Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;phankins11, post: 2081475, member: 70703&quot;]Do you have documentation to back that up or are you just kiddin&#039;</p><p><br /></p><p>I posted something similar back in July of last year...</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1952-d-lwc-mint-mark-seems-really-high.248906/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1952-d-lwc-mint-mark-seems-really-high.248906/">https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1952-d-lwc-mint-mark-seems-really-high.248906/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>While the D wasn&#039;t touching any of the numbers in the date, it was in such a drastically different place than the 50 or so I had looked at previously that it did catch my eye. But after researching what rickmp (and what Chris and jallengomez) reiterated here it is indeed a possibility for the mint mark to be kinda all over the place during the years that they were punched into the working dies.</p><p><br /></p><p>This link has some good info in it about the evolution of the mint mark, its location and which point of the hubbing\die creation process it moved to through out the Mints history.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://doubleddie.com/58201.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://doubleddie.com/58201.html" rel="nofollow">http://doubleddie.com/58201.html</a>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in