I honestly believe it's just a damaged S punch. Notice there isn't any separation lines on the S itself, or above or below, just the lines inside the lower curve. Here are three proof RPMs with the same lines within the lower curve, and the stuff going on in the lower curve has nothing to do with the repunching described: http://varietyvista.com/02b LC RPMs Vol 2/1971SRPM003.htm http://varietyvista.com/02b LC RPMs Vol 2/1971SRPM004.htm http://varietyvista.com/02b LC RPMs Vol 2/1971SRPM005.htm
The examples you site above are all "proof" coins, my reference would be Vol. 2 ODV-027 1971-S RPM-011, all of the double marks occur within the bottom loop of the S. This coin has those marks, plus an extra line and the marks are clearer. I will generate more pics to add to the discussion.
I understand that. I used those as examples of the damaged S punch. That particular S punch was used on your coin and all 3 proofs. 011 clearly shows another lower curve below the main mint mark, a spread below the center curve on the left side, and a split on the lower point of the upper serif. I just don't see that on your coin.
These are the same coin just using different lighting or filters . . . Yes? Whatever the case, I do believe you have something going on there: possibly a rotated MM, or; a combination of punches, or; possibly even RPM with DDO . . . but without more thorough pics it is hard to tell. I'm almost sure it is NOT the 011 RPM, as a quick & dirty overlay I did last night appears to confirm that the MMs location relative to the Date, are different. I try and confirm that today with a more complete overlay. In the absence of definitive evidence to the contrary, I am hard pressed to understand why the Mint would have used the same damaged punch on at least 4 different dies (with 3 of those being "Proof" dies). Dr. Wiles will generally point out when an anomaly that could be seen as a RPM was in fact caused by a damaged punch; in the instant case I have not seen such a notation, but then again I may have overlooked same. Don't give up the ship just yet; an answer may well be out there, but just not found yet! Semper Fidelis
Yes, different filters. I will endeavor to make more pics. Mr. Graton: Side question, do you have relations that answer to Lynn and Austin, as I have friends with your last name?
Here is are added photos, I don't know if it answers any additional questions. Variety Vista references and engraved and normal bow tie, the proofs are all engraved, this coin has the normal tie, so I am assuming the dies are totally different. I noted in this coin, either die doubling or machine doubling on the 1 and 7 too.
The mint has been know to use damaged punches over multiple years, not simply over a couple dies within a year. As is the case with the doubled punch created in 1974. See here: http://varietyvista.com/Doubled Mintmark Punch of 1974-S.htm There is a damaged D punch known in 1979 that has a notch in the lower serif. It can be found on multiple denominations. I have personally found it on cents and nickels. See these: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/693365/1979-d-lincoln-cent-wierd-blob-mintmark https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=284757 I have also noticed an S punch used in 1910 on cents that has the lower curve broken out. I have noticed these only because I have been trying for about two years to cherrypick a cheaper example of either of the two strong 1910-S RPMs. I see the filled bottom curve a lot. There is an S used in 1946 (MMS-004 or Trumpet Tail S) that has slight damage in the form of a line that connects the lower serif to the middle curve. It makes it hard to try to cherrypick the 1946 S/D cent when inadequate images are used on eBay. If you really study and search for cent RPMs, there is slight damage to the punches throughout the series.
Thanks for your investigative hard work, I appreciate your input. I attempted to show the strike mark below mint mark, I don't know if it is too minor to count.
