Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;RonSanderson, post: 8170684, member: 77413&quot;]Then we can deduce this sequence, using my three cents.</p><p><br /></p><p>Early in the year the SVDB was produced using four obverse dies and an unknown number of reverses. All the reverses shared this shallow N.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1427311[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Later, the S without VDB was produced. It is interesting to me that this shares the same N, but that the VDB initials were not present. If they were removed from the master hub it was done very well. Or a new master was created? I confess it is not obvious how these share the same shallow N but one has VDB and the other does not. Maybe someone who understands this better can explain it.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1427315[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Then, even later, the reverse was redone to clean up the sloppy N. The U is thinner and the I and T are thicker, making them a uniform style. This is obviously a mid-year touchup to fine-tune the new coin’s appearance (IMHO).</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1427317[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Since we can see that a 1909-S can have a Shallow N reverse, it means that the Shallow N continued after all the SVDB’s were struck. Therefore it seems unreasonable that any of the SVDB’s would be found with the sharp N, which seems to have come into use later.</p><p><br /></p><p>If this reasoning holds up, it would imply the coin in the original post is a 1909-S with added V.D.B.</p><p><br /></p><p>Edit: this is the date position of my 1909-S with the sharp N reverse. It matches the questionable coin.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1427330[/ATTACH][/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