Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won



About DWLange

  • Boards Title
    NGC Research Director

Personal Information

  • Homepage
  • Occupation
    Research Director, NGC
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No, it does not, and there are no plans to add that variety.
  2. Your coin does display strike doubling (aka machine doubling). This is extremely common on S-Mint cents 1968-72. The SF Assay Office (as it was then known) was using obsolete, hand-me-down presses when re-activated in 1965, and it took a few years to get better equipment. FYI, a true doubled-die variety would show doubling only on the date and not the mintmark, because the S was applied with a hand punch after the die was hubbed. The doubling occurs only during the hubbing process.
  3. DWLange

    verify coin

    I viewed the grading screen, and everything checks out as shown in your photo. The only thing different is that NGC removed the S from S$1 a few months ago. This updated the grading entry for your coin, but there may be some disconnect with the verification program. Were you to ever get the coin reholdered, it would work properly again, but that's entirely up to you.
  4. It didn't leave the mint that way. It appears that someone soldered a mounting to the back to display the front as a piece of jewelry.
  5. When were they returned? Is there a paper trail? Additional requests for dollar dies occur throughout the rest of 1900. Rusty Goe's book, The Mint on Carson Street, reads "Later in 1899, [Superintendent] Colcord supervised the transfer of Carson City's coin presses and other related coinage material to Treasury offices as ordered by the Director of the Mint, along with the leftover silver dollar dies mentioned earlier." I was not able to find the earlier mention in his book, which has a fairly basic index. You may want to contact him about it.
  6. It would be interesting to know whether the requested five die pairs included the O/CC dies that had been returned to Philly from Nevada the previous year and then over-punched with the O mintmark.
  7. It's crude enough that it could be one of the Henning counterfeits. 1946 was among the five dates he faked in the mid-1950s.
  8. It's impossible to tell anything from those photos. You need to get this close: https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/cents/lincoln-cents-memorial-reverse-1959-2008/819614/
  9. These undoubtedly were destroyed a few years later, but it's odd that the Director didn't order the destruction of all dated dies prior to 1885. They clearly served no further purpose.
  10. That occurs when the obverse and reverse die are not perfectly centered on the same axis. Some metal got squeezed into a slight gap that resulted between the reverse die and the collar. The Mint calls this "finning," while the hobby calls it "wire rim." It's interesting but does not qualify as a mint error, since this sort of thing happens frequently.
  11. Those are ordinary 1975 Philadelphia Mint dimes, one of which has environmental damage.
  12. There was only a single D mintmark punch used for 1926-D nickels. As the dies erode, this letter becomes distorted, and repolishing of the dies to extend their service life will reduce the size of the mintmark by making it shallower. The edges are beveled, so as the field is polished away the mintmark seems to become smaller.
  13. The numerals were pushed out of shape, perhaps by a counting or rolling machine. It didn't leave the mint that way.
  14. It should come to me automatically for variety attribution.
  15. It would hard to not notice that on an example grading Fine or better, but it easily could go unrecognized on the many slicks that have survived.