Coin Community Family of Web Sites Live Coin auctions starting as low as $1
Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our Youtube Channel! Check out our Twitter! Check out our Pinterest!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?


This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.
Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some coins?
Our coin forum is completely free! Register Now!

1970 S Cent Ld/Sd Identification Help

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 13 / Views: 578Next Topic  
Valued Member

United States
110 Posts
 Posted 10/20/2022  7:53 pm Show Profile   Bookmark this topic Add Ozzy5150 to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
Thank you all for looking and any insight. I'd just quickly like to know your opinion on this coin if it's a small date or large date. I believe it's a large date but please let me know if I'm wrong. I understand all the identifiers but I'm a little confused about this one. Thank you.

Bedrock of the Community
Learn More...
United States
17964 Posts
Valued Member
United States
374 Posts
 Posted 10/20/2022  8:11 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add I6609 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Large date tail on the 9 points at the mint mark. Small date tail points at the 7 half way up small date also known as high 7 where it is up even with the 9 and 0 on the top of the date
Bedrock of the Community
Learn More...
United States
78071 Posts
 Posted 10/20/2022  8:26 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Coinfrog to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Agree, large date.
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11938 Posts
 Posted 10/20/2022  8:37 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add ijn1944 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Yes, large date it is. For me, the 9 tells the story..
Valued Member
United States
110 Posts
 Posted 10/20/2022  11:09 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Ozzy5150 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Sorry to do this. That coin is actually from reputable grading company certified as 1970 S SD FS-1401 BN AU-58.If you'd like to look for yourselves then simply search those parameters. My motive is 2-fold, Mostly I feel much more sane than I have over the last year. I'd simply like to point out the subjectivity where there should be as little as possible.

Everyone makes mistakes and I completely understand things like this will come up. I've found several improperly certified coins. I've let it go until today because most of the others I've found are minor and most wouldn't notice unless really looking hard. This was to flagrant to not ask an opinion.

That said, I appreciate everyone's input and knowledge in the forum and will be the first to say that some of the best insight is found amomgst the members.

Thank You All
Bedrock of the Community
Learn More...
United States
17964 Posts
Valued Member
United States
110 Posts
 Posted 10/21/2022  12:31 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Ozzy5150 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I will certainly get the information I have available. I will at least leave a link to where I found the info.
Valued Member
United States
110 Posts
 Posted 10/21/2022  03:51 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Ozzy5150 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Hope this doesn't step on any toes.
PCGS Cert#39644628
I think this is all you are asking for.
Again, I know if several examples of rather obvious discrepancies. I don't go looking for them. I come across them when I'm studying a specific variety and use the great pictures as a resource to become as familiar with the pick-up points and small details as possible.

To be clear, My intent was based out of frustration not malice. I'm a very analytical/logic based thinker and it becomes nearly unbearable when it seems that rules are based on interpretation or subjectivity.

Again, Thank You all for the support and vast knowledge base.
Edited by Ozzy5150
10/21/2022 04:01 am
Bedrock of the Community
Learn More...
United States
17964 Posts
 Posted 10/21/2022  09:01 am  Show Profile   Check Dearborn's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add Dearborn to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Well, I think that PCGS made an error on that one. I'm going to message them to see if that could be the issue.

you see, looking at the tru-view of the PCGS image (which IS the image you posted above), the 7 looks to be lower that the 0 of the date - also the S mint mark is not correct for a small date - the small date MM has rounded terminations of the S at top and bottom, while the large date has flat serifs
Also the top loop of the 9 is pointing towards the MM (indicating a large date) not towards the bottom of the 7 (indicating a small date).

I could be wrong but this IS my opinion and I'm sticking by it.

Any other opinions here?

Edit: forgot to post up a comparison image.
Edited by Dearborn
10/21/2022 10:57 am
Valued Member
United States
110 Posts
 Posted 10/21/2022  10:40 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Ozzy5150 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Dearborn, I generally agree with your assessment. I do have a few pics of 1970 S that are hard to identify. I'll be as detailed as possible as to what I'm seeing. I'll post them shortly.

Slightly related, has the US mint ever commonly re-used working dies? Is it possible for a working die to be re-hubbed and used for multiple runs? I can't find specific info on this. Current info suggest a penny die will strike 1 million coins.Even at that # over 5000+ pairs just for pennies.

I'm familiar with the process I've read and watched everything I can find.

The answer to this question will determine my next topic. Thank you all.
Pillar of the Community
United States
1788 Posts
 Posted 10/21/2022  11:56 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add RobO411 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Well. If you've notice how many numerous questions I've asked about a certain coin
Even I saw that this was a large date.
Yes people make mistakes but this one is pretty bad. Especially for a reputable company.
Bedrock of the Community
Learn More...
United States
62061 Posts
 Posted 10/21/2022  2:40 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add coop to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Looks like contact flattening on the 70 on the date. There are some different looking doubled dies on that year. So you might want to check to see what they look like. But I can't see anything hinting towards a doubled die on the coin images so far.
http://www.varietyvista.com/01b%20L...201970-S.htm
Take a look at some of these to see what to look for on the '70' date area. (Also seen on other mints that year):
1970-D:
http://www.varietyvista.com/01b%20L...201970-D.htm
1970:
http://www.varietyvista.com/01b%20L...O%201970.htm
Richard S. Cooper
Some have asked about my images I use and I'm glad to say, you can now you can see the DVD in sections on youtube:
1. Intro, older coins, toned coins 2. Doubled dies 3. Die events, One of a kind errors 4. So called errors, Coin information 5. Coin information Types and Varieties, Overlays
Jefferson nickel doubled dies Wexler/Rebar complete listings

trail dies:http://www.traildies.com/
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
3365 Posts
 Posted 10/21/2022  3:54 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Cujohn to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Makes you wonder what it takes to become a TPG employee.
  Previous TopicReplies: 13 / Views: 578Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.





Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2023 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2023 Coin Community Forums
It took 0.34 seconds to rattle this change. Powered By: