| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 2,113 |
|
New Member
Canada
24 Posts |
I have come across a 1969 penny that definitely looks like a D over S mint mark error. The coin is identical to several other coins that people have shared in the past. These people have been completely dismissed by reason that after 1955 the mints no longer shared mint mark dies and had their own, which would make it impossible for such errors to occur.
I cant help but think - if at one point the mints did share dies an punches and then stopped, one or two of of the mints more than likely ended up with mint mark dies from another mint and just never had reason to send it back. Is it not more than possible for a mintmark die that was never sent back to be accidentally placed in the press and used to create a OMM?
Im just very intrigued and confused at the fact my coin is identical to 5 or 6 other coins shown by different hobbyists on the internet yet every one if them were so arrogantly dismissed because its not listed.
Please enlighten me
Edited by M TeK 9
02/14/2023 04:03 am
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10635 Posts |
Please show us the coin you referenced  |
|
New Member
 Canada
24 Posts |
There are several. If you search 1969 d over s youll come across several that are identical. 3 or 4 of them are on this forum
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10635 Posts |
No, we want to see YOUR coin. We aren't going to search one that is similar to your. We want to see your coin.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2775 Posts |
Quote:
identical to 5 or 6 other coins shown If your not going to share yours, can you link us to one of 5 or 6 you say shown, Will try and move forward from there with the minimal amount Arrogance needed.Thanks, Doug. Edited by Halo1st
02/14/2023 05:42 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
392 Posts |
In my experience, many text messages can be misread as cynical, angry, arrogant and quickly misinterpreted. In these forums, experts (not me) often have to give answers that posters don't want to hear. But they give their time, they give the truth, or their opinion of the truth. It may sound harsh, but that is why you post here. When asking for advice from industry experts (we have highly respected numismatic experts on this forum), my advice is show some respect to people that you don't even know yet. Give them a chance. You have come to the right place for honest answers.
Edited by Parnelli917
02/14/2023 07:18 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19226 Posts |
Eager to see full, large and sharp pics of the obverse and reverse, then a close-in shot of the mint mark. Thanks.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
You discuss about 1969 coin D/S. No way. First when reopen the San Francisco in August 1965, they was in charge to put theirs own MM. Theories and non sense I read almost every day. All the dies in that time was done in Philadelphia and ship to the others Mints. The Dies was ship with no mint mark, they was in charge to put the MM. In fact the Phil do not has any MM on theirs possession because the Phil do not use. According with the reports, in that time the Mint has 6 engravers so no way they to spend the time on others MM then to reengraved the new Hubs of 1970. |
|
Moderator
 Australia
16861 Posts |
Quote:
There are several. If you search 1969 d over s youll come across several that are identical. 3 or 4 of them are on this forum Sigh. Okay then, let's search this forum for "1969 D over S". Here are the top three hits: This guy imagined they saw a "repunched S" behind/underneath the 6 in the date: http://goccf.com/t/381207This guy imagined he saw an S under the D, but sideways: http://goccf.com/t/365297And this guy reckons he can see a tiny little "S" inside the hole of the "D": http://goccf.com/t/325032So, which one of these highly improbable configurations are we to believe is "the real 1969 D over S"? Or are they all equally bogus? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying "I've got a 1969 D over S penny" is the numismatic equivalent of saying "I saw Bigfoot". The two scenarios are scientifically identical, in the sense that all prior evidence indicates that neither Bigfoot nor 1969 D/S pennies exist. If you want to propose that either of them exists, you will need to provide some very convincing proof. Otherwise, gentle skepticism - which can come across as "arrogant dismissal" - is totally warranted. As for your hypothesis about mintmarked dies floating about the place and accidentally getting double-mintmarked and then used, let's consider this. Mints are government entities. They are legally responsible for the artifacts under their care. While things may have been slack at times in past centuries, these days they're pretty rigorous. Two things they are very, very meticulous about record-keeping with are the coins themselves, and the dies used to make coins. If a coin die goes astray, counterfeiters might find it and use it to make 100% foolproof counterfeits - and that's a nightmare scenario for a government. Ask the Canadians about what happened to their original concept for the circulating $1 coin in 1987, to find out how governments typically react when a coin die gets lost in transit between mints. And the best way to stop them from going missing, is to avoid shipping them across the country in the