I see nothing that could convince me one way or the other on this. can you get a better shot of the MM?
No, neither am I. I do see the slight separation on the southwest part of the straight vertical, but it it was separated serif due to a repunch, there would be evidence either on the top area also ( straight west ) or a rotated doubling eastward that would push a secondary line out of the west side of the mark. Hard to explain, but in your mind, put down the original mark and then rotate the second a fraction clockwise. That produces a split serif, but the rounded part will also rotate clockwise ~and that I don't see either.
I thought I saw a split lower serif. If I can't get at least 1 other confirmation, I'll just chuck it back in with the rest. Thanks, Jim, for looking. Thanks, desertgem, I was hoping they could be mutually exclusive.
I find it handy to think of a mint punch as a branding iron "D". "S" and then brand a piece of leather once and then look to see how I have to rotate or move V or H to make the RPM I think I see. If I can do it and match up the secondary marks, then I have a good chance. Since I know the punch isn't just half a punch, I need to see the whole secondary
