1999 P Nickels

I have found 2 1992 P nickels that have a very noticeable problem on the mint mark. If it was possible, I would be certain it is a very prominent RPM. The P is in good enough condition that you can see the entire P, but it appears to be rotated CW at least 15-20 degrees over a P that's already there..

Since I have found about 2 in the last month or two I have to assume it isn't too uncommon, but I would like to know what causes it? I know it can't be an RPM and seems very unlikely to be DDO since it's only on the P. Is it just a damaged die or whatever?

Again, under loupe it looks unmistakably like an RPM.

Thanks for any input you are able to give. If the pictures are too bad then I will try to get better ones later.

Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I found a '99 just like that over the weekend. It has what appears to be machine doubling on most of the details, obverse and reverse,but some of it looks doubled die. The mint mark looks the same as your's. Without a doubt it is doubled but with what appears to be machine doubling on a lot of the rest, I didn't know what to call this one. If I could get decent pictures I would have thrown it out here for comments.

 

It has to be something else. Up until 1990, the U.S. Mint used to manually punch the mintmark into each individual coin die.. yours is 1999 so it can't be a RPM

 

I couldn't find any info online. Is there someone with a lot of info on modern nickel varieties? I checked out doubleddie.com last night and some other sources but couldn't find anything on 1999 nickel. Or should I submit one of mine to someone? The 2 I have are identical.

 

As I mentioned to you before.. there are no RPM's after 1990 on US coins. Mint Marks were incorporated into the master die not punched into it. That's why you will not find any info.
What you guys have is called Die Deterioration Doubling

 

Bull

 

Excuse me! Don't need to get nasty! Just trying to help buddy.

 

I'm not or was trying to be. That mint mark matches none of the others that are placed on the die at it's making. In my opinion it is either doubled or repaired. His coin shows some die wear but mine doesn't.

 

You're attitude leaves much to be desired.
What paddyman told you is TRUE. Listen (read) and learn.

 

I

His as well as your's was an insult to my inteligence. Maybe you both should heed your advice.

 

OK, boss. You're the numismatic authority here. I bow down to your knowledge and set you to ignore.

 

Geez! Here we go again!

Chris

 

It's not a wide rim either.

 

Now that was funny. I'm not trying to be an arse, but it does rile my feathers when someone acts as if they are above me. It also does when I see or hear someone do the same to someone else. You can disagree with your opinion without insinuating that the other person is an idiot.

 

I have read plenty about mint marks and coins. In fact that is most of what I do in my free time. Every book or author has differing opinions, even the experts call it their "expert opinion" . If they were all the same we would only need one book.

From what I have gathered from my readings is that eventhough the mint had changed the way that the dies were made, they were still having problems. Especially at the Philadelphia mint, where the problems with the hubbing process lasted into late 98 and into the minting of '99 coins. If you were there at the time and could chime in with your opinion, it would be great.

 

Get me a clear close up shot of the MM. I tried blowing the ones you supplied up and they break apart. To identify we (I) would need something like this.

 

Sounds good! I will do the best I can this evening when I get back to my coins. It might not be until tomorrow that I am able to post. Hopefully I will be able to get a better quality closeup.

 

Pics 1-4 appear to be the same nickel. Pic 5 shows a little off center between 1 o'clock and 3 and if that's the case that might explain the mint mark being a little thicker there also looks like rim damage at 1 o'clock in pic 5 as well. Your close ups aren't good enough for me to see any doubling. It looks die deterioration although some don't want to hear that. @paddyman98 is right in what he said, sorry if you don't agree.

 

I would agree on die deterioration if it weren't for the amount of relief of the mint mark. On the coin I have, the depth of relief on the mint mark is twice what a mint mark of squeeze hubbed dies have shown. Not including that its placement or orientation isnt "square" with the rest of the details.