Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;19Lyds, post: 1319541, member: 15929&quot;]I think it&#039;s important for folks to understand that there were two different mintmarks used in 1974 after the original mintmark (MMS-1) was replaced due to defects. The second mintmark comes in 3 distinct &quot;stages&quot;. MMS-2a, MMS-2b and MMS-2c. The &quot;Micro S&quot; mintmark (MMS-1), IMO, is simply a weakly struck Mintmark and whether or not the die which received this weakly struck mintmark was used on the CopperNickel proofs is best left to John Wexler and whatever evidence that leads John and Brian to that conclusion. I have not seen it.</p><p><br /></p><p>Consider the following photo collage.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH]149605.vB[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>MMS-1 is quite common on Copper-Nickel Clad 1974-S Proof IKE&#039;s whereas its the &quot;appearance&quot; of the S Mintmark which makes it unique to both the 40% Silver proof and the CnClad Proof. Again, whether or not its from the same die is unknown to me.</p><p><br /></p><p>As you can see from the above photograph, the &quot;clear&quot; MM (referred to as Micro) has clear fields between the loops of the S whereas the standard MMS-1 does not. It&#039;s not because the mintmark punch itself is smaller but more an effect of a weak hit with the hammer when &quot;applying&quot; the mintmark to the die face. If the punch itself does not penetrate the die surface as deeply as intended then the resultant mintmark will have a smaller appearand in addition to having clear fields between the S Loops. The appearance of the mintmark can also be affected by the repeated die lapping/polishing of the fields as the cameo wore off whhich required the die to be &quot;re-proofed&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>As an aside, it should also be noted that MMS-2b is much rarer than the MMS-1 or MMS-1 (Clear) and the photograph on the IKE Groups linked page is not an MMS-2b which should show a &quot;split&quot; serif but NO evidence of doubling which is characteristic of MMS-2c.</p><p><br /></p><p>Consider the following photographs. In a letter dated 10/11/2010, Mr. Wiles stated that this was &quot;poosibly&quot; an MMS-2b.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH]149614.vB[/ATTACH][ATTACH]149615.vB[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>For complete information on these mintmarks, check out James Wiles book &quot;CONECA Attribution Guide to Eisenhower Dollar Die Varieties&quot;. The book is way out of print but can be checked out of the ANA Library for the cost of postage.</p><p><br /></p><p>On page 18 of the above book, Mr. Wiles states: &quot;The 1974-S STYLE 1 mintmark is common except on the (1974) silver proof Ike, where it is considered rare with an estimated mintage of less than 10,000.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>So, what we have is the original mintmark (MMS-1) on both the Silver and CnClad proofs of 1974-S Eisenhower Dollars which has two different appearance. One Strong and as intended and one Weak from either a weak;y punched mintmark or die lapping or a combination of both.</p><p><br /></p><p>I can state with relative certainty that both are very difficult to find.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in