| Author |
 Replies: 30 / Views: 2,740 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
526 Posts |
I am not to sure that you can grind the mint mark off a working die. And since the mint marks were only applied to the working dies, that device would be the only one to have a mint mark. That would exclude the master hub, master die and the working hub.
I also can see something there, however, we have been fooled before with anomalies that appear to be mint marks and are not. One has only to go back a few years and look at the 1980 D/S, where the supposed S mint mark was a series of die gouges. Having said that, I would suggest that this coin be thoroughly looked at by such a person as Mike Diamond who is better equipped to pass judgment on exactly what is up with this coin.
Just my thoughts.
BJ Neff
|
|
Valued Member
 Philippines
212 Posts |
I am sending photos of the area of the supposed D. The area looks like it has been filled. I really don't know only my opinion. I am sorry I don't know how to put in an overlay. I hope the pictures help. junjie   |
|
Valued Member
Philippines
212 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
16679 Posts |
 . Cool find. swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5631 Posts |
I am not a pro at LMC'S, I do collect them also.I do see something below the date, I do not know for sure but did the mint mark exist on these from 65-67, not sure ? I am not sure but there are residual marks where a m/m would of been, that said I hope for you this is a rarity.Can you take the coin to an expert or someone knowledgeable enough to help you ?, if so let us all know.I think someone holding the coin is much better to be the judge, JUST MY OPINION....  |
|
Valued Member
Philippines
212 Posts |
Well I agree an expert should look into this coin. Unfortunately from where I live nobody is seriously collecting coins. We don't even have a numismatist club down here. I guess this will have to wait until the middle of next year when I am scheduled to visit the USA. Thanks to all of you guys I have learned a lot from this experience.
Cheers
junjie
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3507 Posts |
Whatever it is, it would be too large to have been a "D". It is highly unlikely that it is or was a "D".
This is another case where backing up a little makes a difference so you can consider the coin as a whole and not just the "suspect" spot.
Look at all the scratches on the coin above the date, below the date and in front of Lincoln's face.
They are all in the same direction.
What appears to be a "D" has the top and bottom portion affected by scratches going in the same direction as all the rest.
The conclusion is damage that just happened to move metal in such a way that we can imagine that it is something else.
Thanks,
Bill
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
The eye sees patterns where there is only noise.
|
|
New Member
United States
46 Posts |
Maybe it is a dropped letter. It looks about the same size as the "D" in "GOD"
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
526 Posts |
Dropped letters or design elements are always incused on the coin affected. Since this appears to be raised, that would leave it out.
My last thought on this is that the mark may have been put there with a false or soft die "purposely". It seems that the 1960s were known for such "garage" experiments.
BJ Neff
|
|
Valued Member
Philippines
212 Posts |
BJNeff, when you say "garage experiment" it means person(s) outside the mint did it? Thanks
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
526 Posts |
Unfortunately "yes". There have been more than a few 1960 coins, especially in the Lincoln Cent series, that have underwent attempts to change their appearances to deceive the average error / variety collector. Multiple strikes is the most fraudulent during this time period, however, all anomalies that carry something "extra" should be suspected. I am not an expert in the error field and I trust people like Mike Diamond to guide me in this area. In my mind, it is hard to fathom how a mint mark that is not supposed to be present is and that is why I question its validity.Just my thoughts. BJ Neff |
|
Valued Member
Philippines
212 Posts |
Agreed BJ Neff, maybe someone in authority should really handle certain coins for a conclusive judgement. Also, the situation with us novice in this hobby is that with our eagerness and enthusiasm and thrill to discover new finds or own particular varities/errors we tend to see things that others don't see. The pillars, the pros, experts, etc., have gone this way before. It is noteworthy to know that the participants of the forum are not selfish in sharing their knowledge and experiences.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3507 Posts |
Just to add a little to what BJ mentioned. There are some classic examples of fake 1964 cents made to look like errors that have been struck more than once. There are some with other dates as well but I remember seeing a slew of 1964 dated pieces a bunch of years ago.
Edited by foundinrolls
12/03/2008 6:34 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
301 Posts |
Cool find I hope it's an odd ball
jazzcoins joe
Edited by Jazzcoins
12/03/2008 8:04 pm
|
| |
Replies: 30 / Views: 2,740 |
First Page
Posted 11/29/2008 1:05 pm
