| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 3,756 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
314 Posts |
Good morning. Hoping that you all can help me out. I'm posting pics of what I believe to be a repunched mint mark (twice at least - maybe three times) on a 1969-S Proof Lincoln Cent. Any comments, thoughts, opinions, or observations would be greatly appreciated. It's good to be back. Thanks for any responses.    I apologize for not having full pictures of the obverse. Mr. John Bornder currently has the coin for evaluation. |
|
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
314 Posts |
Hey folks, 65 have read this post and .....no opinions? Am I missing something or did I forget something? If so, let me know. Just curious.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1547 Posts |
There appears to be a small clash of something or other inside the lower loop. Show us the date and mint mark together. The mint mark appears to be strike-doubled. I'm going to guess the date will, too. Best I can do off these pics. That's a small chip inside the upper loop.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
314 Posts |
Thanks Eddiespin. I will post the full coin and full date pics as soon as I get the coin back from Mr. Bordner. I'm familiar with Strike Doubling and while the actual S appears to have some southern deflection, the raised portion immediately below the upper loop of the "S" is completely separated from the rest of the mintmark. Thus, I didn't think it was " Strike Doubling". Could be wrong. I also felt that the raised portion under the lower loop, just past the median was somewhat parallel to the actual mintmark, indicating again perhaps the RPM. It seemed to be separated from the mintmark by about the same distance as the upper loop separation. Of course, Mr. Bordner's findings may put the whole matter to rest. Either way, I will post full coin and full date pics and let everyone know what he says. Thanks again. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
Umm, this coin is completely normal. I'm not sure what you guys are seeing. Looks like a very normal 1969S mintmark to me.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1547 Posts |
Dcreek1968, this is what one would typically call a strike-doubled '69-S. The man has a point.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
Okay...wht man has what point?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1547 Posts |
Quote:
Okay...wht man has what point? Well, seeing as how there are only three of us here, and I was addressing him, I guess that leaves you.  You have a point and it's that perhaps he and I were just looking at this one a little too hard. |
|
Valued Member
United States
314 Posts |
Haven't received the coin back from Mr. Bordner yet, but haven't forgotten about posting new pics of the entire coin. Thanks for your replies. I'm having difficulty with this being a normal mintmark unless the lumps that appear below the upper serif and the mid-point of the mintmark are die chips. These are definitely raised areas of metal. The longer portion below the upper serif is also definitely separated from the mintmark itself. It's curvature therefore suggesting to me that it may be an RPM. IMO
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
They aren't die chips. They are a part of a normal mintmark for the date. 1970S also shows the same thing.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
314 Posts |
Coppercoins - thanks for your reply and comments. Do I understand correctly that you are saying there is nothing unusual about the appearance of the mintmark on this "proof" Lincoln Cent? I thought it unusual because it is a proof coin and my belief was that the mint would take greater care in the preparation of such a proof die. Does that make sense? I was looking for a nice distinct "S" without the other two hash marks. |
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 3,756 |
|
Posted 03/23/2011 08:07 am
