1980 - D penny -Would this be considered a repunched mint marked?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

IMO it has possibilities. There's only 2 listed here:http://varietyvista.com/02b LC RPMs Vol 2/RPMs 1980D.htm
Wexler lists 11 but no photos: http://doubleddie.com/1711174.html
Ask the error experts @Fred Weinberg; @paddyman98; @furryfrog02; @JCro57; @desertgem; @cpm9ball; et al.

 

I hope they see my post and give me their opinion.

 

I'm not a big fan of Lincoln cents because they give me headaches, but it doesn't look like an RPM to me. It looks like a combination of machine doubling and die deterioration.

@Rick Stachowski is the resident aficionado on Lincoln cents varieties.

Chris

 

I couldn't match the placement of the date & mint-mark, with any of the known RPM(s) ...

 

Appears to be md to me.

 

No expert here, but if it were MD, wouldn't there be at least a hint of it in the nearby date? I thought MD occurred because, in striking, the die sort of bounced, slipped, or vibrated. If this is so (someone please correct me if it is not), doubling, or tripling, as strong as it looks on the mintmark would surely be at least slightly evident elsewhere, especially nearby. A mintmark punch could likewise bounce, I would think, which would be a little different than replacing the punch for a second try for a true repunched mintmark. Could this be what happened?

 

Md can be widespread or localized. Your doubling on the mint mark is flat and shelflike.