I won a 1907-O Barber Dime tonight. On the plus sign the coin has a clealy repunched mintmark and is a FS-501. Even better it is an AU-58 and the best graded coin for this variety at PCGS is a 45. Too bad it has been lightly cleaned. either way marks coin #3 in My Sm. White Holder Dime set. James
@SensibleSal66 . I am sure it is much easier to se if you go to the Heritage site. Blow the pic. up to the 125% size. You will see a cresent line in the interior of the regular mintmark. It is harder to see and is more visible using a smart phone but there is also a under curved line directly under the regular mintmark. I am terrible at seeing things like this so I get more excited when i can see them for myself. Often times I stare at coins that are allready labeled certain varieties but I am like one of those people who everyone else can tilt a picture and see a spaceship or some such thing but I never see the transformation. (Shades of Seinfield with the girl's boss) james
Just got my 1902 AU 58 in the mail. I will have to study it later when I have more time but so far I'm not sure where they saw wear on the coin. james
If the CPG image of FS-501 is accurate, I don't think yours is that one, and zooming in on the Heritage image I'm not sure if it's an RPM at all. The MM on yours is high and centered whereas FS-501 it's low and to the right (and has that obvious hook at the bottom). I didn't spend much time on this image but you can compare the distance of O from the ribbons and rim. Sold for Numismedia straight AU55 price? I was looking at a 1901-S in that auction which has the less common Rev3, NCS AU Improperly Cleaned, but it quickly went higher than I wanted to spend. Sold for $600. So that one was also near straight AU price. Not sure what was going on with the seemingly crazy bidding. Perhaps people thought these two were not really cleaned? Or they loved the toning?
To be honest I never even looked at the CherryPicker guide. Didn't know there was more than one. This coin matches the one in the Kevin Flynn PDF you sent me. RPM-001 Cross reference RP)-002 Pg. 89.
You said FS-501 in your first post so that's what I looked up. Flynn's RPM-001 (image added below) appears to be the same as CPG FS-501 though. Let us know what you think when it arrives I guess.
@KBBPLL . I'm not sure what to tell you. the picture in the cherrypick book is of a completely different coin. I think there is more than one variety listed in the Flynn PDF. The image shows a clear ring or cresent in the inner upper two thirds of the Mintmark with a lesser residual ring just below. It does say PRM-001 and Cross Ref RPD-002 but I'mnot sure what is being cross reference too. James
@KBBPLL . Mystery solved! He is talking about his own book. He claims this RPM comes with a Repunched Date. Here is the discription from that part of the book. "Repunched Date. 1907/19 Repunched 1 South below the base. Repunched 9 South seen then middle and below". He then cross references this to the page 89 rpm.
Now I am intrigued. The David Lawrence book refrences a repunched date. The date is suppose to be repunched below the 1. The coin Flynn describes is also repunchned under the 1 but he throws in a 9. The cross refrence to page 89 shows the mintmark anomaly. This could be the coin the "Haney" person in the Lawrence book is talkingabout. James PS I will admit though. i cannot see any repunching of the date in the photos.
One final note. Flynn identifies 2 different repunched dates for 1907-O. He says the coin on the left is cross referenced to the Haney coin from the Lawrence book. The coin i have would have to match the coin pictured on the left. I cannot see much on my computer monitor but with my smartphone I can see a repunch South on the 1 and perhaps on the 9. james
Flynn has RPD-001 and RPD-002. His RPD-001 is Lawrence's 101, which Flynn cross-references as "L-101." Flynn's RPD-002 is also his RPM-001, and they cross-reference each other as you said, page 89 and page 153. CPG 5th edition only has FS-501, which is the RPM, and does not show any RPDs. I am convinced FS-501 and Flynn's RPM-001 are the same variety. If you compare my image above, they are exactly the same and in the same position relative to the ribbon and denticles. It's too bad Flynn's image doesn't show more surrounding the MM. PCGS has one image of FS-501 in XF45. They have graded 3 of them. G4, XF40 and XF45. The XF40 is presumably this coin, sold on GC https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1339651/1907-OO-Barber-Dime-RPM-FS-501-PCGS-XF-40-Toned. I can't tell anything from the GC photos other than that the MM position matches the FS-501 image in CPG and Flynn's RPM-001, and the date position matches Flynn's RPD-002. NGC also attributes FS-501 but there is no image and there are none in their pop report. I don't find anything attributed in ANACS. I think you might be fixated on the hint of a repunch inside your O, which is seen on Flynn's image but not the CPG image. But your coin is missing the obvious "hook" at the lower right of the MM. It's the only distinguishing thing I can see on the PCGS XF45, below, whereas I also can't really see anything inside the O. Note also that the MM position matches FS-501 and RPM-001 in my previous image - low and right of center. You also need to compare the obverse date positions, which in this era vary on each die used. I check where the right edge of 1 aligns with the designer initial B in the lower bust, which is fixed on every obverse die, and also where that and the other digits align with the denticles. Flynn's images of his RPD-001 and RPD-002 are useful here. Your coin's date clearly does not align with either one. Your 9 for example aligns directly over a denticle, whereas both of Flynn's 9s align over a gap between the denticles. I'm too lazy to do a comparison image, but you can check this yourself. I hope all this is helpful. In hand you'll have to inspect carefully under magnification. Who knows, you may have one that hasn't been documented. There are a ton of them still out there in the Barber series.
@KBBPLL . I am afraid I am rather on the lazy side myself. As you say, I will know more when i have the coin in hand. On the plus side I contacted the VSS variety fellow and he has added the Flynn PDF you sent to his reference collection. I don't think he does "new" varieties or discoveries, but if it looks close in hand I will send it to him and let him do the hard work. Weird side facts though. I never even planned on getting this coin. The bid a few hours before the auction closed was at $5 dollars and so I meant to place a $10 dollar bid so I would keep track of it. In over 30 years of bidding I have never made such a mistake but I entered and confirmed a bid of $100. The coin ended up selling for $95. At first I was panicked and thought I should try and get it reversed. I then ran the analytics on the coin and rrealized it was basically worth the amount bid. (This was also on a holiday so there was no one to contact anyway.) No matter how things shake out this much is true. I am building a 25 date year set so that spot is filled. This will be the 2nd "details" coin I have ever added to my collection. James And thanks for all your feedback, you put a lot of effort into your responses.
