1928-S large and small "S"'s

badthad wants a thread about 1928-S mint marks, so I will start one. The best reference I can find is;
http://lincolncentresource.com/San_Fransisco_Mintmark_Styles.html

Here are the mint marks shown there.

Have at it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have a bunch of each.....I'll TRY and get pics for you.
Oh yeah, Rlm, the 28-S you sent me is a large S, the tougher of the two. About 1 in 20 seems to be my ratio, or a few per roll

 

Yes, I noticed it on you site. I don't know what thad is looking for, but here is the space.

 

It's also on the bay store with 9 watchers:hammer:

 

YES! I want to figure this out. I have a couple of unc 1928's that have DIFFERENT size S's. The one I call a large S doesn't have a mint mark that looks like the typical large S, but it is in fact bigger. The difference is even more obvious in hand.

 

Thad, I will post pics of the 2 varietys on this thread, side by side and seperate macros, they are quite obvious when seen in hand. I also believe Tyler/Phoenix has an example of each that I sent him.

 

Do you have or have you seen any that look like mine? All of the large S references I've seen show the distinctly fatter S.

An interesting estimate of 1 in 20, I've also read that estimate in references, don't recall where. So, if the consensus is from 1 in 20 to 1 in 40, that puts the approximate mintage at somewhere between 431,650 and 863,000. Which would make it rarer than either the 1909-S VDB AND/OR the 1931-S. If this is the case, then why is the coin so ignored by collectors? Why isn't this coin priced in the appropriate hundreds of dollars even in G grade? It's madness I tell you! LOL

 

Thanks Jack, more pictures = more betta!

It still doesn't answer my burning question that nobody has been able to. How is it possible for me to have one that has the characteristics (font style) of the small S, but it's obviously larger!!??

 

I am taking a nap.....I'll get you pics when I wake up. Check back in the morning or after midnight AZ time....my prowling hours.

 

In Sol Taylor's book "Standard Guide to the Lincoln cent", he includes an article by John Merz on this. Paraphrased, he says: The 1928 normal "s" is 25/1000 in.and the large "s" is 30/1000 in. He was curious why the normal and large "S" of the 1941S (as the redbook (1983) indicates) wasn't as researched.

At the time he had no idea as to the rarity level of 1928s/1928S.

Jim

 

Good work, RLM, starting a separate thread. Here are the complete pics I have of the one I posted in the other thread. Jack, wake up, let's see what you got! :loud:

PS: Thad...maybe there are several sizes of the MM?

 

Just woke up, will do my best to get it tonight, if not, tommorow 1st thing

 

Seeing them in hand, it sure looks like more than a .005 differance to me. We'll see.

 

I tried tonight folks. This will take some time to get the pics right, but I did find 2 more in a roll I grabbed. Again, thats 4% at random.

I cannot get a good pic thru my scope and my macro settings need to be adjusted, I am too tired to play photographer. Been a long week.

 

In most cases when you are talking about a Large and Small mintmark, they style, or font is what changes, not just the size.

Some will have rounded balls on both end of the S, and others will have serifs (sp?) on both end that will be notched. I think the 1941-S large and small, S nickel is like this. The Small S nickel for that year has serifs that are notched on both ends, while the Large S is has rounded ends.
http://www.cointalk.com/forum/t35122/

As you can see in that thread, others have posted photos of the same Large MM. but in at least one case, it looks alittle different. What you have to watch for is the style, or font.

 

Bump....I'd like to still understand ALL of the MM's used because the one I posted is of the small style, but it's definately larger than the classic small S.

 

Thad, in your labeled comparison photos, I find that if I click and hold , I can transfer the "ghost of the "small-s" image over to the side and overlay the "large-S" . The dates overlay exactly, but the mm is about 20% smaller. I am having a harder time seeing 2 different fonts.

Jim

 

OK, you guys, took some liberties; here's a closeup "comparo" D) of your MMs, Thad. I think I have the "captures" sized and lined up OK. Look at those dueces. Doesn't the second look a tad off-kilter? I don't think that's just "shadowing." And the plot thickens...

EDIT: I'm suggesting (as long as we're being this "exacting"), might these not be different obverse dies, altogether, with different small MMs?

 

That is pretty much what I was suggesting as well. The way to say a mintmark is large or small isn't the size, but by the type. I think he is looking at the same type MM....one was just alittle larger sized than the other.

 

Wow eddie, I didn't even notice the 2! I'm going to take better pics of the date/MM. I pulled all of my 28S's out of the bank last week and I've been meaning to take some pics....I'll get to that very soon.