5 on the cheek dime

Until then.. Sure

See this man.. Mr. Fred Weinberg. Do you know him?
I'm standing next to him



He stated that the 5 in Cheek was lint on the Die.
I agree.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'll believe it when I see it in the CPG.

 

Nice photo! I should have taken one with Mr. Fivas in Atlanta! Except he was wearing his Navy jacket! GO ARMY!

Re: Lint marks

@Oldhoopster I think put it best in his post. Likely a struck-through piece during the die-making process.

I subscribe to the "lint-mark" theory, but that it occurred between the hub and die during the die-making process as @Oldhoopster pointed out.

This would have created an incuse image on the die, which would in turn create relief elements on the coins themselves. Except I wasn't taught that term in that way - usually it's meant when talking about coins getting struck rather than dies getting made.

I don't know. Definitions expand. My waist expands. A lot of things expand.

However, mere lint ON the die would cause an incuse image. Like any other struck-through.

This is basic knowledge and I'm sure you don't have to be taught this, but just throwing it out there because I think it will help beginners.

It's the same explanation used for the D on the Bell proof Franklin and the Superbird Quarter. I haven't seen the Franklin D, but I've seen the Superbird.

This variety is just much more impressive because of its prominence when fully struck. You don't have to look for X feather at Y notch at Z angle of lighting.

And I'm sure what Oldhoopster explained is exactly what Mr. Weinberg meant when he said it was a lint mark. I'm pretty sure he will agree in a heartbeat that the "5" is in relief on the coin - it REALLY sticks out.

I mean, an 11-year old found one... by looking at eBay photos... I can't even tell if it's Roosevelt or my ex-wife in some of those photos TBH.

I usually don't attend shows or conventions btw, I like to shelter-in-place ALL the time (people scare me, coins are my friends).

This might be why I've never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Weinberg?

If he wants to see one in-hand, I wouldn't mind sending him mine to look at.

He didn't want to look at the coin @Nick57 has, but maybe now that there are some rumblings... from extremely reliable sources... that the variety will be in the next CPG... Maybe, he might have a change in heart?

The coin is pretty neat. You really should see one in-hand if you like varieties.

 

Hopefully we'll find out this year, just don't know what the schedules are going to be like with everything going on. The page it might be on may decide to social distance itself from the others

 

The "lint mark that resembles a 5" is die damage as explained by Mr. Weinberg. And since the damage left a permanent mark, all coins minted from that die can technically be called a variety since they all display this mark.

Now the question becomes "is this a significant variety"? It wasn't something that was done by mint workers like the extra leaf Wisconsin Quarter. It wasn't caused by a the mint making changes to the design like the 1964 accented hair proof halves. It wasn't due to the someone at the mint forgetting to add a mm to a die. It was just a die that suffered minor damage by having some lint/string get stuck to it while being hubbed. Not a lot of difference between that and die gouges, polishing lines, and die cracks. All examples of minor die damage IMO.

By random chance, the damage resembles a 5 and happens to be in a prominent location. It could have occurred anywhere in any configuration.

Personally, I think it's an interesting coin. But I do not think it's a significant variety. Being listed in the CPG should help hype it, but in the end, it's just a die with some minor damage

You can try to hype it all you want. Worked for the 1955 poor man's doubled die. But it will always be the "damage that resembles a 5 on the cheek" variety. IMO, knowledgeable error collectors will understand this and that will be reflected in the significance of this variety.

 

@Oldhoopster thanks for the input!

I wouldn't go as far as calling it as a poor man's doubled die haha

I think @Conder101 posted the same in the other thread - I won't disagree with him on valuations - I think that's for the market to determine. Just as I won't disagree with you on significance. What makes the variety significant? Appearance? Causation? Scarcity? How much weight do we put on each factor?

I do find the 1955 doubled die fascinating. But it's the end result of a "run of the mill" hub doubling isn't it? No mischief, no design change, no noticeable absence. But it's pronounced and rare. So, is it significant? IMO, yes, because it wasn't noticed until most coins had circulated. That's my stance. You may disagree. And that's fine. That's what makes these debates fun.

Interesting, though, that you bring up the poor man's because there was some fraud already with this variety; an eBay seller recently sold a worn dime described as the "5" variety for $80-100. Absolutely disgusting.

