What's wrong with my D??

There is no way in Hades that it could be a damaged "S". It would be twice as tall as the normal "S" mintmark. I'm with Jim. It is PMD. Take a look at the remnant of what was once the vertical bar. It is pushed slightly off the vertical direction it should have. I think something hit the mintmark, took out part of the vertical bar completely and left the remainder a bit cockeyed.

Chris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I stand by what I said. Mintmarks were hand punched into working dies in Philladelphia and shipped to the branch mints in 1969. Therefore, the punch itself is raised to impart an incuse mintmark on the working die. It could very easily be a broken mintmark punch. Also, I never said anything about it being an S mintmark. The original poster did but I did not. I do, however, agree it is possible damage. Again, to determine if it is altered or damaged, I would have to see the coin.
Mike Ellis

 

What you suggest is technically possible, but if it was the case, this would be a well known variety as the working die's output would all have it and it is easy to spot.

 

Don't get so paranoid, Mike. No one said you thought it was an "S", but the OP and 7Calbrey did.

However, I do agree with Jim that it couldn't have been a damaged mintmark punch. Otherwise, there would be thousands, if not tens of thousands, of them in circulation.

Chris

 

I'm not sure what it is. It would be a lot easier to say if you could see the D, S and OP mintmarks side by side and not in different posts, sideways and upside down.

 

Here ya go Conder. Doesen't look like an S to me.

 

No, definitely not the bottom of an S, the loop is shaped completely different. Much more open and rounded. So chances are good it is a defective D punch.

 

I agree with Conder on this one , also a partially filled in D mintmark on the coin die would look about the same as this.

 

Conder, if it had been a defective punch, wouldn't you expect to see thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of these identical coins.

I'm staying with the damaged mintmark theory until someone can produce just one more coin identical to it.

Chris

 

Well for the mintage of the 69 D nickel they would have used something like 270 to 290 obv dies. So about one coin out of every 300 IF the die was used for it's full lifetime. If the punch was defective it would be surprising that the die would even get into production, and if it did it would most likely be caught and pulled fairly quickly. If it is caught quickly most of the defective coins would probably also be caught and destroyed as well. If say 10K of them did get out and you were able to gather up all of the 69-D nickels, that would still be only one coin for every five boxes.

But of course you can't get just the 69-D's so finding one is going to mean having to go through a LOT of boxes. And it isn't really even that impressive a "variety" (If it IS a variety.) so it may just have never been mentioned. You don't see too much mention of 1969 no mintmark nickels do you? And they do exist as well. but most people have never noticed them. (Filled dies.)

I can't say for sure it is a defective punch, but I don't see any evidence of physical damage to the coin to make the D look like that, and the missing portion ends rather abruptly in my opinion for it to be from a filled die, but that is possible. I will agree that we won't know for sure without seeing more specimens.

 

heres another one, and yes, I know its an old post

 

heres the original one, that started the thread

 

I like mine. But I think your May be cooler than mine. Nice find there.