Difficult to tell using my novice eyes. I don't see anything, to include the associated die scratches for any of the varieties. Let the more experienced eyes have a say. https://doubleddie.com/2345658.html Here is a link to check your cent with... if you haven't already. ~Rob
Sorry. I am sure it is not a RPM. When the mint mark was stamped in with punch. since it was the same punch, the outlines would be the same, so if the back of the D shown was part of a RPM, then there would be about the same width of material inside the center of the D, as the punching overlapped. If only one side, it is damage. IMO, Jim
Mint Marks were Hand Punched onto the Die. They used a letter punch. I believe it was 1990 when they decided for the Mint Mark to be part of the hub design. http://www.error-ref.com/repunched-...ssions. The impressions almost always overlap.
It was just onto the Die.. They had Mint Employees just for that particular job.. One time a member thought it was on each individual coin! Same for Proof Coins.
Jim, what if the punch was tilted at a very slight angle at the time the mintmark was stamped into the die?
I've got one of those rare upside down date 1961 cents, too! Maybe I can sell it on EBay for a fortune!
Are you sure? The lower tip of the "9" is pointed, and the upper tip of the "6" is rounded. So, which is which?
It produces one side appearing "sloped triangular" which would be thicker at the base and the one on the curved side of the D would be regular to thinner. That is why many just see the thickness on one side and assume it was repunched. And some publications report such as a valid RPM unfortunately. IMO, Jim
Lol - I'm sure some wisenheimer has done just that & offered one for sale as a 'rare inverted date error'
Of course it's horizontal, you took the picture that way. Just set this one aside and keep it. Next time you see Fred take it to him and ask. Best to see this one in person.