1960-D/D 10c RPM FS-501

Not a RPM. Looks more like slight Machine Doubling. There is no spread of two obvious punches:
Note the listings on V.V. The RPM-001 (South) and the FS-501 (RPM-003 East)are two different dies.

SoundBeing,
Which one? http://varietyvista.com/07%20Roosev...%201960D.htm
John1

Coop, you are an incredible talent, my friend.
Here's what I came up with, and you're right, that dot on the end does not exist on my coin.





If a mint mark can be the only thing on the coin that is showing doubling, then sure, it very likely is MD. I hope it is not. It's like 2 D's on top of one another only the one behind is slightly lower and to the right. Both seem pretty chunky and the whole mark is overall very full and out of place looking.

What is that dot on the east side of the mintmark? That is the first punch of the process that the worker felt was too close of the design or the second punch was the final area to be punched. On the FS-501 that is part of one of the punching. The location is the second location. So this is an example of a RPM. So with out that mark on the east side of the mintmark, it is not that die number. The central area of the RPM has worn off the die, or was polished off. That is what we see on the inside of the inset image, but don't see on the other images. The East area is seen on the examples of that die. Also the location of the mintmark is also key. If it is not in the correct location, it is not RPM number or is a normal coin.

CoopHome: What must be present to be a RPM that is legit?
See images above on this thread to see the discussion point.

Or is it that maybe this is damage where the D was struck and slid after the coin was struck? Def looks like MD this close.

I don't think it would have been altered. It's been sealed in a Mint Set. It's actually a really nice coin overall.

I've seen you mention these types of markings before. In those cases, does that add a premium? Or is that considered damage as well?

My vote is MD.
John1