Just sharing. 1960-D SD RPM Looks like an unlisted RPM. Very difficult to see, much less photograph! Has plenty of significant markers! This RPM is so minor that I did not find it until after examining a couple dozen coins from this same die!
Ordinarily, everything you say makes sense, but I'm really confused about this one. Personally, I don't see an RPM, so I don't understand how you can justify the attribution just because a few coins have the same markers. Isn't that like putting the cart before the horse? ~ Chris
I have a red arrow pointing at the split serif. You might have to click and expand the photo a wee bit. As I said it is minor - smallest I have seen
Maybe it is supposed to look like that. How about taking photos without the glare of the light coming from the west? ~ Chris
Nice coin. 1959-89 LMC RPMs are what I like to collect. I have a several that like this, possibly same die. Unfortunately the punch used 1953-62 (MMS-006) had a slight mark in the upper serif. http://varietyvista.com/01b LC Doubled Dies Vol 2/Denver Mintmark Styles.htm
Thank you so much! Never once did it occur to me to check mint mark styles! You are right on target with a most helpful answer! I am amazed that the same faulty punch was used for 9 years (actually slightly since 53 and 62 each saw 2 different punches used. Does that mean the mint had only ONE punch? or did they have duplicates with the same fault???
Excellent article. Thank you. I am not sure it helps me understand though. Let me spell out my question in a little more detail: MMS-006 was used 1953-1962. 53 and 62 each saw one other mint mark style, so 006 was in use for around 8 years. MMS-006 shows an upper split serif. Surely there was not ONLY One punch used for all those 8 years?? If there had been more than one punch, they all had the split serif. I notice that the split serif varies in its prominence. I assume that is from wear during use? Since the split serif is ubiquitous during those years, if there were multiple punches made were they all made from the same source similar to the way a hub sources multiple dies?
1. Correct, 1953 and 1962 were transitional years for Denver Mint Marks. 2. Yes 3.From everything I’ve read that is the case. There are different punches for different mints and denominations for a given period. 4. There was only one punch and it was used until it broke or replaced with a different design. 5. There are many factors that affect the mint mark appearance. Punch wear, die wear, and how the die was punched ( light, tilted etc.). 6. If I understand it right, each punch was unique. This is my understanding of the mint mark punches. If anyone else has more or better info, I’d like to hear it. I hope this helps.
Thanks - most helpful info! What is the source of your text on 70-81? Here is a brief paper I put together. Not really directly applicable to my questions here.
I looked at the Lange reference. He seems to maintain that the same D mintmark was used from 1933 through 1979! I can see that might be a generic reference to a "large D", however, rather than to the specific styles. Thanks for the help!
