| Author |
 Replies: 20 / Views: 3,506 |
|
Valued Member
United States
142 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
142 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
Need better pics. What is your photo taking set up? John1  |
|
Valued Member
United States
142 Posts |
I'm using the photo program in here to upload pictures.
There are also two listings selling a 1956 d/s penny with better and clearer s mint Mark's than mine. Why won't the forum accept that they actually exist. Instead of saying they never happened .
I get it the San Francisco mint was closed during those years but there are other ways the s got there. Like hand punch, blanks from the San FRANCISCO FRANCISCO mint , or even PHILADELPHIA mint produced some after the San FRANCISCO closed, remember they had both dies and it's a possibility not impossible then just pinch over the s to fix.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3207 Posts |
looks more like D over D to me
|
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
1956-D over S does exist. I wanted to know what camera and light set up you are using. John1 |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
6514 Posts |
I'm learning. What is OMM? Something mint mark I'm sure, but what?
Edit: Over Mint Mark. Tyty
Check out my counterstamped Lincoln Cent collection: http://goccf.com/t/303507Edited by chafemasterj
02/26/2019 12:19 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
75050 Posts |
That's just a coin contact mark on the mintmark from Post Strike Damage ( PSD). Not an Over MintMark. Errers and Varietys.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5240 Posts |
The 1956 D/S had been delisted.
|
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
OMM=Over Mint Mark,like D over S. John1 |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
1956-D/S OM-002  CONECA always called this a D/D CONECA: RPM #12 http://www.varietyvista.com/02a%20L...6DRPM012.htmCoppercoins lists it as 1956D-1OM-002 Wexler:1956-D 1¢ WOMM-001 Description: An apparent S mint mark shows NE of the D. Here is the side by side between the Op's coin and this image I posted:  Not from the same die. Locations are different for the mint marks. Edited by coop
02/26/2019 8:30 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6116 Posts |
I found a very early die stage for the OMM a couple years ago and took some pics. Here is my side-by-side with a sorta guess to show the "S". In hand it was pretty convincing as an s mint mark, not a D.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3669 Posts |
The 1956-D "D over S" is much more plausible than the 1956-D "D and S."  The D/S clearly is a D over something. The only two possibilities are D/S NE or D/D/D NE and E. The "D" and purported "S" are within the normal range of mint mark locations. In contrast, the "D and S" has a major problem. There are three completely different dies identified as "the" die for the "D and S." One has an intact "6" in the date (coppercoins.com). One has a broken hub "6" in the date (Wexler). One has both a broken hub "6" and a plugged "9" in the date. All three have the supposed "S" in slightly different N-S positions between the "1" and "9" of the date. All three have been certified by ANACS. |
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
So,a yes-no answer please. Is the OPs' coin a OMM? John1 EDIT: Quote:
The only two possibilities are D/S NE or D/D/D NE and E. I can think of a third...die gouge. Edited by John1
02/27/2019 04:21 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
The OP's coin = No. The location is not a match.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3669 Posts |
 In addition, the OMM (or D/D/D) has distinct indications of a secondary mark east and NE, which the OPs coin lacks. This is definitely not the suspected OMM. |
| |
Replies: 20 / Views: 3,506 |
Posted 02/26/2019 09:29 am