I digress. I wrote my recent posts for two reasons:

(1) There's teaching and then there's being a snob. There's explaining it (like you did) and attempts at "sarcasm" that amount to little more than belittling. Would you send your child or a friend that was a novice to a forum where there's a lot of arrogance?

I spoke with some people in the Atlanta area and why they don't go to many of the shows and the words that got thrown around a lot were snobs and elitists. Many didn't attend the Money Show because they just didn't like the atmosphere and if they did, they made cameos. My uncle told me similar stories and that's why I almost never go to shows, even local ones.

This arrogance is why my son doesn't come on this forum anymore. He said a lot of people on here were mean or sounded like a-holes. It's a shame because I think there's a lot of useful information to be found here.

Is coin collecting meant only for an elite few? I guess historically it was, but I like to think of it as fun and wish more people were interested. If anything, the history is really fascinating.

(2) There's misinformation. You agree that it's a variety as does Conder, myself, and several others. However, there's a lot of people saying "pareidolia" or "error" when, IMHO, I think there's a distinction. It's like when those with variety experience hear "double die" rather than "doubled die" (did you cringe?). Then, there are people saying that it's NOT a variety.

Both reasons are why @paddyman98 was wrong. First, he claims that all experts have said it's not a variety AT ALL. Well, @Oldhoopster, clearly you're not an expert because YOU said it's a variety. Neither is Bill Fivas either it appears because HE said it was a variety. He just writes the book on it, but clearly he is no expert (this, my friends, is sarcasm).

I'm not, , and I will be the first to admit this; I prefer Commonwealth coins TBH. I only recently began looking closer at varieties with my son because I feel it's a good entryway into collecting. However, I don't present myself as one or any of that nonsense puffery. I don't ridicule others for seeing pareidolia (for those that no how to use the word properly, did you cringe?).

Second, I fear that there are some on here with God complexes. There's a lot of negativity coupled with defensiveness. What foolish questions! How dare you question me with this idiotic question! Let me give you the wrong answer! OH NO, he's found my weak spot...

Was a photograph with a well-respected expert meant to impress me? Congratulations! I have a photograph of me during my time studying the laws at Oxford; I'm having a pint where Bill Clinton allegedly didn't inhale.

I also have a photograph with my kid and Patrick Starfish at Universal Studios and that's the more meaningful photo of the two in my books. Because it was all about having fun.

And that's really how we should be acting on here, right. In ways to attract more people to our hobby rather than repulse them. Giving them good information rather than false knowledge. But most importantly, remembering why we got into collecting in the first place.

Have fun, swap coins, and keep it light. Cheers mates!

 

The coin in this thread has been struck by a die that somehow got a scratch on it. It would be impossible for anyone to tell for sure what damaged the die. Coin dies gets all kinds of damage from use. I have a silver Roosevelt dime that makes Roosevelt look like a vampire . It has a die gouge that looks like a big fang tooth coming out of Roosevelt's mouth.

 

@rascal - definitely a possibility.

I mean, I agree with lint-mark during the die-making process because it’s feasible and it is the widely accepted cause of the Superbird and all other lint-mark varieties.

And, as much as I’ve debated this, it’s just easier to go with the flow sometimes.

Could it have also been a bit of mischief?

Definitely. Was the Wisconsin quarter mischief the first incident of someone having some fun? Most certainly not. Will we know for this coin? Probably not, unless someone steps forward and admits to it - we won’t know. can it be ruled out? No.

Could it have been a die scratch like you mention

Definitely! Like you said, it happens all the time. So, can it be ruled out? No.

But the overwhelming authoritative response here is that it IS a lint-mark. Again, I’ll agree with this as a possibility, but to conclusively say that it is? Basing this off of pictures and no hard evidence of what happened at the mint? I certainly won’t make these conclusions; I wasn’t even born in 1966.

So, we’re left with several big questions:

(1) Have you seen a Superbird? I have and I’ve been incredibly disappointed with each one I’ve seen. It’s not very prominent on any of the 5 or 6 I’ve had in-hand. All have been meh.

