| Author |
 Replies: 20 / Views: 2,575 |
|
Moderator
 United States
16679 Posts |
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
my guess is when they saw it in hand they could see something we don't. I don't know how good they are on errors but I know they are top notch on varieties. I have to admit it doesn't look like a D to me looking at how the D looks on the coin. Doesn't have the tails sticking out of it on the top and bottom like the D mm has
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
3039 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
16679 Posts |
Exactly Bryan. At least the left half of the mm would look identical. I also noticed there is an anomaly just right of the date on the rim, possibly associated with this.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4000 Posts |
Even if this were a "D under 9", wouldn't the mintmark have distorted the date, rather than the other way around? Wouldn't the date already have been in place on the master die?
And, does ANACS have the same "3 graders" must agree procedure?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
602 Posts |
WOW! I do believe I got a mess of cents with RPM's all over them then. Even on the reverse. I don't but this as being a D MM. For all the reasons mentioned above. WOLF
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3692 Posts |
I thought that mintmarks were the last things to be added to a coin. Looks more like a die chip to me.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2738 Posts |
This is a well-known and highly controversial misplaced mintmark variety. I agree that it's most likely die damage that superficially resembles the letter D. Die damage near the rim adds weight to this conclusion.
Error coin writer and researcher.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2757 Posts |
must have been one of their new hires.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
Well Mike Diamond cleared that up for me, The reason ANACS attributed it as a misplaced D is because that's what its known as. No matter how controversial it may be, that is what the experts called it at the time and I guess until some other expert proves it wrong (which I feel it is) chances are they will continue to do so. In situations like this it is the collector themselves that has to ask themselves if they agree with the experts or not because they are only human just like the rest of us and do make mistakes
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
It is listed by Crawford(CRPM-008), Wexler(WRPM-003), and Coppercoins(1959D-1MM-021) and unlisted by CONECA and Fivaz-Stanton. As controversial as it is, this one may end up going the way of the infamous 1980D/S Lincoln. Coppercoins notes in his listing- Some experts disagree whether or not this is an actual secondary mintmark. Overlays show that is very well could be. For now, this will be placed here for informational purposes.
http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/...ie_state=mds |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
yep, either way it answers the original question on why ANACS did list it as such though
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
Exactly what Biokemist says. The die has been listed for MANY years as a misplaced mintmark. I followed suit when I started listing die varieties. I didn't personally agree with it being a mintmark then, and I still don't. Still yet, others believe it is and collect it as such. Either way, the die remains difficult to locate pushing its value above that of most of the 1959D RPMs.
|
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
Agreed, I'm also in the group that does not believe it's a misplaced mintmark. Thanks guys :-)
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4000 Posts |
I still want to know, wouldn't the date already have been on the master die before the mintmark was added? If it was, how could it possibly be another "D"? Or was the die making process different back then?
|
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
It was punched by hand after. That's why you see them in various positions, tilted, etc.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
| |
Replies: 20 / Views: 2,575 |
Posted 11/01/2010 10:36 pm