first place. Such transfers therefore only happen if and when it is absolutely necessary. Dies getting transferred between mints is therefore a big deal, and something that records are kept for. There will be records of the die leaving one mint, and arriving at the other. A mint worker doesn't just shove an old coin die in their pocket while they go off to visit their buddies in another mint. And they're pretty big hunks of steel, too; not something you could smuggle out in your pocket easily. There are no such records. And, after 50 years and hundreds of thousands of people meticulously examining 1969 pennies, no-one has ever actually found a D/S that was verified as such by neutral third-party authorities. Therefore, until and unless concrete, definitive evidence arises otherwise, the hypothesis that they do exist can be dismissed. Arrogance, however, is optional. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
Thanks SAP for this very nice explanation which damage will go in the wind, because instead to be a learning Forum we deal more with attributions and certifying (in an way). Is sad for me to see so many bullies and pseudo hunters.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1648 Posts |
Thanks SAP and Silviosi. I am just curious about the question if its possible as this says: The truth is that both the S and D mintmarks were punched at the Philadelphia mint where all dies are prepared. So a mint employee could easily change a D to an S for a variety of reasons before the dies are shipped to their respective mints. http://lincolncentresource.com/OMMS/OMMS.html So if they did do the punching which is different than even silviosi mentioned, then we cant eliminate a theoretical claim based on that. Like the Repunched Mint Mark (RPM) varieties, the Over Mint Mark (OMM) varieties, and the Dual Mint Mark (DMM) varieties, it is the result of the mint mark being hand-punched into the working dies. The culprit so far has been the S mint mark. https://doubleddie.com/58243.html The mintmarks were added to the business strike dies by hand until 1989 and so the position of the mintmark placement and its shape will vary on each individual die. Slight variation in position is perfectly normal. Although Proof coins were being struck at the San Francisco Mint at the time - the 's' mint mark, the Philadelphia Mint was responsible for making the Proof dies (and adding the mintmark). Apparently, at least one die was sent from Philadelphia without the mintmark, and a small number of PROOF "S"-less Dimes were struck and released before the error was discovered. This is the 1975 dime, after the date mentioned and seems to collaborate the punching is done at philadelphia. And current: The Mint adds mint marks to the master hub, the first stage of the die making process. The Philadelphia Mint makes a master hub for each facility that will strike the coin. The Philadelphia Mint produces hubs and dies for every stage of the process. The Denver Mint receives master dies from Philadelphia to produce its own working hubs and dies. Both Denver and Philadelphia also make working dies for the San Francisco and West Point Mint facilities https://www.usmint.gov/learn/produc...s/die-makingA major turning point for hub and die production in the U.S. Mints came in the summer of 1996 when the Denver Mint opened its own die making shop. Prior to this, all aspects of the die making process were done exclusively at the Philadelphia Mint. The die shop at the Denver Mint does not produce master hubs or master dies. All master hubs and master dies are still produced at the Philadelphia Mint. Master dies for coinage production at the Denver Mint are shipped to the Denver die shop from the Philadelphia Mint's die shop. The Denver die shop then produces the necessary working hubs and working dies in their die shop. The Denver die shop also produces the unfinished working dies that will be used at the San Francisco Mint. Once received from Denver, the working dies receive their special finishes for proof coin production at the San Francisco Mint. https://doubleddie.com/58201.htmlI didnt see anything that said in this year the mint started sending the mint mark punches to the other mints and they took over the punching of mint marks for example or were applying to the working dies outside of philadelphia mint, but ran out of time. Edited by datadragon
02/16/2023 12:33 am
|
|
New Member
Canada
24 Posts |
Well, I wasnt being arrogant or anything close, but interpret my words as you will. I don't mind. The reason I didn't post my coin is because this post isn't about a single coin. Its about the question I asked. I used the one I have as an example of a possible scenario because my coin is identical to coincanadas coin posted here, which as I mentioned before was simply dismissed with the 1955 reasoning. http://goccf.com/t/325032&whichpage=2But good on you guys for being stellar role models for the hobby. Cant wait to be just like you. Just a joke fellas. Easy. Anyway There are a couple more examples of coins posted by other users with identical mint marks but it requires some patience to find. As seen, SAP posted examples from the sane thread but did not reference the example I'm talking about. I just find it hard to believe that our coins would have the exact same "damage" and believe there is another more reasonable explanation for it, and thought id ask. Didn't expect people to jump on me like flies on poo for being genuinely curious though  . Despite the clear high horse vibe given, I really appreciate your answer SAP. And yours as well datadragon. Ill take that and leave you all to it. |