Is the Superbird a Lint Mark? Very feasible. It’s very tiny and could easily have caught onto one of the devices.

many of us have seen it. Some may have seen better quality ones, but IMO, it’s just not impressive. At all.

(2) have you held the “5” dime in your hand. @Nick57 has a really prominent one (insert joke here). And a pretty good photograph that shows it as a relief element.

I have. And others that have seen it in hand have almost all discounted the lint-mark theory, even at the hub-die transfer stage. I have had a weaker strike one in hand as well as a couple stronger strikes. Lint-Mark no. Yarn-Mark? Maybe. I’d rough it as twice the size of the “S”, both in height/width and depth.

The consensus choice among those that have seen it in hand is... mischief. As in someone crudely carving a “5” into the die.

I ask those questions because it seems like few, if any, people posting on this thread have seen this variety in person.

Basing judgments off photos? First, there’s this website called eBay. Really professional photography. Second, photographs can be easily altered.

For those screaming paridos-equis, I can only answer age related macular degeneration, optic neuritis, or glaucoma. Strong possibility. Call your optometrist. unless you were asking if I wanted a cerveza, then the answer is !SI¡

So, @rascal, what caused it? Your guess is as good as mine. We can spend hours debating it, but we may never know.

PS I think I know what “vampire” you’re talking about lol it’s AWESOME! Lol

 

Stick around here a bit longer and when you get to know us a better then you can judge us. Tell your son to stop whining and grow some thicker skin. My step son was being bullied and was scared of going out. Did I tell him to stay home and never go out again? No. I taught him how to defend himself (I'm a martial arts instructor) and we started lifting weights to become stronger. He has much better confidence in himself now than he did 4 years ago. But better than all that training I taught him to defend himself using his mind. To think about the dangers in the streets and how to stay away from them... Those A-holes at the coins shows do not represent all coin collectors so please don't compare any of us to them. I have the right to state my opinion and so do you. If you don't like my opinion is it right for you to then bash me? Is it my fault that your son got discouraged about coin collecting? Maybe he just got bored with it.. There are plenty of members here that have thanked us here on CoinTalk for our help and encouragement over the years and they are still collecting. The picture of Fred and I was to let you know I was not trolling, not to impress you nor anyone else. Because your first comment on this thread was a false assumption that I was here trolling then you told me to take a bow.. Without even fully knowing who I am. Now if you think that's not wrong to have said and done then you have a serious problem.

Have fun, swap coins, and keep it light. Cheers mate!

 

Somewhere in one of your extensive posts (would hate to see the billable hours on those ), you said that you believed this purposely done to the die. Don't forget that the mischief maker would have to scribe the mark in backwards for it to resemble a "5" on a coin. Not saying it's impossible, but die damage from lint/string makes a lot more sense.

 

This is a great idea. Anyone can spread a rumor of this being noted in the next CPG, until then it is just hype. Are you gonna give us any details towards this so called variety? Or, continue to post longwinded and repeated gibberish?

Or you can put on your big boy pants, and join them in discussions. The only ones that feel the same as you just stated. Are the ones that have no clue what they are talking about, they argue in the face of the facts and years of collecting knowledge.

So which is it? Are you in elementary school? Or are you a 40 year old adult?

Sorry about your son. Next time let him know that we deal with a lot with folks that think their parking lot damaged coin is a mint error and think it's worth a million dollars. Incessantly arguing the facts. If your Son was innocently asking a question. I am sure that he got treated with great respect.

 

Hey guys-- I got a dime with a s on the cheek?????Only kidding have a good day

 

I’ve actually thought about that regarding causation, and have brought it up with others, but the consensus is still mischief.

I agree with the lint mark theory, again because sometimes it’s easiest to go with the flow.

However, to say something with certainty, without having examined one in hand, is jumping to conclusions isn’t it?

Would you want your doctor to do the same? Unfortunately, a lot of doctors do... that’s how we end up with quite a few malpractice cases.

I digress again. I’ll try to explain it further, but you can see this in the photos on the other thread if you look closely.

The “5” isn’t a single mark, but three separate. This could be 3 individual pieces of lint that happened to line up perfectly. That’s definitely feasible.

The “5” is also very pronounced on better examples. I’m not referring to location, but need to refer to the Superbird as it’s the closest variety to compare it to.

