D can be seen?   |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 26 / Views: 913 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 06/08/2024 6:46 pm
