| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 1,911 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
205 Posts |
This 1964D Nickel appears to be a match for variety vistas DDO / DDR/RPM mentioned in the posts title. There also appears to be die clashing on the obverse and reverse of this 1964D nickel. When looking at the mint mark I was trying to keep in my mind the markings that would exist on this 1964D nickel as a result of the DDO and DDR dies. I believe it is a match to Variety Vistas RPM-006 and Wexlers WRPM-001. Although above the mint mark there appears to be a strong die gouge/gouges. I am not seeing the gouges mentioned in any of the listings so I am not sure? Any information or input from the community regarding this 1964D Nickel would be appreciated. Thanks, Coindom76     |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Sorry I see no evidence if a cent variety on your coin. Just coin wear/die wear/coin contact. The 1964 nickels had the largest production numbers:
1964-D 1,787,297,160 7X move than 1963-D.
1964 1,024,672,000 (including proof nickels) 6X more than the 1963 nickels.
So they are very common coins and went through a lot circulation. Ramped up production for the 1965-1967 crunch for silver being pulled from circulation coins.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
509 Posts |
It appears the mint mark has taken a hit and has flattened it and distorted it to some degree. I'm not seeing any resemblance of any type of RPM, sorry.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
34423 Posts |
@coin, are you seeing what looks like a faint letter S in the area immediately above the mintmark?
"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
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Not a mintmark. There were no 'S' mintmark after 1955 till 1968-S The mint was closed from 1955-1965 (made cents from 1965-1967 with no mintmarks. 1968-1974 there were business strike "S" mintmarks. Along with proof strikes from 1968-S forward. (Some Proof coins are struck at West Point mint and one I know of from Philadelphia. (1999-P proof SBA) Edited by coop
09/11/2021 3:50 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
34423 Posts |
I agree with you @coop, but rather I am trying to better understand what the OP is seeing so that we can help them more than just telling them it is damage.
"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
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
205 Posts |
@Spence, Yes, I was referring to the area above the mint mark. It did at first look like an S. That is not, possible, probable as both yourself and Coop mentioned the mint was not in operation in 1964. It does appear to be well placed and of the appropriate mint mark size. Seems odd that it would be perfectly placed damage. I do appreciate the feedback from the community.
Thanks
Coindom76
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Also if it were a mintmark, it would be raised a lot more.  If it is level with the fields, it is just a stain. |
|
Valued Member
United States
205 Posts |
@coop, I agree with that Coop. The direct mint mark on this nickel has no raised area attached but blemished area above it is actually raised up above field height.
@coop, That is what caught my eye on the 1957D nickels mint mark that I posted earlier today.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
354 Posts |
What I see above the mintmark is either plate blistering or lamination issues.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Note the center of the mintmark? The normal shape is distorted. It took a hit on the NE corner and was altered. Normal mintmark that was damaged.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
509 Posts |
Quote:
What I see above the mintmark is either plate blistering or lamination issues. Please note: This is not a copper plated Lincoln (Zincoln), nor a copper alloy coin. Plate blistering or lamination issues would not occur on a Jefferson nickel. Just FYI. |
|
Valued Member
United States
205 Posts |
@Bumpkin, I agree, it is not a lamination issue. I wonder if what the mark above the mint mark is? I also wonder if was involved in the flattered look of the mint mark?
If you look to the left of the mint mark, there are three thin die cracks traveling through montecello. One runs low, in the small window, then exits montecello to the right then in the the left side of the mint mark and out the right. The second runs up higher in the window before exiting and traveling through the lower blemish/mark above the mint mark. The last crack runs above the two lower cracks
before exiting and traveling through the upper area of the mark above the mint mark.
The mint mark appears spread /flattened but it's strong to be worn down, as far as being raised up off the field. Thanks again everyone.
Coindom76
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 1,911 |
|
Posted 09/11/2021 2:43 pm
