1970 s small date

With my ruler, they both point to the bottom of the 7. Regardless, that is not where the OP's coin is supposedly different.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

mike noodle.i never thought about it but when i look at my penny vs the proof penny it is almost identical now that you say that.my 7 does point to the bottom of the 7 not the middle.and is closer to the proof than a reg small date.maybe it was a accident?but i dont know?the only thing i do know its no large date .

 

BUT according to desertgem's information, they are both identical since they both came from the same master die.

 

where does it say that? I can't find that information anywhere on the webpage you linked.

FWIW, If you look at the digits, I think you will see for yourself that they are not. I do not profess to know, but I reckon that the hubs used for the proof dies and those used for the unc dies were indeed different, because that is the only explanation for what I am suggesting. If they came from the same hub, the digits would be exactly the same, but I don't think they are when I look at the pics on that page.

 

and in examining the dates I also came across this observation:

On all of the small dates, the curl of the 9 is pointed where on the large dates it is blunt. Does anyone else see this? Or am I off my nut? ...again!

 

One obvious consistent difference between the large and small dates at that web site:

http://lincolncentresource.com/smalldates/1970Ssmalldate.html

is that the leading edge of the base of the large date 7 is always blunted
and the leading edge of the base of the small date 7 never is.

 

Here

If you read his entire post, there were 2 master dies used in SF - the same for proof and business.

BTW, "If you look at the digits, I think you will see for yourself that they are not" - not what? If you are saying "the same", I completely disagree with you. They are identical except the ones they used for the pictures show a bit thicker numbers on the proof.

 

Here's Coneca. They only list two master hubs for 1970.

http://www.varietyvista.com/images/LC Obverse Design Changes.doc

 

I think one issue is getting past the glow and glimmer of proof photographs. If you can do that, then it's clear to me that they are the same. Also you have to keep in mind that aside from variations with different die states, a mere few degrees difference in camera angle can significantly change the look in two identical coins.

 

Just so there is no confusion, the part in red below is from Wexler and Flynn's Authoritative Reference on Lincoln Cents (2ed) pg 34. The rest is from Charles book "Looking through Lincoln Cents."
Quote:

Jim

Jim

 

I think we need a good close up with good resolution to be able to determine for sure what it may be. The only thing that crosses my mind at the moment is maybe something post mint that may have moved the "7", but surely the answer must be less complicated. It may be an error, but I don't see how it could be a variety. IMO.

Jim

 

Occam's Razor.

 

I overlaid a business strike 1970 s small over a proof strike 1970 s small...and to me they appear identical...the only difference being the lighting causes the proof to glow and appear thicker and I'm betting the proof was taken at a closer distance and enlarged.

-LTB

 

Let me twist the question a little. If there were only 2 master dies (both dated obviously), is there any way any of the indicators could ever be wrong? I mean not only would every large date proof and business have the notch on the seven, but the blunt more open 9, lowered 7 top, longer/lower 7 tail, the weak LIBERTY, and the non egg shaped 0 would also be there for each and every large date. And vice versa for the small date.

 

That was my thinking (within the range of difference the die state and the strike strength might alter). Looking through the bag of 1970-S that I did, They were all large date, but there were variations of the liberty, some showed the strong to normal, but some were as "weak" or Fuzzy appearing as the small dates. I kept hoping one would be a small date, but they were just weak strikes or worn die. I found none that had a level 7, nor any where the inside of the curl of the 9 was pointing to the middle of the 7 rather than the bottom. The "S" had 4 different variations in the bag ( including the S/S). I didn't pay much attention to the position of the mm as they were all in the expected area and I seem to recall there were about 20 dies used, so there would be variation.

Jim

 

I said that I didn't know for sure, and I accept what you have told me. My opinion was from merely looking at the pics, but I would think that CONECA would know just a little bit more, so here I sit... corrected. Thanks!

 

Great discussion

 

I got a chance to take my own pictures of my 1970 s. My conclusion is that it's a large date :crying:

I was really hoping to have a small; but it is what it is. At least through this whole experience I have learned a considerable amount of information about the 1970 s coin. :thumb:

-LTB

 

the coin that you pictured in the previous post is a large date the 7 is low

 

I found it a little surprising to see all this talk about the confusion regarding folks being able to tell LDGT from SMDT.
Although the photos were sort of hard to see it looked like a LGDT to me.
The 70-S SMDT is a little tough to learn but it's not "that hard".
I never ever look at whether the "7" is this way or that or any of that other stuff - the key, to me is the little "0" - the LGDT has a large "0" with a bulb or hoop on the top of the "0" - the SMDT "0" is small. That combine with 99% of 70-S's are LGDT well,,,
If you are in doubt get a 70-S and 60-P SMDT & LGDT set and compare the two side by side until you "do know" the difference.
I agree though the 70-S is harder than the 60-P.
Don't forget the proofs also.