| Author |
 Replies: 18 / Views: 1,749 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6108 Posts |
I don't look at dimes very often and am not familiar with how the various digits look. This coin came in a dealer slip labeled 1948-S, but am unable to verify that. Any help settling whether this is 1948 or 1949 would be appreciated. 194X-S Roosevelt dime mint error - double clipped planchet     |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
316 Posts |
I'm going to say it's a 1949-S
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7618 Posts |
 - 1949 |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5668 Posts |
I'd say 1948-S because of the shape and distance of the top loop from the 4.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2731 Posts |
Looks like a 9 to me.
"Pride is yoked with callous behavior, as humility is with compassion." St. Gregory Palamas Top Finds - 1969-S 1c FS-101 http://goccf.com/t/477681 1976 D WQ FS-101 http://goccf.com/t/382777 - 1968 D 1c FS-801 http://goccf.com/t/422254Cool clashed dies - 1972 D 1c http://goccf.com/t/429855&SearchTerms=CCLStruck-In Rim Burr - 1969 S 1c http://goccf.com/t/425587&SearchTerms=burrFloating (Type II) Counterclash - 1978 D 1c http://goccf.com/t/434991&SearchTerms=1978 |
|
Moderator
 United States
15420 Posts |
I can't offer an opinion.
What's going on with the reverse rim at K9?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1489 Posts |
@Zurie has me convinced it's a 1948-S, despite my eyes initially telling me otherwise.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Top loop seems too large for an 8. I'll go for 1949.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8744 Posts |
I like Zurie's thought process.
-makecents-
|
|
Moderator
United States
95751 Posts |
1949 for sure. so yes, with the others that say it is a '49. Nice find on this one too. |
|
Moderator
United States
95751 Posts |
Quote:
What's going on with the reverse rim at K9? Blakesley effect is what it looks like to me. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
6108 Posts |
Thanks all! Yes that's Blakesley Effect on the reverse, some of the strongest I've seen.
But it's Zurie's post that is what I was most looking for, an analysis of the digits. These error coins with distorted devices can look like all kinds of things to the eye, but what actually is the relationship of the digits to each other. So from what I am seeing, on the posted coin the digits appear to be separating further away from each other left to right. The 1 and 9 still seem pretty close as in the comparative photos, but the 9 and 4 are getting further apart, and by the time you get to the 4 and final digit they are quite a ways distant. Note that on the crossbar of the 4 in the comparative photos the final digit is right next to it, while on the posted coin it is nowhere close at all. That makes me a little leery of using distance for making a final call. But, what about the height of the final digit. On the comparative photos the 8 is higher than the 9, and that seems to match the posted coin better and is further from the clip so probably more reliable.
Based on Zurie's post, I agree that the digit is an 8, but for a slightly different reason. Anyone else agree/disagree? Don't think this is settled yet, but right now arrows point to an 8.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5825 Posts |
IMO the "clips" are NOT original, i.e., it did not occur at the Mint.
I think it an "after Mint" job.
The clips do not look real to me, and the Blakesley effect features look even less real.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6108 Posts |
Hmmm, are we looking at the same coin?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3175 Posts |
Is there any "Smith Effect" ?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2731 Posts |
I'm reconsidering my initial response. It does appear more likely an "8" to me now. I realize, at this point, my opinion is of little use as it may change again in the future :)
|
| |
Replies: 18 / Views: 1,749 |
Posted 03/25/2023 02:01 am
