Is This a 1914d?

this analysis is outstanding. Excelllent numismatist work!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@rlm's cents

Thanks for the research and the thread. From what I have read, the photos you posted, and my research there are FOUR dies. Still as no legitimate proof otherwise has been provided.

IMO, Dies # 4 and #5 are of the same position (the very knowledgeable Lincoln cent researcher has only seen one coin in his life).

Now, every TPGS and many variety experts are FINALLY on the trail . Only took forty years. I'll bet we see a lot published in the next month or two.

Here's one for you...I've plotted the 09-S Lincoln mint mark positions also. I'll be waiting to see what number of positions the Lincoln guys come up with.

Final question for you. Do I just sign up to join the Lincoln cent forum? I wish to meet the other researcher as he seems to be the only person who was interested enough in 1914-D cents to do more research than the TPGS professionals who authenticate them!

 

@Insider

IMO, #4 and #3 are closer than #4 and #5.

As for the 09-S VD, there are 4. The picture is not as clear, but it accomplishes its purpose. I have no idea what book it came from.



in re the Lincoln Cent Forum, it is free to join. I have not found much interesting lately since I am not into RPM's or errors, but there are (or were) some interesting threads occasionally.

 

@rlm's cents

A member here, SuperDave loves to do overlays. He has me blocked so I cannot "tag" him. Why not get him to look at #4 and #5 so we can put this puppy to rest?

And remember this: There may be five or six different position but the offset is so small that it is not noticeable using a normal stereo microscope. For this possibility to be confirmed one should use an optical comparison microscope on Uncirculated specimens. It removes any differences due to lighting or photography.

Finally, if it turns out that there is a microscopic amount of difference in location between two dies, it is absolutely NO USE for purposes of authentication! Nevertheless, I'll gladly eat crow and change my opinion.

 

Not relevant, The "D" is closer to the coat on one of them.

 

@SuperDave
But I have already done the overlay. That is how I determined they were different. I do tht by adjusting the opacity of the top layer. But I cannot get a picture at one opacity to show the difference.

"S"? On a 14-D? or are you looking at the S VDB?

 

Nope, "D" is correct. I made the edit just now.

Don't take this wrong but I want to see SupeDave's Overlay.

 

Um, not quite sure what you're asking here as I haven't posted in this thread.....

 

@rlm's cents

I'm "ignored" by SD so he cannot see my posts.

Tell him an anonymous member asked you to tag him. Please ask SD to make an overly of photo#4 and #5 in post #5. Let's see if they match.

 

Would appreciate you checking the 5 MM locations I posted for the 14-D Lincolns are all different particularly #4 and #5.

 

Ah. I'm on lunch break, will have a look tonite after work.

 

Not a problem!

 

I guess your sources are not coming through, but I just found this;

"1914-D cents were coined from at least six different dies, so the position of a particular coins mint mark is not a determining genuineness.3"
Page 83 "The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents" 2005 and #3 refers to "The Numismatist", July 1925

 

Wait! I thought you and your other source said there were FIVE different mint mark positions. Which is it? Which "Ex-Pert" you quote is correct? BTW, just because a die is made and sent to the Denver Mint does not prove it was ever used.

Hey, There was a column in Numismatic News about this very thread. Perhaps you should read it.

 

Perhaps you should post it here. That way someone might believe you.

 

I couldn't tell the difference between #4 and #5.

 

I do ok at grading Lincolns but know only a bit about MM locations. Just saying, I'm not an expert. There are two experts I do trust.

The first is Charles D. Daughtrey. Years ago he posted on one of the forums (probably CU) that there were 5 MM locations. I really trust his opinion. Maybe it has changed over the years. I don't know.

The second is RLM. He knows this stuff and his images show 5 locations. I'm good with his opinion as well.

 

I spoke with three long-time Professional Authenticators at three TPGS and none knew the answer to my question about 1914-D mint marks or could confirm or deny yours.

Next: Much of the information about coins and dies that were considered FACTS in the early part of the last century have gone the way of the "FLAT EARTH THEORY."

The column I referred to was Fakes about Fakes. It appeared an October issue of Numismatic News. In summary, the writer, a professional authenticator, said he has only recorded four mint mark positions. No doubt he has seen a lot of 14-D's. He also writes that one modern researcher claims there were five positions. That may be who/where you saw the information that you posted about earlier in the thread that started this fascinating conversation. Now it seems the authenticator, the modern researcher, and Mr. Daughtrey are mistaken if one is to believe your most recent post: SIX DIES.

Bottom line I've concluded from the article: There may be four, five, six, or fifty individual 1914-D dies that were used. The point made in the article is that ONLY FOUR MINT MARK POSITIONS ARE DIFFERENT ENOUGH to be distinguished using a stereo microscope at 20X (Not in the article yet my guess for the magnification as I have done it). He also challenges other numismatists to "publish an in-depth study with photos" to confirm or refute his research. He believes this may be very easy to do today as there was no such thing as digital photography decades ago.

So @rlm's cents as a well-regarded expert on Lincoln cents and obviously a talented and proven researcher I expect you to take up his challenge and continue to educate us. However, as I wrote far above in this thread, the five photos you posted to prove your contention and back-up the opinion of five mint mark positions is FLAWED as one position is a duplication.

Best of luck to you; I agree with the professional authenticator's article. !

 

Are you saying that #4 and 5 are the duplicates?

 

You are going to have to be a bit more specific. A search of Numismatic News and Google fail to reveal any such item.