1994-D Lincoln Cent RPM?

I look forward to being insulted with every post you make. That's what you do. If that ever changes, I'll think you might be taking the time to learn the truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

And can you, with your godly understanding of the English language, not understand that it was "ruled out" for a REASON? I'd be very interested to hear your approach to such matters; does it not make sense to you to rule out the obvious first? Like it or not that's what happened, and since you cannot accept the general consensus that it's its mostly likely damage, the onus is on you, dear sir, to prove your position yet thus far you've done nothing but spew insults and try to argue nonsense.

The very title of this thread ends with "RPM?", so it's pretty clear what you were thinking and are now simply trying to wiggle away from it while passing blame onto others. You're not even presenting any other (plausible) possibilities, but want to take your toy and go home because no one is playing by your rules. You also earlier claimed to not be one who says "it is.... what I say it is" yet this is pretty much what you're now doing. Does this really make sense to you?

If you want to discuss the coin, fine, lets discuss, but if you want to hear what you want hear, just say it so we can get this over and done with.

 

Godly? Not even close! I have however taken the time to learn other languages and in doing so I first had to learn and understand my own. The most important thing that I learned while doing so is "UNDERSTANDING' what is written or spoken in order to interpret the intended meaning. Yes, I can also translate using my second language. I will get to more on this later.

I did rule out the obvious before I posted it on here and again at the beginning of this thread. It was you guys that don't want to believe or take into account the things I've told you. It is not a plating bubble! You guys pretend that you are the only ones that has the capacity to perform any level of forensics to determine what some of these anomalies are. I have been doing this for a long time as have you however I actually have the coin in hand whereas I can see and touch things that you cannot. I did reject the first response to this thread because it was something that I definitively had already ruled out and I was given reference links for beginners, not that I mind links but I am no beginner.

What has happened was I was explaining details that I can see and you cannot when you attack dogs took offence to, I can only guess is because I rejected the "Plating Bubble" and "Photoshop" Theory and now here we are.

Question mark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The question mark [ ? ] (also known as interrogation point, query, or eroteme in journalism)[1] is a punctuation mark that indicates an interrogative clause or phrase in many languages. The question mark is not used for indirect questions. The question mark glyph is also often used in place of missing or unknown data.

but not to be confused with:

Percontation point
The percontation point (⸮), a reversed question mark later referred to as a rhetorical question mark, was proposed by Henry Denham in the 1580s and was used at the end of a question that does not require an answer—a rhetorical question.

I put the question mark at the end of RPM because I had already ruled out all other options that I personally know of which indicated that I was questioning the possibility of it actually being a RPM. This is what I was referring to earlier about "UNDERSTANDING' what is written or spoken in order to interpret the intended meaning.

I'm trying very hard not to be redundant but I have already pointed out the things that I know it is not. If I had another possibility I would have explored it personally and privately without posting here. I see a phrase used very often here and it is a phrase that I have used for many years until I realized that it is just an excuse to not do things for yourself, "There are no stupid questions". I personally disagree with that logic, I believe that a question asked before you try to answer it for yourself first is indeed a Stupid Question. My point is, I did my research before posting it here and all I was hoping for was that someone may have another idea and I was not looking for the usual back and forth school girl banter. I have a lot of respect for many people here on CT including some or all in this very thread but I am not going to be anyone's punching bag. If someone throws a punch at me then you can bet your "$#%" I'm going to throw it back.

What I want to hear is something logical, not just a knee jerk robo answer. I don't have any preconceived expectations for answers and personally I don't care if this coin is junk or worth millions. I just found this coin in change a few days ago so I would like to be able to put a label on it before I file it away in my collection for more than likely my grandchildren to fight over when I'm gone.
I am always open to an intelligent discussion or conversation, if anyone wants to get back on topic.

 

Yfi

 

Yfi

 

Your own research gave you the answer! Mintmarks were not punched into the Obverse Die in 1994. Then you said it's not fantasy or out of the question, hence implying that it could or might be a RPM.

