Per my earlier thread, poor photos, now with a "standard" to compare to! Still not sure which stage per variety vista though.
Though your images still aren't good enough, I don't see an RPM. What I do think I see is a small hit across the "S" which it probably received in circulation. Chris
It's 16 times magnification I don't know what else to do I apologize I'm going to have to buy a new camera evidently. In the color pictures however, there's a tale of an s that creeps out from behind the blower Seraph as well as even if it is slightly broken up you can see the body or the Centerline of the S behind the mint mark.
Sorry that I have frustrated you on Christmas Eve. But there is evidence that there is another letter behind the mint mark which I am simply trying to show Merry Christmas and a happy holidays.
There's only rare die pairs for this year . No RPMs . http://varietyvista.com/01b LC Doubled Dies Vol 2/San Francisco Mintmark Styles.htm
Wade, I will try to explain why you can see what you do. This mm was struck on the working die with a punch. The raised S on the mm punch left a reverse image on the working die, meaning the image was incluse, inward projecting, so that when the working die in turn struck a planchet, the mm would stand above the field as metal moved into depressed area of the working die. In order to produce the area between the upper curve of the S and the slanted part would have to penetrate to the bottom field level and same for the lower curve. Early struck coins usually had in that era clean shapes. But as the working die struck more and more planchets into coins the thin protrusions of the working die that made the depressed areas in the S wore down or broke/chipped out and this would produce raised areas in the tight areas of the mm, These usually occur near the serifs or enlarged structures near the 'ends' of the letter. this is what you are seeing. Of course modern dies have the mintmark on the die rather than punching it in. IMO, Jim
I'm both aware now of what it is, but still confused a bit by the info at varietyvista. I learned. But, is this article just a "could be" then? http://www.varietyvista.com/Doubled Mintmark Punch of 1974-S.htm
