1951 D misplaced MM

Could this be the one? It may just be a die chip but it surely looks like the Cherry Pickers Guide coin. Even their description isn't for sure a MM but it seems very possible. With the CPG saying that the one pictured is the only one known to them is where my curiosity is stemming from. The first pic is from the book and the ones to follow are mine. As always I appreciate any help and comments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think it looks like the one in the book,very cool!!Wish I found one

 

Looks like it to me. Not sure how reliable my info is, but it says value is $5- $10. Congrats on a nice find...

 

Whether it's a die break or a MM, it looks like you definitely have the same coin as that listed in TCPG. Great find.

 

I don't think there is any question that it is the same as the one listed in the CPG.

If I were you, I would try to get in touch with Billy Crawford since he is a specialist in Lincoln die varieties. If you need help, send me a private message.

Chris

 

It's pretty clear to me that this is a die chip that simply has a similar size and shape to a D-mintmark. Given how many die chips develop around the date, it's inevitable that at least one will approximate the shape of a D.

 

I hate to disagree with THE expert, but I overlaid the two dates. If it is a die chip, it has a couple strange properties. First, the real mm perfectly overlays the MM from the Cherry Pickers Guide. I mean the thin top, the shape of the hole, its position and its angle. As for your die chip, it also has the same characteristics as the example - the tail at the top, the angle of the flat on the "D", the small gap between it and the loop of the "5", and even the exact location of the small bridges (3) of that gap. Just to add fuel to the fire, the tail of the misplaced "D" and the top left corner of the "5" have what appears to be identical nicks on both coins in exactly the same spots.

I find these coincidences beyond belief that a die chip occurred with that many matching indicators and has the real MM in at least, as close as I can determine, the identical position. I believe that they have to be from the same dies.

I am not sure how much you can make out from my pictures, but they are of the OP's coin on top of the reference at 40% opacity and 70% opacity.

 

I never said this coin wasn't the same as the one in the Cherrypicker's Guide. Clearly, they do appear to have been struck by the same die. What I'm saying is that this die had a die chip that coincidentally resembled a D-mintmark. If this is a mintmark, where is the hole in the center of the letter? Where is the lower serif? The same punch would presumably have been used for both mintmarks. Simulacra resembling letters litter the field of variety collecting. Die chips, die damage, patches of die erosion -- these have all periodically masqueraded as errant letters.

 

yes a die chip it is, they end up on some strange places on a coin and make things look like what there not.

 

It is because there have been differing opinions about this coin, not just here, that I suggested that you contact Billy Crawford.

Chris

 

Youi had aan opinion from an expert on this this coin Mike diamond,and i agree with him on this a die chip that's all it is you will be wasting your money if you send it in.
jack

 

I got ya! It is/was not I or the OP who made the mistake comparing it to the Cherrypicker's Guide. It was the Cherrypicker's Guide who made the mistake in calling it a misplaced mm.

 

That's fine by me! I happen to have a great deal of respect for Billy, and he has never charged me for an opinion.

Chris

 

Whose to say its not a misplaced MM with a die chip that has filled it in. There's more then 1 filled MM out there. Just a thought...

 

There's know way this is a misplaced mm the thickness of the image is just not right for it to be a misplaced MM
Jack

 

How did you come up with a thickness on the 5 when its one big blob?

 

Look at the top portion of the five it also reaches up there,there could be more then one die chip,this happens frequently on coins. I hate to say it it's not a misplaced MM, and just my opinion,and i have been in bussiness for 35 years and came across Thousands of coins and errors and varieties and Rpm's
Jack

 

I think there's just no way we're going to settle this one definitively unless someone produces an early die state specimen that reveals an unmistakable mm.

 

An early die state would be great. I'm not doubting anyones word, but I'm not sold that its just a die chip...

 

I'm not sold either. I think for Bill Fivaz and JT Stanton to make the decision to include in the CPG speaks a lot to it definitely being a possibility. Granted this does not make it a misplaced mm(as the authors themselves admit), but I don't believe it can be easily dismissed as one.