Yes that is what some experts think it is , I always thought it may be a repunched 3 I have quite a few just like yours and others are for sale on Ebay ever now and then. all that I have seen appears to be from the same die but I suppose die detoration can't be ruled out because it can look the same.
It is die deterioration doubling. Besides the fact that the mint stopped repunching the date after 1909, a repunching would show notching, and would be raised to the same level that the original date is at. There is no way this is a repunched date.
Hey non cents , you keep telling the CT members that the mint stopped repunching the date on coins after 1909 . I think you may be fairely new to error collecting and may be getting your information from the internet. some of the internet information is not correct. I believe there are coins with RPDs a long time after 1909 and surely after 1953 the date of the OP's coin. the mint workers can do about anything they want to regardless of the rules even today.
they usually sell for around 3 to 5 dollars on ebay and maybe more for the higher grades. maybe they will go up in price later on. these are worth keeping in my opinion.
Actually, rascal, according to Wexler... It is also on error-ref.com... So there are NO repunched dates after 1909 for US coinage. There ARE overdates, such as the 1942/1 Mercury, but that is actually a class III doubled die and does not have to do with the punching of the date. If you want to dispute the information provided by Wexler as well as those that put together error-ref.com (such as Mike Diamond, BJ Neff, etc) be my guest.
I figured you were getting your information off the internet . like I said earlier some of the information on the internet is wrong . I'm adding a link for you to a ebay coin , look at who attributed it and maybe you will reconsider saying repunched date coins stopped in 1909 http://www.ebay.com/itm/221020508653?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
I am well aware of that coin, but many people know that this is a very controversial coin. Many believe it to be die damage and not an RPD. Considering that the mint stopped punching the last two digits after 1909, I must agree with the die damage assessment. from lincolncentresource.com... Sources: http://www.error-ref.com/1956-D_Lincoln_cent_with_partial_5_digit.html http://lincolncentresource.com/Controversial/Cents.html Charles Daughtrey and Bob Piazza (the owners of coppercoins.com and Lincoln Cent variety experts) also believe it to not be a repunched date.
could this be why the top of the 5 is like that? I was wondering why is it rounded instead of being flat across.
Here is a coin I have that shows die deterioration doubling on the last digit. Notice it does not look like an entirely separate digit...it seems to flow from the 3 and is not raised to the same level as the rest of the date. There is also no notching.
didnt you just say : if that were damage wouldnt the whole top of the 5 be round instead of that 1 area? also not every error coin is going to fit the profile of lets say wexler or coneca. I never really try to compare my errors to those on other sites because not every error has been seen Im no professional but that would be impossible that every error has been discovered.
I'm kind of confused by this post. Maybe I need to clarify...the top of the 5 on YOUR coin is PMD. The 1956D repunched date is in my opinion die gouges. I can tell by the appearance of the area around the date of the coin you posted that it is definitely circulated...and there's a bunch of hits/scrapes that can be seen. The extra thickness of the 5 on your coin is not due to any mint error.
