S over a horizontal D Mint mark ?

Oh and in the middle at the top of the curve of the S in the last photo is raised and round is it not ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm trying really hard to see flat machine doubling on all the devices and the only thing that I'm seeing remotely close to being FLAT is the very top of the S that becomes raised and round as you trace the entire S ... or maybe I need to have my eyes checked

 

The "U" has the appearance of being cut in half the length of the arm , which is an indication of MD, which doesn't have to be totally flat as the die is moving sideways also along with vertically. I try to always use the word flattened rather than flat but I didn't here. The "S" in the last photo does have a slight vertical aspect, but it is still well below the height of the other. Usually I think the process on circulation dies to drive it twice for the depth needed on the final coin. A repunched mm was when it slipped out of place for the second, but the depth usually was close. There are some where the concensus that the worker may have been ill or under meds or alcohol and really messed up.

Here is a 1956-D RPM 008, the 2nd punch doesn't even touch. Lean back and half close eye to see it better





and this one, I grab each time it is available. 1960 D/D, DDO -100 WRPM- 003, SM/LG Date
A DD,RPM (green), and both Date sizes Sm ( red) / Lg (blue). ALL-in-One




Jim

 

I don't believe anyone else has mentioned this (if so my apologies), but your coin looks to display the master doubling so common on 1972 cents from all mints. The link below will explain this better than I can, and even though said link details the different 72-P doubled dies, simply scroll to the bottom of the page and read the last listing as it goes for all.

That said, at that time and up until 1989, mintmarks were hand punched into the dies. The point is that the "doubling" referenced above has nothing to do with the mintmark anomaly in question. Based upon the more recent photos, I have to agree with Gemmy in that it (mintmark) does appear to display strike doubling ("MD").

http://doubleddie.com/384301.html

 

Well I couldn't tell before but I believe I've figured out the mystery as to why Mint mark looks so strange ...there is a total of two or three S's on top of one another . And the reason I know this is because if you look closely at the very last photo you can actually see where the gold tail of the S at the very end of the S separates from the dark colored S and then the raised mound underneath both of those seem to be a third S or something else ... But I think I will have to take better photos with a better camera in order to highlight this for the ones who may have a hard time seeing them clearly ...

 

It's also the reason that the dark S is peeking above the Gold S and the tail of the dark S that is separated at the very tip is peeking above the Gold S

 

So if my vision proves me correct and there are two or three S's then I think it might be safe to say that I will have the very first reported 1972 S / S OMM Lincoln cent OR The very first 1972 S/S/S Lincoln DD cent . If it's confirmed .

 

Oh and one last question ... When coins are minted at the Mint . Does anyone know if the Mint mark is created at the same time or is the Mint mark created totally separate in the process ?

 

Well I was able to get a great camera shot on on that number 9 in the date . And although It's a little beat up I think it should be clear enough now to tell why the S looks the way it does .... So I wonder . Is the bold Raised doubling there MACHINE DOUBLING too or was I right all along about this coin

 

The "spread" on the 9 looks to be in the opposite direction as that of the mintmark, but doesn't matter anyway and because of what has already been explained, especially if trying to conflate the two.

I mean this with complete and respectful sincerity, but perhaps it would be best to spend some time on the previously recommended site to familiarize yourself with both the definition of the terms you use as well as what is and is not possible.

 

Please stop