The “s” doesn’t remotely look like an s IMO. It’s also roughly the size of the horizontal portion of the “5” in terms of length. Another comparison to make is that it’s also a single continuous mark.

The “5” would also have to be created by very thick pieces of lint and pressed extremely hard.

I’m no expert. My understanding is that dies are softer when going through the die making process. This allows the hubs to make their impression. The dies then go through an annealing process to harden them. Is that correct?

I only bring this up because it’s been brought up in discussions I’ve had with others. Malleability is an issue, but the dies are softened, correct? This is why I agree with your struck through theory as it's very plausible. How else do we see certain struck through coins, such as lint marks?

The depth/size of the marks is what’s interesting, for me at least. The 3 lint pieces would have to be thicker than the Superbird lint. I don’t know what type of cloth would have been used, but it wasn’t the same type used on the quarter.

One of the better arguments for mischief is this. You can see the 5 without magnification on the better examples (I need my readers because of age, but it’s visible within reading distance)

The mints usually inspect the first few coins, right? If it’s visible to the naked eye, even if it’s just a shimmer, a mint employee should have easily caught it, correct?

An easy rebuttal to this is to use missing mm as an example. But you said yourself that missing mm is an example of a significant variety.

If this was the case, and a mint employee missed a very visible die damage, then is this not significant?

Long story short, I concur with your theory; I think I’ve mentioned that.

I diverge where this opinion has been stated as a conclusive, end-all, no other explanation. My point in many of my posts is that it’s not. As you mentioned, it’s possible. But the lint-mark theory is the easiest and most plausible explanation IMO. Different reasoning, same conclusion.

As for billable hours, I would hate to see them too! I only volunteer with homeless veterans so my rate is $0. Those hours stack up!!!

However, I’m one of those (un)fortunate enough to have been a medical malpractice victim (nonfeasance type because doctors know everything, right?). I draw a nice enough disability pension, so I don’t have to worry about billable hours. I just have to worry about idiotic things like the Feres doctrine. Because it pops up a lot when dealing with disabled veterans.

 

Apples and oranges..

Cheers

 

I'm sure that among those with years of collecting knowledge, someone knows a contributor or two. It's easy enough to verify.

I don't claim to have years of knowledge, just years of collecting. I figured it was best to ask an expert, so I asked Mr. Fivas.

So unless they change their mind over at Whitman prior to publishing...

I think my longwinded gibberish is evidence of joining a discussion. Flippant or dismissive one-line comments are not discussions.

But I agree, most just leave and never come back. I have my 40 year old pants on. How did you know that? Did you stalk my profile? Do you want me to take the off? I'm blushing, just kidding.

I've read quite a few threads on here; I find some of the comments amusing TBH. But there's two issues: (1) There are quite a few where the rude comments are the first comments; dismissive brief sentences, and (2) These aren't always "facts"

Let's use this thread as an example. After a quick response from another poster, @paddyman98 starts us off with a classic example of a flippant remark. He does the same in the other thread as well.

Pareidolia and Error get tossed around on both threads. I can agree with the first word on the other thread, but it was used on this thread here. Pareidolia is not a fact for this thread; it's repeating something the poster clearly read on another thread. This is what is referred to as willful blindness; there's clearly something that resembles a "5" on the photo that @Nick57 posted.

As for "Error" as a fact, it clearly isn't now. Yet, early on both threads, it was stated as fact. It wasn't. It was also stated as "fact" that all the experts have agreed that it is nothing. Again, not a fact. Two members here that IMO are very knowledgeable have stated that it's a variety. They brought up significance and value, but that wasn't the issue at hand, correct? I believe those are interesting topics, but the OPs both just wanted to know if they had the variety.

A factual answer would have been "yes" given that many posters mentioned the discoverer's Youtube video. Clearly, as @Oldhoopster points out, there are more than a couple out there, with the same identifiers.

Sometimes people don't want to hear when they're wrong. I get it. Kitty get my pot pie.

