| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 942 |
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
139 Posts |
How do I tell the difference between old PMD and a struck though on this coin? Hearing your opinions is helpful, and I'm really hoping someone can break down exactly what I should be looking for. BTW, it also appears that the FS-501 S/S RPM is on the majority of 1891-S Seated dimes and the minority don't have it. If anyone could shed some light on this too I'd appreciate it.   Edited by CentR
03/11/2024 01:00 am
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2003 Posts |
Thats a shame. Looks like the type of damage one would expect to see from perhaps a Gumball Machine or other vending machine. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
25156 Posts |
Quote:How do I tell the difference between old PMD and a struck though on this coin? CentR, notice how there is a "lip" of metal protruding from the area in question. This indicates that metal has been moved due to the post-strike damage. With a struck-through, surfaces are fairly uniform around the embedded object or its imprint. Inordinately fascinated by bits of metal with strange markings and figures
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
 Definitely PMD, likely deliberate. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
I recall a thread on here (or elsewhere?) saying that this sort of damage came from one of these or similar. There's a cap or piston that screws into it that causes the damage. I have a couple Barber dimes that show a partial ring of damage in that exact place. Definitely not a strike-through regardless. (edited for a better image showing the plunger)  Edited by kbbpll
03/11/2024 1:37 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7174 Posts |
My standard answer is, if you have a scratch, divot, gouge or any other mark that has a buildup of metal above the surface of the coin, 99.9% of the time it's damage. If it was a strike through there wouldn't be any metal above the surface.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
74071 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2003 Posts |
@Kbbpll, I still have one of those dime tubes in a drawer somewhere. Must be about 75 years old now.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
139 Posts |
Thank you for the incredibly helpful feedback Hondo Bogus and kbbpll! Did some more diligence on the FS-501 issue. The S/S RPM appears universally on all "non-variety" regular strike specimens over many years in that era, suggesting this is just a feature, not a variety. Looks like they changed punches in 1892 for the Barber dimes to punches without the pattern. I'm going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that since the use of a mintmark punch that has the FS-501 S/S pattern may be universal to these Seated dimes, it may also be that the FS-501 S/S RPM designations for the various years including 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, etc, may be erroneous. I would love to know if I'm barking up the wrong tree here or not. Here's some links to the "non-variety" regular strike from various years all of which have the S/S RPM. https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin.../images/4699https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin.../images/4705https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin...mages/145508 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
I think you're confusing the FS-501 designations across years. "501" doesn't mean the same thing in different years. 1890-S FS-501 is clearly an RPM in CPG. 1891-S FS-501 is a medium S over small S, pictured at left below. Other mint marks in the years you linked to seem to have a defect in the S punch or have die chips inside the S, image at right below, which is not the same as the 1890 S/S or 1891 S/small S varieties. That's my take on it at least. PCGS etc may have wrongly designated some of them but I'm only finding one 1891-S FS-501 called out on Heritage and it's clearly the medium S over small S.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
139 Posts |
Thanks for checking on this. You are right about PCGS, I've looked over all the images now for the years that an S/S FS-501 is designated, which includes 1887, 1889, 1890, and 1891. The only differences among all specimens on the PCGS site for both non-variety and the FS-501 variety seems to be that some specimens have less definition in the small internal S, likely due to Die Deterioration over the course of minting or weaker strikes (like in your second example). The small S is still visible in all of them. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
My point is that "FS-501" is different things in different years. Just because it has the same designation doesn't mean it's the same discrepancy in the mint mark for say 1887 versus 1891. FS-xxx is specific to the year and mint mark. 1887-S is repunched south, 1888-S is repunched north, 1890-S is a large over small repunched north, and 1891-S is a large over small repunched centered. If you have CPG you can see that they are all different. Some of your non-variety PCGS coins may simply have not requested the variety, and others are just worn or chipped dies, worn coins or even PMD. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 942 |
|
Posted 03/11/2024 02:17 am
