| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 1,253 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3237 Posts |
I'm not super knowledgeable about mint mark style varieties, but I found two 1953-Ds, and to me they are clearly different styles. I am almost sure the first one is MMS-003, which Dr. Wiles lists as ex. rare - does anyone have an idea how accurate that assessment is? He also lists 1972 RDV-007 nickels as rare, but I have found these to be quite common. Would love to hear people's thoughts. I've posted the mint marks from both of the two coins so people can compare. Here is the link to the VV MMS listings for Denver Jefferson nickels http://varietyvista.com/04a%20JN%20...20Styles.htmSuspected MMS-003:  MMS-004:  Edited by SamCoin
05/12/2021 5:51 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9792 Posts |
They both look like MMS-004 to me, some acetone on the mintmark and a soft rose thorn or wet toothpick might help to dislodge some of the gunk hiding the inner area better. Since booth coins are circulated I don't think it would hurt them any to try, just softly and careful, under a stereo Scope if you have one, that's how I clean out RPDs and such on my own varieties.
"Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440 |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3237 Posts |
@Westcoin the first coin is a noticeably different shape and height than the second. Note that it is shorter, has a flatter top, and is wider horizontally
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3237 Posts |
@Coop What are your thoughts? I've measured the relative heights of the two mint marks under the assumption that the photos used on VV were taken under the same magnification as each other, and the difference seems about consistent with the difference in the two mint marks I found (was not using anything sophisticated, just pencil on paper held up to my computer screen).
Edited by SamCoin
05/12/2021 8:38 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
I noticed they were using RPMs, on there images, and they are not normal mintmarks. So I added examples from 1952 and 1954 to make sure the mintmarks were correct for that time period. They changed in 1953 because a damaged punch issue, so the new was introduced during the 1953 year. So I used the year before and the year after to get the sense of that is the real normal for the MMS-003, MMS-04. So if you are trying to figure out which one is which, The damaged mintmark punches are the normal, the MMS-004 would be the one to search for on the 1953-D. If they are the damaged punch example they were used most of the year. Kind of like the MMS-005 Cents on the 1988 initials. It was not just the initials that were affected, the dies were different in design. So the Newer dies are probably what you are looking for on the 1953-D's. There is a variety on PCGS for a FS-501, that is an inverted mintmark:  I didn't see any issues with the mintmark designs on that location. Edited by coop
05/12/2021 9:05 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3237 Posts |
@Coop interesting. I had also noticed that Dr. Wiles was using RPMs, but I was pretty sure I was able to see what the difference was - namely that 003 seemed shorter, wider, and flatter on the top with more pronounced serifs. Now that I am seeing your images, I'm not entirely sure I even see the difference between the two mint mark styles at all... Very confusing. Any guidance you can offer? Are you able to see any clear distinguishing features?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Just on the 003 the serif on the top extends out further than the 004. But not sure why they would be an issue?
Re edited the the images. See in the next post of mine.
Edited by coop
05/13/2021 5:04 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3237 Posts |
Are you sure that the 1952 mint mark you posted in your comparison above isn't actually MMS-001, Coop? It looks closer to 001 than 003, and both 001 and 003 were in use in 1952 (I only just realized this since 001 is two entries before, but obviously it makes sense since 002 is the War Nickel mint mark, so they used 001 from 1938-1942, then resumed using from 1946-1953 while also using 003 in 1952 and then all three (001, 003, and 004) in 1953). Edited by SamCoin
05/12/2021 9:23 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4398 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3237 Posts |
@Tanman thanks for your help! Yeah, I figured that had to be what had happened. Glad to know I'm not crazy and it does appear to be 003. Now to start collecting data on how rare these actually are...
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Well I didn't realize that the MSS-001 extended until 1953, So I searched the 1954, 1953, 1952 and 1938 to get the right Mintmark styles. I think I have it now.  If I don't, I can still fix it. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3237 Posts |
Thanks Coop, this is useful, and all looks right now!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
The MMS-003 was a harder one to find. But most of these were either machine doubled or showing a lot of die wear. On them had an easy marker to spot with, but they are all altered by the two events I just mentioned, so I had to keep looking to find a great example. I finally die find one. (above in the image of a 1952-D MMS-003.
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 1,253 |
|
Posted 05/12/2021 6:55 pm
