1956 penny... close mint mark

How close to the date can the mint mark be? I haven't seen one this close.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Back then MM were hand punch and it is not uncommon for them to be that close.

 

This is an error the mint mark should not be touching another element of the coin, The mm is touching the nine a displaced MM.
JC

 

You might want to check yours against the 1956D-1MM-008. http://www.coppercoins.com/lincoln/dietype.php?date=1956&die_mint=d&die_type=mm&page=1

 

Thanks...

The link was fantastic, but I think the MM is a little closer and I don't see
a re-punched D. Might this be a new variety?

 

there was a guy on ebay selling a coin similar to this one for 100k+ where the mm was actually touching the date. he claimed it was a one of a kind and dared anyone to find one like it. Q&A post on the auction showed plenty people said they seen one but could never prove with a photo. not sure if he ever sold it..
just putting my 2 cents in

Penny

 

It is perfectly normal, I have seen it a thousand times.

It is perfectly normal, I have seen it a thousand times. When the mintmark is placed by hand there is no correct placement if below the date at any place between bottom of date and rim, jacket and date/rim. I have seen them all over the field. I have found some 1974, 75-D's almost at the rim but it is still within mint tolerance.
Your right in it should not be touching any other element but they do, and have. Especially this date/mintmark combination - it is very common.
It is not considered a"displaced" mintmark as far as I have every heard.

 

Technically This is not a normal ocurance on a coin no other elements should be touching other areas on a coin , Please go and read the definition of a displaced MM on Conecas glossary of definitions and see what i mean.
Thank you Joe

 

I did not say it was not an error, I said that it was not uncommon for the MM to be place that close to the date. Some collector consider this an error but it will give very little or no more value to the coin.

That was the first thing I looked for but I could not see a second "D". Do you ?

 

I can't see one but with the mint mark that close it doesn't ever hurt to check.

 

It is not the 008, as the primary mint mark is not that close to the date, and there was only one obverse die for the 008. Here is a photo of mine.

Jim

 

Joe, I see the mintmark as being close, but there is a line of dirt/corrosion separating them in my opinion, they do not touch, just very close.

Jim

 

Nice one, the one's that I have are not as nice a picture as yours;

 

They are tough to find. I think yours is an earlier die stage than mine. Nice!

Jim

 

It's kind of like machine doubling...technically it's an error and an abnormal occurrence. But, it's common. I have seen it on many cents.

 

Calling this a displaced mintmark is a little iffy. I have to agree with BHP3rd on this one. These are extremely common, not as common as yours, but common. I understand at the last Orlando Fun Show someone showed a rather large presentation of MM's in odd places. After hearing of this I started putting together a collection of 58-D's. So far, I have around 15 different placements of the D. I find it rather enjoyable.

 

Post some pic's Abe! I would love to see them : )
Penny

 

They're also hard to take a picture of.

 

No it is considered an error another device of the coin should never touch another element on the coin that's why these are called displaced MM's

The term displaced MM is a term used in conecas glossary of error definitions

Go to conecas glossary of error definitions on the web and you will see the meaning of these errors.

When the mm is placed in a different area maybe a little close to the date or a little far away from the date they are commen ,but when they touch another element of the coin they are errors and are displaced mm"S and they are not that commen.

Thanks JC

 

This is not uncommon...that is why it is only worth a minimal premium. Although error collectors are somewhat scarce and thus the market is smaller, that doesn't account for the lack of premium...it's due to the fact that this is not a rare error.