If I wanted to be rude or close minded or an ass I would of then lied to you! Instead said "wow you have an ultra rare never before seen 1994 Denver RPM. It's a Discovery coin and probably worth $1,000.000 dollars!".. but being an open minded supporter of Cointalk with almost 5000 posts in the years that I have been here my fellow colleagues will know that's not like me. I have always provided my best answer to obvious questions. I'm not saying that I'm always right. Anytime I have been corrected I humbly accept and correct my errors. You don't seem to understand or want to accept the information I provided which most others will.
THERE IS NO 1994 RPM!

 

Here is something logical.. to get a RPM to look like that... then that Mint Employee must of been drunk!

 

How nice.. foul language.. you do know there are rules here on Cointalk. Your not even allowed to us symbols as you have. I could report you.

 

Great.. let's start a fun thread on how many different languages we know!

I will start

One, two, three, four, five.. obvious my 1st language as an American

Uno, dos, tres, cuatro, cinco.. from my latino background

U, dos, tres, quatre, cinc.. like castellano (Spanish) learned this language the 6 months I lived in Barcelona Spain

Ichi, ni, san, shi, go.. Japanese from my 10 years involved in the Japanese martial art Shotokan. Earned my Black Belt there.

Unu, du, tri, kvar, kvin.. I took a interesting course in Esperanto

Pagh, wa', cha', wej, loS.. some Klingon for ya.. I'm a huge Star Trek fan! 30 years a Trekker not a Trekkie

 

No the mintmark was not being punched into working dies in 1994. For production of the US cent in 1990 the mint no longer punched the mintmark into working dies – they began punching it into the master die. This practice theoretically still provided the possibility of creating a repunched mintmark (RPM). But this anomaly would be attributed to the master die not the working die. It would not be a characteristic that could be attributed to a specific working die. An RPM attributed to a master die would produce a variety that transferred to a very large population of working dies. Many many working dies would produce this same RPM. If only one master die was utilized for coin production that year then all the coins produced would exhibit this same RPM. If three different master dies were used for die production in that year then approximately one in three coins produced that year would exhibit the same RPM.

After 1994 the Mint added the mintmark to the coin design – therefore the mintmark became a design device engraved into the masters, no longer punched, – the same as any other design device and therefore only subject to producing a doubled die characteristic.

 

if you are really insistent that it is or may be a rpm. spend the $4 and send it Wexler. you might be disappointed by his response. nothing ventured, nothing gained. I have sent things in that people said were nothing and come to find out they WERE something. I have also sent things in that really were nothing. at least you have a sure answer.

 

with all those languages no pig latin?? oneay owtay, eethray, ourfay, ivefay....

 

From what I am understanding, If we don't agree with the OP, we are Rude and close minded. It seems he needs to take a little from his own "Handle" GET REAL! If he did this thread would have been closed 28 posts ago, or went in a more informational, and learning direction.
@Get Real
Was that rude, close minded, or just to the Point?

 

Thank you, that was a very intelligent and logical response and it is greatly appreciated.

I think the misconception about my post has been that I'm insistent that this coin is a RPM when in fact I only said that it is not a plating bubble. I might send it to Wexler in the near future along with a couple of other interesting pieces I have to hopefully find out what it actually is, if I ever do I will be sure to post the results. Thanks for you response.

 

No you nailed it. It's best to just block the OP and move on. He needs to grow up and learn what he is talking about. I'm going to block him if he can't figure out how to post without being an A.

 

We've all moved on so if you feel you must, then please do us both a favor!

 

Hope you find the answer you are looking for. Please let us know what Wexler has to say.

 

my apologies. insistent was a bad choice of words. if you strongly feel that you may have something or are curious as to what it really is then you should send it in. sometimes I send things in that people say are nothing just to know what its "classification" may be. $4 to further my education a little is worth it me.

 

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.... Spin as you wish, but your postings make it very clear your (at least initial) belief this was an RPM. Since you cannot post evidence disputing what was earlier said regarding the timeframe, the logical conclusion is that you have none and don't want to acknowledge the fact that you were mistaken.

