| Author |
 Replies: 8 / Views: 3,536 |
|
|
New Member
United States
43 Posts |
Edited by Poin
02/14/2018 12:37 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
900 Posts |
 Looks normal to me. |
|
New Member
 United States
43 Posts |
Notice the smashed portion at the top section it's also sticking out at the top
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
I see what you mean, no idea. to the CCF! |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Looks like the die is loosing it devices integrity. (not a over mint mark) Note the date also is showing this. The dies take a heavy beating. They are only used for 6,000 strike (3,000 coins made per die pair) But the pressure is a lot stronger. The dies are ready for retirement when the run is finished on these. When you search full rolls of these, you start to see how the dies breakdown. Over polishing make the devices thinner.  |
|
Rest in Peace
10197 Posts |
#1), no known RPM or OMM for this date. #2), mintmarks were added by hand, it would have to be two different punches used with very distinct markings of vertical lines. #3). Proofs were struck TWICE, gives two times the chances of machining errors. Therefore, with those factors in mind, it is MD, machine damage, a movement of the dies upon striking. Your pix are blurry, and shadowy but the top of the 5 shows movement of MD, same direction of what is on MM, so...it is MD. BTW, very common on proofs.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Repunched or Overmintmarks for this coin are impossible. That was the first year in which the S mintmarks were on the Master Hub for the proof dies. No hand punching of mintmarks for this issue.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
Nothing special, but I can see why you would ask. You presented great photos and a specific question. Keep at it  |
|
New Member
United States
43 Posts |
Thanks everyone, input is inputted, and highly appreciated
|
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 3,536 |
|
Posted 02/14/2018 12:33 pm