|
New Member
Canada
24 Posts |
To be clear though, I didn't say anything about the mimt mark dies being shipped to other mints in 1969 specifically, I was saying that because they did at one point in time, it would surely be possible for a mint mark die to be shipped and then left at another mint when they stopped doing this. Also here are other examples of the same mint mark https://www.cointalk.com/threads/19...er-s.351902/http://goccf.com/t/381207 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
Very nice DATA. I look for a study from 1964 ordered by the Mint to the essay investigator about those OMM. I will post soon. About the Mint made self Dies you are right about the Date. Before they say Philadelphia do and ship without MM at the end of 50's begin of 60's. I know also many years the Denver do the Dies for San Francisco without MM, on my recall was till mid 70's. For the Mint was a big problem MM over MM and for this reason they brink also to the Congress in 1964 the subject. Eva Brown the director was against the collectors in that time. After left the Mint she apply also for ANA president position and I thanks to the god that she was loose the nomination on this. I will look for the document about the MM over other MM and post as soon it is possible. I am not a Data Dragón to remember which report of 1964 contain this document (was 3), but never forgot what I reed. (was on the left page at the half) |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
@ M TeK 9 It is not you to be arrogant or not. If you was arrogant, believe you know this from the begin. I will go to see the Talk, I am member so I can see everything. I will come back for those treats. I understand been confuse about different sources of big errors or such. Look of them and try to find the true, which always come to the routs, the Mint. It is the only way to know the true. The TPG's it is another question. Except as this moment, personally only ANACS and VSS has no error in attributions (what I check). The others I do not make confidence in varieties and error attribution. I hope you and others reader learn from your post. Thanks to bring UP.
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16861 Posts |
Quote:
As seen, SAP posted examples from the sane thread but did not reference the example I'm talking about. I just find it hard to believe that our coins would have the exact same "damage" and believe there is another more reasonable explanation for it, and thought id ask. I did refer to it; that's the coin I mentioned with the alleged "S" attached to or behind the "6" in the date, isn't it? And yes, it is entirely possible that multiple coins display this same feature (whatever the feature is - still haven't seen a good closeup pic of the date area) yet for it not to be a D/S. The most probable explanation in this case would be a die chip. Check out that link on the LincolnCentResource website posted by datadragon above, about the "1980 D/S" that was eventually ruled to be a "die gouge", and not a D/S. Quote:
To be clear though, I didn't say anything about the mint mark dies being shipped to other mints in 1969 specifically, I was saying that because they did at one point in time, it would surely be possible for a mint mark die to be shipped and then left at another mint when they stopped doing this. Well, if we're talking about a 1969 D/S, then it all has to happen in 1969, specifically. The mintmark was the very last thing added to the die, back when it was added separately. Prior to 1989, there were no dies that have a mintmark, but a blank space for the year. So for a 1969 D/S die to exist, it would have had to have originally been a 1969-S. Not a 1955-S or any other year; otherwise, the date would have to become an overdate as well. For these coins to be genuine 1969 D/S, the following sequence of events must have occurred. - A normal 1969-S die was prepared, or at least begun to be prepared. - Unfortunately, the guy doing the mintmark-punching missed, by a long shot, and slammed it down on top of the "6" in the date. - Rather than throw the die away as damaged and utterly unusable, they decided to put it into storage. Because... reasons. - At some point later that year, the die was taken out of storage again and prepared for use. The fact that the die was damaged by a wrongly placed punch was either ignored or not noticed. - A "D" punch was then placed on it, as per a normal D-punched die. - Shipped off to Denver for use in coin striking. Quite a complex chain of events. Compare this to: - A perfectly normal 1969-D die was produced, and put into use. - At some point during the die's lifetime, a chip breaks off the die, from near the tip of the "6". - Resultant coins have a little chip coming off the "6", that kind-of looks like a "S". For the first possible explanation, multiple improbable events must have occurred. For the second, only one improbable event - a die-chip that kinda resembles an "S" - is required. Occam's Razor says the explanation with the fewest number of improbable events is most likely to be true. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
| |
Replies: 21 / Views: 2,113 |
Posted 02/14/2023 04:40 am
