It looks to me like it is, but unlike the 1960 small date penny, it's not as easy to tell. I figured I'd ask the experts.
Thanks. From the online guides, it's really hard to tell the difference. Still, it only cost me a penny so I didn't get ripped off on it or anything.
I googled "1970 small date vs large date" and the two things that stand out are... 1) bottom of seven appears lower than bottom of zero 2) upper truncated end of nine points (with perpendicular straight line) towards base of seven.
It took me a bit to learn the difference between the 1960 small date vs the 1960 large date. The way I tell the difference is on the small date, the 1 is taller than the rest of the numbers, while on the large date the 1 isn't taller. I think of the "960" as the date, and I think of the 1s as the same size (even though I'm sure they're not). It makes it easy to tell the difference.
Based on the photos in the Red Book, the Small Date shows the horizontal bar of the "7" just about level with the top of the "0". The Large Date shows the horizontal bar lower than the top of the "0". This makes it appear as though this specimen is a Small Date. ??? Chris
Also, the "1" in "1970" appears to be taller than the "970". That is what initially made me think that it might be a small date. I'll ask the experts at the Lincoln penny forum what they think.
I have many of these and I call them “Medium Dates”, which is not a recognized variety. The 7 & 0 line up more so than the other variety of large date that has a 7 with a long tail that runs well below the 0. The inside loop of the 9 on the “Medium Date” does not point east, as it does on the small date. This “Medium Date” confuses many collectors, including myself at one time. It also does not have the weak LIBERTY found on small dates.
"Medium Date" huh? Does that mean she looked good enough to introduce to the parents but not good enough to marry? It sure would make it a bit easier if fishermen would stop coming up with all these "dumbasslines" for bait. Chris
