1956-D Lincoln D/S ??

I have found yet another Lincoln Wheat that I have been unable to locate photographic reference of an exact match for the variety and would like your input.

This coin , to me , appears to have a partial tilted "S" MM punched at the tail of the "9".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is one of my favorite cents to search along with the 57-D. Alot of things happening with the dies at Denver these two years. Its probably die gauges or nics or cracks or an S. Most have seen the controversial 1956 D/D/S womm-001 http://www.lincolncentresource.com/OMMS/1956womm1.html to me it looks like a definate S. Nice find...

 

Since there were no 'S' mints for that year I wonder how the 'S' got there. Of course it could be a die chip...

 

The coin shown here exhibits damage that happens to fit a pre-conceived notion of an S

Thanks,
Bill

 

Would you mind sharing a bit more on the damage aspect ? Please ?

 

There is a 1956 D/S with the "s" being a displaced mint mark located between the "1" and "9" of the date and then another 1956 D/S which actually is a WRPM-WOMM with the "s" being east of the "D" mint mark. Nether fits the coin in this thread.

 

Was that a misplaced letter or dropped letter?
There is some doubt as to whether this is truly an S
mintmark. Coneca has recently delisted this variety.

 

An explanation as to what type of damage would form a obtuse curve near the tail of the 9 would really be helpful.

There have been other threads here on CT that have made it pretty clear that normal MM's can appear just about anywhere in the field below the date during the same year of minting.

If that information is correct , then why could there not be more than the 2 known varieties of the D/S error for this particular year ?

 

Kanga,

That curve you are seeing at the bottom of the tail on the 9 is a die chip/break. I'm currently searching some rolls of '55-S and 56-D Cents and have seen several examples like this in various states of breaking. The break seems to always trail off towards the mint mark. I suppose that as the die is worn down over time, this area is weaker than others because of the proximity of the bottom of the nine with the mint mark and the pressure from the strikes weakens it.

 

I think everyone has delisted that one now since early die state specimens were found.

 

Thank you so much for an explanation that even I could understand !!

 

The coin is worn. There is evidence of a die chip at the bottom of the 9...there are scratches....there is the result of the coin being struck by dies made from worn hubs. In other words a poorly struck coin with added nicks, and scratches due to circulation. It is impossible to narrow down to a few choices what could be the result of an infinite ways for a coin to receive circulation wear and damage.

Also, there are 2 D/S die varieties known and what you describe and show does not match up with either of them.

This is also not a new discovery coin as the coin is simply too damaged to verify anything.

Thanks,
Bill

 

Thank You for the extra information !

I do check the web accessible variety information at Coneca , Coppercoins , Lincolncentresource & Brians Variety Coins for a good match BEFORE I even consider asking on the CT forums , so as not to drive you senior members crazy with newbie questions.

At this stage of my collecting pursuits I do not have easy access to a plethora of AU or better grade coins.

Would you happen to know , if the previous information I was given concerning the possibility of a MM being located just about anywhere within the field below the date , is correct ?

 

What does this mean, , I see alot of this, not all the same though...

 

I believe Wexler and Coppercoins still list both as D/S varieties.

 

It is amazing how you can look at something that is damage,...and it really appears like a number or letter...just look at this one I found a while back... Doesn't it look like a four under the D, and a five over the four in 1994? All it was? PMD:crying:

 

No, I don't see them but did you notice the mans face or is that a monkey?

 

I mentioned: The coin shown here exhibits damage that happens to fit a pre-conceived notion of an S

Thanks,
Bill

When a human eye looks at something that is random, we try to put a form or context to what we are seeing.

In other words, if a scratch randomly moves metal around we might see what looks like an extra mint mark or letter because our eyes and mind want to give the anomaly some form.

As a person gains experience, we realize that the form an anomaly on a coin has to be extremely specific and must match other aspects of a mint mark or a letter for example, in order to truly be something like a repunched mint mark, an over mint mark or a dropped letter.

At the same time, we learn to recognize what isn't an RPM, OMM or dropped letter.

Merely resembling something doesn't make it something.

Many collectors, before they come to recognize what to truly look for, will jump to the conclusion that something exists without that something actually matching perfectly to known details such as a mint mark or letter.

We also learn what scratches, die dents, damage and circulation wear looks like and armed with that information we can rule out a multitude of guesses based upon our mind's eye giving form to something that really is random.

I hope this helps.

Bill

 

Pretty sure he was asking about your smiley face:kewl:

 

this little symbol means all of that?