1970s small or large date?

Sorry. Somehow it double posted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice pictures, but I have not idea what you are referring to for #3. Why not use the notch on the inside as the lines of the 7 come together? That is one of the clearest indicators I know. Also, there were 2 different dates stamped. All of one had such and such characteristics and all of the other had different characteristics. Neither of them "most frequently" had anything. They large did and the small did not. BTW. I find that "0" nearly impossible to differentiate.

 

That's the point. The 7 is level with the 9 and 0 on a small date. It's also referred to as a "level 7" coin.

 

After asking sooo many questions on these forums, viewing the multiple photos at Lincolncentresource, using the pathetic pictures in the Redbook & the great photos in the Cherrypicker's Guide, to help me identify the small date without pestering you guys, I arrived at this 4 step process. Whatever method a person uses should be fine as long as they can consistently achieve correct identification. I urge you to test this 4 step process working from left to right. View the Lincolncentresource photos as your reference and it will (hopefully) become more clear why I chose these particular "consistently" different features between the small & large date varieties. Step #2 is actually the 1st thing I look at now to easily decide whether or not to continue trying to decide small or large. Another thing to consider is not all coins are going to be in as good of condition as those that the various photographic references are.

 

Another feature to tell the difference in the large/small dates is look at the word LIBERTY

 

Shoewrecky, The reason I stopped using the LIBERTY is because a whole bunch of LARGE dates also have the strong to weak progression.

 

If it works for you, more power to ya, but you missed my main point. There were 2 varieties of this date. Every feature of this date is either a large date or a small date. There are no gray areas in between. There are no usually this or typically that. It either is large or it is small.

 

Point taken. I guess I was taking into consideration the possible visual differences a person (me) might see between the proof versions of each which are distinctly different from the business versions (especially the zeros). I have found proof coins in circulation.

 

Even the proofs fit into the same 2 categories. See http://www.cointalk.com/t93080-2/#post818540. There were 2 master dies in SF that year. The same 2 dies were used for both business and proofs. No hybrids and no difference between proof and business save for die wear.

 

For whatever reason, the Large dates present themselves in more than one style. If it is a single Hub, then it's die wear and polishing or strike. Variation in the Large dates is what leads many to the conclusion that they have a Small Date, simply because they see two different presentations.

In this case, I see two different presentations of Large Dates.

 

Every large date I have seen has the notch in the 7, has the lower 7 (most noticeable on the tail rather than the top), and have the open bunt tailed 9. Now, I have seen a lots of pictures which obscure any or often all of these characteristics, but on any descent picture, they are all there. The single characteristic there I would think most susceptible to die wear. Still, it is always there on the descent pictures.

 

Nice image Badthad. Where did you get it? LOL

 

I guess the second coin has proponents on both sides. The 7 looks smaller, but too low for the small date to me. Any chance it's a counterfeit?

 

I really doubt that it is counterfeit. I strongly suspect all of the argument is nothing but the blurriness of the picture.

 

From a guy with great skill! LOL

 

Took a second look and agree that they are large dates. IMHO