| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 467 |
|
|
New Member
United States
13 Posts |
 Hello everyone found this in my change, I think there is doubling or mayby tripling in areas such as the columns and #3 in date doesn't look rite, probably da.age but what do you think?
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17190 Posts |
 To CCF , From your photos hard to tell much . When posting pics always show obverse and reverse . I can virtually assure you it's not S/D or D/S . 
In Memory of Butch L.
and Jim U. rest in peace .
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1509 Posts |
again, I concur with T-bop that it is impossible to have a D/S on this date, since the San Francisco mint took a hiatus on cent production from 1956 to 1967; more likely a re-punched mintmark or damage to the mintmark. Probably not likely that there would be any doubling of this coin since I have not heard of any yet I encourage you to keep trying picture posting, a little trial and error might help...
Edited by mrwhatisit
01/24/2022 9:25 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8029 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7388 Posts |
 with above can you provide us with a close up of the date/MM area?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
67629 Posts |
Same. to the CCF! |
|
Moderator
United States
23215 Posts |
For sure something is going on with this mintmark, but when I crop, enlarge, and enhance your pic, it becomes too pixelated to quite figure out what. There also seems to be either a scratch or a die crack between the top of the six and the top of the three. Please post a nice close-up for us. Thx.  "If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
New Member
United States
13 Posts |
I'm tryin ,all this from my fone. Not sure what's going to go through but that's all I'm doing tonight you guys have a good night  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8370 Posts |
Try to give us a closeup of the date/mintmark area. Zoom in with your fone, err, phone.  ça va bien aller
|
|
New Member
United States
13 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
57352 Posts |
Just damage to the coin. There were no 'S' coins that year because that mint closed in 1955 and didn't reopen until 1965 and didn't use the 'S' mintmark punch again until 1968 on proof cents and business strike cents. So it could not happen in 1963. It is a normal 'D' mintmark with damage to the mintmark area.
|
|
New Member
United States
13 Posts |
Kind of what I thought after I cleaned up a little bit thanks for your help
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8370 Posts |
I full heartedly agree with coop. Your mintmark is just damaged. ça va bien aller
|
|
Valued Member
United States
98 Posts |
it could have happed in 1963, they could have reused a s mint mark die to be used in phili, grinded the s down most of the way and added a D, The us mint has done this many times before
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1001 Posts |
No it couldn't have happened. 8 years latter, And if they ground off the s, which is punched into the die that would leave a low spot in the die, which would be a high spot on every coin that was struck by that die.
|
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 467 |
|
Posted 01/24/2022 8:46 pm
