1909-S Lincoln Cent Alpha Testing

Sorry guys, Strike Out!

I'm only interested in Alpha Testing the SIX mint mark positions the OP stated for the for the 1909-S coins in spite of the images for S VDB's. I was waiting and saw no reason for him or others to bring up anything but the S Mints. I should have pointed that out to both posters.

Now pretty please, get back to the 09-S's. I'm going to the Venice show today and cannot wait for more info.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

New rendering for MMS-001.

 

A very interesting experiment! This could have applications with many other coins. This is the "science" portion of our hobby at work, thank you for your efforts!

 

Removed the mintmark from my emulated 1909 -S VDB dies leaving just the box as the target. Also changed the colors.

 

Took the image of the 1909-S VDB die that indicated as a miss and squared in the mintmark placement in my CAD. Then took the previous four emulated drawings overlaid them with this other drawing. All five drawings are overlaid into one composite drawing in the image provided below.

 

Well here are my results - as it stands at this time. I redid the overlays (several times) - tightened up the mintmark target squares. Out of the eight images utilized in my analysis (The four 1909-S VDB diagnostic images provided by PCGS and the four 1909-S VDB diagnostic images provided by RLM earlier in this thread) my analysis produced five distinct mintmark locations for the "S".
so

1. I have screwed up somewhere along the line in my analysis (Most likely scenario)

2. Either PCGS diagnostic images or the diagnostic images provided by RLM has utilized a coin that is NOT a 1909-S VDB.

3. Five instead of four obverse dies were used in production of the 1909-SVDB.

 

The claim has been made before on CT that 5 obverses were used for S-VDB coins. I contend that two of them are so close, that w/o minute comparison images, no one can tell the difference, even using a stereo microscope. Otherwise, the fifth position is very, very rare not to have been included in the ANA results done long ago.

THE ONLY WAY to settle this is to record die states for each of the present four "S" mint mark positions. That would eliminate any image shift due to shadows, die wear, tilt & light, and the "outline drawings" which are not exact enough that you have used for your study.

Until that is done with irrefutable precision, I'll stick to my belief of four different dies.

IMO, your contributions are amazing. How about doing a study for the 09-S coins when you have the time.

 

I believe you have your dates mixed up. That was the 1914-D that I have 5 pictured dies for and you claim there are only 4. I remember no one previously claiming there were 5 dies for the S-VDB, but it presently looks like the obvious answer to this.

 

Could include the following CAD drawing

 

Some simple analyzing of 1909-S VDB-001 using the CAD drawing

The width of the "9" in the image = .63 inches
The length of the "9" in the image = 1.10 inches

The mintmark intersected .06 inches to the left of the "9"
The mintmark intersected .13 inches above the "9"

.06 / .63 = between the range of 9% to 10%
.13 / 1.10 = between the range of 11% to 12%

If my math is correct

Therefore for all 1909-S VDB-001 the mintmark placement is

approximately 9% to 10% to the left of the "9" in the date - relative to the "9" width.

approximately 11% to 12% above the "9" in the date - relative to the "9" length.

 

Some more simple analyzing of 1909-S VDB-001 using the CAD drawing

The mintmark intersected .06 inches to the left of the "9" (refer to post above)
The mintmark intersected .13 inches above the "9" (refer to post above

The width of the mintmark box measured .41 inches
The length of the mintmark box measured .53 inches.

.06 / .41 = between the range of 14% to 15%
.13 / .53 = between the range of 24% to 25%

If my math is correct

Therefore for all 1909-S VDB-001 the mintmark placement is

approximately 14% to 15% of the mintmark is left of the "9" in the date.

approximately 24% to 25% of the mintmark is above the "9" in the date.

 

I think your work & idea is wonderful.

The final drawing alone will exclude a host of counterfeit examples.

I'm also not willing to give up on either of your ideas regarding the dies. After all, for over 100 years, everybody knew there were no 1919 Mercury dime double dies... there are plenty of good, high resolution photos of the various examples available. So it shouldn't be impossible to prove either way. All you need to do is scale the outline to the photo and move it to overlay, right?

 

Import the coin image into CAD then bring the CAD drawing into the work space. Do all my manipulation to the CAD drawing. Resizing, rotating and etc until it fits and overlays onto the coin image. The CAD drawing retains its relative scale and coordinates as I manipulate it.

 

Why not use a 3D printer. Just kidding!

 

Four 1909-S VDB posted in a thread on Cointalk - Before I Buy. VDB-004

 

A slightly different direction here. A fake featured in Numismatic News 4 years ago titled "Some Coins Ask For A Closer Look". Took the CAD drawing I posted in #26 - which is the drawing that is a composite of all five emulated dies. The Fake is boxed with the yellow lines. I agree it is fake.

 

Sort of off the subject but a quick one done for fun. I am sure y'all are getting tired of this.

 

Not tired at all... watching the birth of a hugely valuable numismatic tool.

With a library of known good examples, and a half way square photograph, you can exclude most bad ones, include most good ones and leave a small # for expert judgement.