| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 2,642 |
|
Valued Member
United States
114 Posts |
I hope that I put this post in the right forum this time. If not I hope that someone helps me to get it right. It seems that I've been doing it wrong and causing my post to be moved. I apologize for any confusion that it has caused. This coin has a misplaced mint mark. I post it for your entertainment. Tell me what you think.    |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
21596 Posts |
Sorry but it is not a misplaced mm.
Looks like it could be a plating bubble.
(And it is in the right forum this time)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3328 Posts |
 if it's raised its a plating bubble if it's level with the fields its a stain, possible someone sneezed on the coin. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19140 Posts |
I'm not seeing any mint mark (consistent with a Philadelphia minted cent). That somewhat round feature to the left of the date appears to me to be a stain or died droplet of gunk. Is the feature in question raised, flush, or sunken (incuse)?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Just a plating bubble, agree.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
114 Posts |
It is slightly raised. Looks quite a bit to me like a D mint mark from the Denver mint.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
114 Posts |
And, by the way, even though it is frowned on, this coin has been cleaned, which I think would rule out a sneeze gunk stain.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
571 Posts |
No possible way for it to be a misplaced mint mark as starting in 1990, any mint mark was part of the master die, and was not placed by hand as in previous years. This is most likely something that got onto the coin and caused some slight corrosion of the copper plating, staining it and giving it a very slightly raised feel. I can see several other smaller, similar looking stains on this coin as well.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
114 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
114 Posts |
Dave42 .. I didn't know that, as you say, in 1990 the mint mark was part of the master die. That would tell me that it couldn't be a misplaced mint mark. Unless it was an early 1990 that was done before they started doing it that way, which is, of course not possible. Right?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
114 Posts |
Coop .. OK gotcha. Thanks.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10034 Posts |
When you look into how the minting process works, you will find that misplacing a mint mark when a coin is minted is a physical impossibility.
While the bubble resembles a D, there is no way this coin could physically have been made at the Denver mint. B/c of the above fact.
Look for videos online about making coins...especially the dies. The videos are fun to watch :)
|
|
Moderator
 United States
95432 Posts |
First off - Great job finding your way through the forum!
Second, as others have stated, this is a bubble that formed by the underlying zinc core. I do not think it is a stain as the OP (that is you Garbanzo) stated that it is raised.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
114 Posts |
That means that it is a normal business strike from the Philadelphia mint because it really doesn't look like a proof from San Fran.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
114 Posts |
Earle 42 . I'll make it a point to check out those videos. Thanks.
|
|
Moderator
United States
95432 Posts |
Correct. if it were a proof - there would be an S mint mark on it For San Francisco.
|
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 2,642 |
Posted 06/18/2022 10:28 am
