No, not at all... Mint marks were not hand punched into the die in 1987. So it can't be a RPM. That is a plating issue which looks similar. quote - "Beginning in 1986 with coins specially made for collectors, the United States Mint began adding the mintmark at the master die stage of production so all working dies would be identical. In effect, this new production process eliminated any future re-punched mintmark varieties" closed quote
Ok, now I'm confused. Wexlers shows a 1989 RPM. http://doubleddie.com/310201.html And I just read this and it says the stopped hand engraving the MM in 1990 https://www.cointalk.com/threads/learn-about-die-doubling.4446/
Mintmarks absolutely were punched in 1987, and we're up to and including 1989. With that said, I'm quite sure that this is simply a plating issue, unfortunately.
When the coin was struck the plating was pierced causing a zinc line or impression of the lower part of the D. The color difference makes it look like a raised area which would be consistent with an RPM. Upon closer inspection you can see the area below the D is flat. It's an illusion.
So, does zinc showing rule out a die variety usually? Can that be a kind of rule of thumb that tells me it's not and rpm/omm or doubled die?
What site was it taken from? Truth be told, I can only recall when cents were changed over; could it be that different denominations were changed at different times? Perhaps.... or perhaps not.
