1994-D Lincoln Cent RPM?

I came across this a couple of days ago. I find no listings for this date and to my knowledge it shouldn't be. Any Ideas?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The flash of the mm doesn't resonate with the rest of the coin. Its not the same size, or, style.
IMHO

 

I wasn't trying to deter from the fact that the RPM wasn't possible, More to the fact, that if the op thought that the d was Hub doubling. it wasn't the same size or, shape. It is still a cool looking second D, if not photo shopped.

 

This excerpt was taken from Wexler's:
"In 1990 and 1991 the Mint began applying the mint mark for circulating coins to the master die. After 1994 the mint mark was applied directly to the original model for all U.S. coins thus ending the RPM and OMM era."
If I am reading that correctly there were still some coins made in 1994 that the MM was still being punched into the working die.

I really appreciate your answer but I am not new to this. I did my research before posting on here and I saw that very coin that is referenced in your links and I assure you that mine has no similarities with it. I have seen many plating blisters, both popped and not and this does not have any of the same characteristics. I poked around on the second D and there is no movement, it's SOLID! Under high magnification there are no cracks, folds or waves that would indicate that a bubble has been busted or inverted.

When I take pictures of coins I don't not use a flash. My lighting source was from the North which will result in the reflections that you can see in the picture. I was not suggesting that this is a result of Hub Doubling. With a major rotation like in the MM, Hub Doubling would be extremely evident in the entire coin, I would suspect. I don't do Photoshop!

 

No.. The Mintmark was not punched onto the working Die in 1994. Not at all. I already gave you your answer.

 

edit

 

So tell us what you think it is

 

If I knew what it is I wouldn't have posted it here. I can, through testing and research say what it is not which is why I asked the question "Any Ideas?". I am not nor will I ever be one of those people that give "ROBO" answers and expect everyone to believe "It is or is not what I say it is" like most veterans here. I know it is not PMD of any kind or plate blisters as earlier suggested. I know that at first glance it looks more like a "0" than a "D" but under higher magnification the "D" is more apparent after canceling out some glare. I know that after doing some research it being a RPM is not a fantasy or out of the question.

 

Buddy.. GET REAL!

 

So you just wish to be rude and insulting to everyone. That's all you ever do here. Stop with the most veterans crap. You don't know what you are talking about. That's a stupid remark.
It's not an RPM as you were told. The shape is wrong, the look is wrong, the size is wrong and the mint did not punch the MM in the working dies for Lincoln cents in 1994.
You know so much, tell us what it is. I know you won't ever figure it out on your own because you are too busy being rude to do so.

 

That's great, really, but did you happen to notice the very general wording or the fact he's not talking about one denomination in particular? Cents produced after 1989 (meaning starting in 1990) no longer had the mintmark punched into the die as was previously done. Yes, other denominations came shortly after, but we're taking only about cents here, so that's meaningless.

If you have any evidence the above is not true, please present it. If not, perhaps you should reconsider your position.

 

Did you really have to tell him?

 

Well you guys never seem to disappoint! I wasn't being rude and had no intentions to be rude, sorry you took it that way. Without getting deeper into a major debate about rudeness, stupidity, idiocracy and close mindedness, I have decided not to post any more coins here that are not simple in nature. I've come to the conclusion that if I cannot explain them, neither can you!

 

Closed mindedness? The only one fitting that description here is you, sir. You're refusing to even consider what is very likely the most obvious answer, and is why the discussion is dead in the water. This is on you, not us.

If RPMs (on cents) were impossible post 1989, this means your coin cannot be an RPM, correct? I asked you to post evidence to the contrary and can only assume you have none, so with this out of the way, and considering your refusal to believe damage even a possibility, how can you reasonably expect anyone to assist you? This isn't about telling you what you want to hear, but uncovering the true cause of the anomaly.

And perhaps this is the problem, sir. The point is not to simply "explain them" but to prove what they are with the evidence the coin itself provides. There is a difference....

Edited: wording.

 

Apparently not. Palm, meet face...

 

Describes you very well. I, we opened our minds and knowledge to you. You refused to listen, accept and learn
Here are some milk and cookies.
Goodbye

 

Oh come on. Open your mind and just learn.

 

Can I get a single malt whiskey instead of milk please?

 

Before you offer up milk and cookies to me for your "OPEN MIND" you should hold on to them for a while. I never said that it is RPM, I merely didn't rule it out as you did. Go back and read this thread again if you need to and I can explain the big words to you if needed, there may also be some "English as a Second Language" Classes in your area that might help. The close mindedness and rudeness originated from your end not mine.