1944 D/S OMM002 LWC - Am I Seeing This Right?

I don't believe this is either of the two major O/Ms known for this date.

I agree, not seeing anything when it comes to either a RPM or a OMM

Sorry no, I don't think this is anything.

If it was a RPM or a OMM, you would be able to definitely tell if you had those closeups, but, I'm afraid it isn't a RPM or a OMM. You're looking too hard and seeing something that isn't there.

Keep looking! You'll find a worthy error soon enough.

This has somewhat strong remnants but they were obscured by dirt and lower in profile. Amazing how things that are hidden under dirt can appear as if they don't exist.

Just because the evidence isn't as clear as it is in stage B or even C, does not mean this doesn't belong in the category. I think this might be a stage D or E because in addition to the same die crack east of VDB, it also has a more significant break along the bottom of the bust just east of VDB.

Notice the die pit in the middle of the first 4's recessed area? I see it on the date pics on VarietyVista too. If there were more pics overall of the coin that could be used to fingerprint the variety, instead of just one or two things, it would be easier to affirm or eliminate a match.

I find it very hard to believe that random scratches that do not follow the polishing gouges and random pitting can result in something that fits the pattern that closely.

I acknowledge that I have seen extra letters where others do not - and they were there, they just weren't mint marks. Yes, they were truly there, not random patterns matching a known pattern, yet I got the same "I don't see it" response, which is why I highly doubt those that reply "Don't see anything." I think you see something that you don't think is actually what I'm trying to attribute to what I see, but for some reason you're either too lazy to say more than that pat answer, or you want me to think I'm imagining it to discourage me from posting similar topics. I prefer to think the latter, but I wouldn't want to be tagged with either.

I believe those extra S'es I was seeing in that other topic were the result of counterclash or similar effect, that just happened to match up precisely with at least two of the mint marks in use at that time. They were so obviously there, but I got the same chorus of "Don't see anything." But I digress. This is different. There is clear evidence of the same pattern, of an overpunched D over an S, that is shown in the stage B and C photos on variety vista. This coin does show evidence of being a later-stage die state of the same die, which I believe adds credibility to my claim.

The D does look slightly different from the one in the stage b photos, but is in the same location. I believe the difference can be attributed to it being somewhat mashed during circulation.

I will upload a couple of pics with most of the dirt removed. It's hard to get all the schmutz out of the middle of the Denver mint mark while maintaining the integrity of the coin, but I can now see that there are two lines, just like in the B photo, just not very prominent, either due to said schmutz or due to wear or polishing.

Looks like it does... based on the VV photos. Yours looks like a very high mint state. Mine is well-circulated and the MM is clearly post-mint mashed.

BTW, props for all the overlays you do - it is really hard to get them to be the same size and account for tilt and whatnot, and using edge detection tools isn't precise.


This is the stage B pic on VV. That doesn't match your pic either.


Nor does the stage C pic on VV.

Note the arrows. Mine shows this... Later die stage?

I can see that. So, is this an old faded D/S that isn't one of the registered two - like maybe one they caught and polished most of it out before using it?

I'm going to agree with Coop and Merclover. I'm not seeing any signs of a D/S