1909-S Lincoln Cent Alpha Testing

Using the width of the "9" in the date as the scale
Right side of "9" the Y axis
Bottom side of "9" the X axis
X1 Left side of mintmark
X2 right side of mintmark
Y1 the top of mintmark
Y2 the bottom of mintmark

VDB-001 – (X1 = -11), (X2 = 55), (Y1 = 19), (Y2 = -60)
VDB-002 – (X1 = -13), (X2 = 52), (Y1 = -1), (Y2 = -77)
VDB-003 – (X1 = 10), (X2 = 75), (Y1 = -8), (Y2 = -85)
VDB-004 – (X1= 34), (X2 = 95), (Y1 = -34), (Y2 = -111)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Some may find this marker controversial but have you compared the die rotation of your unauthenticated coin to an authentic example? Of course any such analysis makes the assumption that the orientation of the obverse die to the reverse die remained static throughout the coin production run. Which probably isn't true but a significant deviation in the die orientation between the two coins would give me pause for concern.

 

I hadn't thought of that. I agree with your comments. While not foolproof it is worth noting.

I have the 65RD in my possession (also obv die #2) but the coin in question is on its way to ICG for analysis.
Lance.

 

Here is an ambitious exercise. Took a CAD tracing of what I remember being a 1912 Obverse - and the CAD rendering of 1909-S VDB-002. Overlaid both CAD renderings onto Lance's example of what appears to be an authentic 1909-S VDB-002. Creating a composite CAD rendering of 1909-S VDB-002. Overlaid the composite rendering onto Lance's unverified 1909-S VDB-002. The mintmark on the unverified example still indicates to be located slightly east of the mintmark for 1909-S VDB-002.

 

If you have the time, you might wish to submit much of this thread to Coin World, and Numismatic News for publication. Since the basic design of the 1912 and 1909 match as they should on genuine coins (same hub), you may have discovered an extremely small variance in the mint mark position that would split Die #2 into 2 & 2a since they could not be detected previously by naked eye alone. That will give other numismatists to research your findings and either prove or disprove the existence of 5 mint mark positions on these coins.

 

Although you wink - I actually have given this some thought. What is the source of the diagnostic photos provided by RLM in this thread? While these photos do contain a lot of artifacts such as shadowing and added markings that obscure the details of the coins depicted; I am fairly confident none of the four match the die the grading services have established as 1909-S VDB-002. Well PCGS and NGC anyway. Haven't found any diagnostic photos from other grading services.

 

Sorry, but I do not know/remember. It was posted (here, I am pretty sure) and I saved it and that was 2009 from the properties.

 

Thanks RLM - maybe someone here knows. For those that are interested - here is where I stand on those four images.

 

I'm not being critical just very confused. Can you keep this simple? What is going on in Post#88? Previously, I thought you took images of the four known mint mark positions for "S-VDB's" and found a coin that did not match exactly.

Now, it looks like you have found several "S-VDB's" that don't match! See if this is correct. You have made a template from the four genuine images in the ANA guide. Then you found images online of several other coins. These don't match. Am I correct so far?

In my opinion, you are proving something long-time professional authenticators/teachers always suspected. Since mintmarks were applied by hand and often die records show that more dies went to the branch mint than examples of each different possible position, the deviation must be so tiny on several dies that the human eye aided by the scale in a microscope reticle could not determine a difference. Therefore, as computers, imaging, and measuring methods got better (in this case what you have posted) numismatists may be able to prove there are actually six positions for these coins.

Two final thoughts:

1. Once you publish your information, interested parties (probably with equipment and actual BU coins above your pay level - PCGS/NGC/ANA) will either prove or disprove what you have found. As I posted above, there are several ways to introduce errors into your method, hand drawing and actual coins being two.

2. Additionally, no matter how many differences there actually are, in our lifetime, the standard for TPGS authentication will be four different positions.

Keep up the good work and get it published! IMO, It is ready enough right know to stir debate, further research, and get you the credit whether you want it or not.