Is it a small date? I think it could be. It leaves a little to be desired regarding condition, but I just realized that I didn't have a 1970-S small date. I found this in a bank coin roll today.
Look LD but LIBERTY does appear slightly mushy. Probably from circulation damage. The loop in the 9 would point more towards the 7 and 0 rather than the mintmark.
I think it may be a small date, the circulation damage does hamper identification. Look at the inside of the 0 of date. The two are quite different in shape. http://www.lincolncentresource.com/smalldates/1970Ssmalldate.html
It’s a large date. First off the “0” is tall on the inside small date will have less area inside the “0”. and the 9 is not correct to be a small. It seems that they do line up but there are a lot of circulation damage to the coin to make it look like a small date.
This is the 3rd thread about the 1970-S in less than 48 hours. There are 9 pages of posts about this date/mintmark if you take the time to use the CT search function. Chris
There have been many on the board who have argued there is an intermediate between the 2 easily recognized. Perhaps in hand, the 7 would have had different lighting on the top to see if it had a definite crease or not, and the tip of the inner loop of the 9 pointed or not, but I would go on the Small date as appearance with the oval shaped inner opening , but I would not buy it as one without better observation. Most sell these on eBay as small. IMO , Jim
I agree, that in hand gives the buyer the best assessment opportunity. I've seen a number of LD specimens with 'interesting' damage that makes a quick assessment from photos a bit hazardous. But generally speaking I would be ok buying one on photos provided nothing 'interesting' is going on.
I don't think it's even a question. LD on the OP. The 9 is no good and the angle is making the 7 appear higher. Also a possible hit on the date.