But sometimes people have the humility to admit when they're wrong. Again, have you noticed that NGC decided to attribute the Superbird sometime after my gibberish on the other thread? I think I pointed out that they attributed one coin with a lint mark, but excluded the Superbird as a lint mark... from 2007-2019. Probably just a coincidence. But respect for correcting their inconsistency on the topic. They could have taken off the other lint mark coin and I would give that respect, too.

I guess I'm being somewhat rude in the face of people incessantly arguing the facts.

Here are the facts summed up:

(1) The coin is a variety, not an error. There are at least 5 that we know of that share the same characteristics (this number is kept low so that this statement can be maintained as fact).

(2) The coin @Nick57 posted has the distinguishing mark. There is a mark that resembles the number "5" on the cheek.

(3) The OP is NOT suffering from a case of pareidolia. There's clearly a mark there, whether or not it looks like a "5" or not, and he noted that it matches another coin.

(4) I agree with @Oldhoopster that it's likely a lint-mark. However, that's my opinion and I'm not ruling out any other possibility.

(5) Last, but not least...

It's not a rumor, it's a fact unless they decide to remove it. I just felt that those with years of knowledge probably knew someone that could easily confirm this information. The relevant part of the answer I was given was "it's already in." This answer was confirmed. There's more, but that's not relevant to this post.

Someone will probably argue this last fact all they want, but again, if they have years of knowledge (and I'm assuming connections), they can easily confirm if this variety will be in the CPG or they can ask Mr. Fivas himself.

If I'm wrong about any of my facts, my pants are big enough where I will eat crow AND apologize for throwing out false knowledge. I'm humble enough to do that.

In the face of these facts, do those that posted erroneous information have big enough pants to admit they were wrong?

In closing:

You like apples? Cheers, mate!

 

P.S. Thanks @Pickin and Grinin - my son understands, the reasoning you gave was the one I gave him. For those of us with children, it's easy to understand because how many of us have said, "I've told you a million times" or "don't talk back to me" to their kid?

If I offended you by pointing out the attribution standards, I apologize. However, I pointed it out because your post about the eBay listing was somewhat misleading. I looked it up and here: "We had our doubts until the youngest of us spotted one online / It was not raw in an SMS set, but graded in a PCGS slab".

This wasn't a raw coin sent for graded, it was already graded. And as I mentioned, the big 4 have their standards and won't attribute a coin until it's officially in the CPG. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify to others that might read the post and think "pareidolia" immediately.

I also wanted to reply to your post because some disgusting seller defrauded someone by selling a dime as this "variety" for close to $100. I think the listing you mentioned gives others something to compare coins with rather than going blindly. I feel bad for the defrauded buyer, but then he/she should have looked at some reference.

As for the artificially toned coin, I believe the reference was to EDM. If you're as disgusted by AT coins as I am, I applaud you, but I'll leave you with a hypothetical. If you saw something you wouldn't mind having, let's use a kilo of silver for example, but it was badly corroded, would you leave it? I know I would grab that kilo and sell it for melt.

 

There is no offence taken. What is still rumor, is the fact that this coin has been around for years. It has been deemed die damage. If you really want to see a coin in the CPG that is gonna be almost unattainable. Then that is fine. The reality of it is that after few strikes the so called variety disappeared otherwise this would have already been a well known and sought after variety.

This coin is only an oddity, and not worthy of a variety attribution. IMO

 

I think that’s what fascinates me the most about this particular variety. It’s been almost 55 years since it was minted, yet there’s only a handful out there?

I think we’ll have to see; I’m pretty sure after it becomes a variety that can be attributed, there’s going to be an explosion of set hunting. If there’s no more, then I’ll agree with the oddity.

I find this somewhat curious though. LSD British pennies have Freeman and Gouby varieties that have rarity indexes where they list some as “possibly unique”. I would claim those as one-off oddities, but they keep them there in case a confirmation coin is ever found

how many coins make a variety vs an oddity though?

The 1955 DDO is scarce in MS, but you can find them in circulation. Of course, this is an SMS, so most should be in sets or graded.

 

Love them.. Especially sour green apples..

Please stop tagging me. I'm really not interested in reading anything you have to say. There are so many other very important coin related items to deal with.

I won't tag you nor quote you again after this post..

Deal? (Don't even respond)

 

Sure, as long as you start being more polite and less arrogant (I don't accept one-sided contracts)