Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 2567669, member: 24314&quot;]Marshall, posted: &quot;I guess the variation in mint mark punches mark the dies as different since all elements of the master hub would be the same for all dies.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">That&#039;s correct.&nbsp; And, until a previous poster cites evidence to the contrary, there was only one reverse die with a large &quot;S&quot; mint mark.</span></p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;But adding the mint marks creates the same variation as elements added before the use of master hubs or at least added elements before the master hubs had presses that would transfer all the elements of the hub without touch ups of each die as in the 1798 and 1800 dies where stems and berries had to be touched up and created identifiable dies.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">Actually, this is not entirely true.&nbsp; I know this is not new to you; but we cannot compare the way dies were produced back than to the 1940&#039;s.&nbsp; The only noticeable difference with the modern dies (when new) was the various positions of the mint marks.</span></p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;I first thought the post showed two different S punches for the 1941s until I looked closer at the post and figured out the Large S with the circular serif was for large S punches used AFTER 1941 rather than a second Large S punch for the 1941s. I do wonder if there are variations in the small S punches or their location/orientation which are identifiable.&quot;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #0000b3">Of course there are.&nbsp; anyone interested can start recording them.&nbsp; I&#039;m not interested.&nbsp; If the 41-S small &quot;S&quot; were a rare date it would have already been done by nickel specialists. </span>[/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