You say it's not damage or a plating issue, and that's fine, but you do not get to dictate what others see, think, or believe. Just as you do, others are going to use their own experience to come to their own conclusions. Yes, you have the advantage of having the coin in hand, but we automatically believed everyone who posted here simply because they have the coin, we'd get nowhere. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I recall only one person even mentioning hub doubling or photoshop, yet you seem to want to apply this across the board.

The entire coin strikes me as having a rather questionable appearance based upon the provided photos, but I can't quite put my finger on it, and because they're photos don't place too much weight into it. However, as it stands, what do you think the most likely scenario: that your slightly rough coin displays damage as so many others like it do, or is some magical error that even you, with the coin in hand, cannot begin to explain? Disagree if you will, but the most obvious answer is, more often than not, also the right one.

 

There was no spin, twist or whatever else you want to call it. As I sated early on in this thread I was not going to rule out the possibility of RPM, you guys have twisted it trying to make me look like I have already decided and was very insistent to the point. I ruled out "Plating Blister" as I have repeatedly explained and I also explained why I came to that conclusion. I did however look at the picture again and I see how it may have been confused as such. The lower part of the "D" is very thin which in the picture sort of looks like it is in a recess but I assure you it is not. The MM sits level in the field and the height is consistent all the way around. The second "D" if that is what we are going to call it, is as well level with the field and the height is uniform at about half the height of the actual MM with the exception of a hit on the right. At the points where the second intersects the first there is no distortion of any kind, it looks exactly as other attributed RPMs that I own. Now about the hit on the right, I looked at it under my scope and it is clear that it took a hit and the metal has been displaced as would be expected. If it was a blister it would have ruptured at that point and wouldn't have solid displaced metal. I pointed out early in this thread that the area was solid with no signs of it being a plating issue but you guys proceeded to ignore that and start the insults that has gotten us to this point. I posses the knowledge and experience to deduce a simple plating issue and I didn't dictate what others was seeing but only what I was seeing. Its not my fault that everyone wanted to fixate on "RPM?".
In the title I wrote "RPM?" which indicates that there was a question, now what question you ask. If I were the one reading it I would assume one possibly of the following questions.
1)Could this possibly be a RPM?
2)It looks like a RPM but I'm not sure what it could it be?
3)Does anyone have a knowledge of there possibly being a RPM?
4)That the closest that the OP can come up with, do you have any ideas?
5)What would cause this that would look like a RPM?
If I had a predetermined idea of it being a RPM I would have written it like "RPM." or if I was enthusiastic or excited about it I may have written it like "RPM!", but not with a "?". Interpretation is something that I spoke of earlier as well, from now on I will be sure to explain myself a little better, you can bet on that!

Agreed but no one here is on a schedule that I am aware of that we would have to worry about getting nowhere. This is a forum where like minds share and help each other to my understanding, by what should be getting a clear idea of what a poster is asking or implying before attacking. Sometimes giving it a little more thought and maybe ask a question or two before resorting to giving (in you mind) definitive responses like you are the "all knowing" authority is a bit insulting to people with experience.

I did notice and thanks for reminding me of that. That gentleman also gave a complement "It is still a cool looking second D" and because of all the back and forth I forgot to thank him. Thank you for that and I agree, even though it may turn out to be nothing it is still interesting and my plan is to keep it in my collection. I commented earlier about my thoughts on hub doubling and no one disagreed so I assume that it was not an issue. About the Photoshop thing I made a simple comment to the responder that "I don't do Photoshop" which is a very true statement. I am not one of those people that sit around all day inventing of ways to trick people. When I post a photo on here the only thing that I do is crop it and adjust the file size so it can be easily uploaded and viewed, I do not have the time or interest to do any photo editing in my life.

If something seems questionable to you then point it out or ask a question and I will do me very best to answer or accommodate. I don't want anyone to think that I am trying to fool them by posting a fake or Photoshoped coin.

As I have pointed out before, In my opinion, I have ruled out all forms of PMD that I know of and that is on the multitude or reference websites. After all of the analysis that I have done and now have explained I can only assume that it was something incused on the die. I am not saying it is RPM or in fact that is a second "D" but it appears to me that the origin was from the die and not "unintentional PMD".
The "magical error" is a bit over dramatic and it is statements like that that can be insulting to others or myself however you want to take it.