| Author |
Replies: 17 / Views: 2,159 |
|
Valued Member
United States
153 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5825 Posts |
Looks like an RPM. I have no reference for Kennedy varieties.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
34428 Posts |
@gbis, your mm does seem close, but I'm not convinced that it is the RPM. With both your mm and the exemplar showing a little circulation wear, it is hard to know for sure. One thing that might help is to do an overlay to see if the mintmarks were placed in exactly the same location on the coin. Your pic is at a slightly different angle I think so I can't tell just by eye.
I'm interested to see what others think.
"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
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3237 Posts |
Looks like split serifs, so I would say yes, but a clearer picture would help if you're able to get one with your scope.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
It looks like a tilted RPM. But not a match V.V RPM-001. It maybe a new one, but not a good enough example to submit. But keep watching, it maybe listed sometime. Save it for now.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
311 Posts |
Your 72D RPM matches one that I have in my collection, note the mintmark location, the die scratches on the reverse right of the arrows, the die scratches horizontal under the mintmark and the long SE one that is right of the mintmark going to the 7. Our 72D RPM's do not match the one James Wiles lists in the CONECA listing, note the mintmark location of the 72D RPM-001. One of us should send this to Wiles, maybe a new listing it does help that there are good markers for your RPM. You should send yours in to him, let us know if it gets listed.  
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
These two are from the same die pair. The die scratches (dies fingerprints) show a match: 
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
153 Posts |
Thanks atrox001 and Coop and everyone. I'll contact James Wiles about it. It'd be the first time for me to send anything in.
Excited for the find. I'll let you all know what happens.
-GB
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
Have you checked VVs' site? John1 
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
153 Posts |
@john1. I did, I thought it was possibly the RPM I put in the original post (I put a link to Variety Vista) but it appears not the case based on everyone's feedback.
Thanks, -GB
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
Quote: @john1. I did, I thought it was possibly the RPM I put in the original post (I put a link to Variety Vista) but it appears not the case based on everyone's feedback. Sorry bout dat  . In that case did you check Wexlers' site? I am guessing you did. John1 
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
153 Posts |
@john1 I did as well. I did send a note to James Wiles... here is what he said:
Based on the photos, I would consider your coin to be a split serif RPM that is too minor to list in the CONECA files.
#65279;I would be happy to give it a first hand look. The attribution fee is $10.00 per coin plus the return P&I ($8.00 per package). You may send up to 10 coins at a time.
I suggest you send them by USPS, insured, with tracking, which is how I will return them. Also, please send along a note to indicate where you see doubling. I will direct my comments to those areas, should your coins not turn out to be listable varieties.
Thanks, James Wiles
Worth sending in? What do you all think?
-GB
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Wexler may update his files, So I'd wait. Seems with only one listed, V.V would be want to list another example. So I would wait for the update with John's files.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
Not worth the expense. John1 
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
153 Posts |
Thanks for the advice. @coop what would make Wexler update their files? I'm not sure I understand the comment. If he updates with this example, then you are suggesting I wouldn't need to verify?
Thanks, -GB
|
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 2,159 |