If any of you have one, I need to see some pics of a nice '40-S. I thought I'd find some in the "[Variety?] Nickel Forum," but that seems to have disappeared (the minute I need it, figures).
Here is what Peter said in another thread. http://www.cointalk.com/forum/t49056/ What are you needing shots of in the 40s? The mintmark, or the whole coin? Speedy
Can we start with a nice-looking '40-S, both sides? If I can see closeups of the mm, and the #4 in the date, that'd help, too. There's a method to this madness. It's that my camera is out on loan, right now. While I'm waiting to get it back, so I could show you guys some pics, I'd love to see those pics of a nice one, if you have one.
The whole enchilada! I'll be going through these archives, Peter...thanks! Speedy: no problem, I'll post some pics later in the day, and ask my questions...
OK, here it is (I'm even "faster" than I thought )... I want to see how close this '40-S comes to the cream of the crop (so to speak), graded off these pics. I wish that big spot on the cheek wasn't there, but, we take them as we find them. If you have to err, please do so on the side of, the pics could be much better. Other questions: 1. Look at that closeup of the ponytail. I believe that's just how these nickels in the '40s were designed. They were designed pretty incomplete down there. Confirm or deny/explain, that "incompleteness" is just part of the design. 2. Look at the mint mark in that closeup. It appears to be a RPM, with the underlying mark sneaking out just to the East. Confirm or deny/explain. 3. Look at that closeup on the 4 in the date. There's what looks like a die chip, top-inside. There's some doubling, there, too, and it doesn't look like strike-doubling, to me. For one, it's not lateral, but rather spreads North and South. Sometimes, I think, I can even see some "spread" in the other numbers, too. Am I looking too hard at this? What do you think (in particular, on this 4)? 4. Finally, this one has about half the middle-steps, but all 5 of the side-steps. I think an FS speaks just to the middle-steps, though. Is that correct? Or, do you need side-steps, too, for FS? PS: Now I know why you guys are nuts about these nickels (all it took was finding this '40-S in this shape!).
