| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 423 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
9149 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7504 Posts |
Edited by Chase007
03/27/2026 6:51 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
73579 Posts |
I agree. It's the large mint mark.
Errers and Varietys.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
94636 Posts |
very nice images of the MM  |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
8724 Posts |
Sorry, yours is the more common small mint mark. Pics below to compare. You have to look at the shape and serifs to tell which is which. I'll see if I can find my large date to get you another pic.  -makecents-
Edited by -makecents-
03/27/2026 6:41 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8724 Posts |
Sorry for not adding your other, they are both small mint marks.
-makecents-
Edited by -makecents-
03/27/2026 6:37 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
9149 Posts |
Thanks makecents , I like the way you posted those pics you get to see them all at the same time.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
73579 Posts |
Thank you, makecents, for the images. Makes it easier to tell. Errers and Varietys.
Edited by Errers and Varietys
03/27/2026 7:33 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8724 Posts |
Quote:
Thanks makecents , I like the way you posted those pics you get to see them all at the same time. You are welcome. Do you have a large mm? -makecents-
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8724 Posts |
Quote:
Thank you, makecents, for the images. Makes it easier to tell. -makecents-
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
9149 Posts |
Quote:
Do you have a large mm? Yes I have a couple of them. here's one, I hope    |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8724 Posts |
Yes, definitely a large mm. Nice!
-makecents-
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10472 Posts |
"In 1928, two different S mint marks were used for the Lincoln Cent minted out of San Francisco. It is surmised that one of the S mint mark punches broke and a substitute was used." https://www.lincolncentresource.com..._Styles.htmlStrange statement because the "Small" mark (002) was used from 1917 to 1941 but the "Large" mark (003) was only used for 1928. I'd like to know the whole story how it came about and why only used for a very short time. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8724 Posts |
Quote:
one of the S mint mark punches broke I am assuming and only that, just by pure common sense, that the 003 was brought in in 1928 as a new mm and it BROKE. Went back to the 002 for use. -makecents-
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6449 Posts |
There are several examples of one year mint marks. For example, the 1945 Micro-S dime. Apparently that was a tiny S mint mark for foreign coins being stuck at the San Francisco mint. For large vs. small varieties, I have found that zooming in close to the mint mark removes the most important clue—the relative size of the letter. It's much easier to measure the size relative to the fixed devices on the coin. Here, I would use the date. For Mercury dimes, the torch and leaves work well. For nickels, the base of Monticello. When you scale the coins 1:1 to compare, it's easy to decide large vs. small mint mark. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6449 Posts |
According to Error Ref, the 1928 Large S is an earlier mint mark punch. https://www.error-ref.com/large-and...ss%20common.Worth pointing out, that article incorrectly identifies the Micro S. Both mint marks shown are Micro S punches (either that, or one is a 1941 small s punch). The trumpet tails and knob S mint marks used in 1945 are huge in comparison to the micro S, and structurally completely different. |
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 423 |
***
Posted 03/27/2026 4:21 pm
