Can anyone tell me what I have here?
0

26 posts in this topic

2,281 posts

I was assembling some sets from boxes of coins I'd put away years ago. When verifying that this set was indeed 1953 D coins I spotted the following:

 

p><p> I

p><p>    <img src=[/img]

 

I think the coin is a solid MS 66.

 

 

 

Edited by Raisethis2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,198 posts

Gosh, that closeup is so good, I don't know. From the shadows, there does appear to be some height to those marks, and they're off, as in, not perfectly aligned, not the result of a slide or smear. I think it could very well be a RPM. It is a handsome coin, regardless.

Edited by Kurtdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
Gosh, that closeup is so good, I don't know. From the shadows, there does appear to be some height to those marks, and they're off, as in, not perfectly aligned, not the result of a slide or smear. I think it could very well be a RPM. It is a handsome coin, regardless.

 

Thank you. :foryou:

 

Oh, and maybe the rest of the coin has some interesting issues.

 

I just sort of hate the word "sorry" thrown around, when other probabilities are equally plausible.

 

But what do I know...other than maybe having the twin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,028 posts

Machine doubling is always my first guess when dealing with something like this - but the pictures make it look like there is a possibility that this is the real deal. At least, that's my interpretation.

 

Again, in my own experience, I don't often see machine doubling that strong on just the mintmark, with no evidence at all on the surrounding devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
Machine doubling is always my first guess when dealing with something like this - but the pictures make it look like there is a possibility that this is the real deal. At least, that's my interpretation.

 

Again, in my own experience, I don't often see machine doubling that strong on just the mintmark, with no evidence at all on the surrounding devices.

 

Thank you. :foryou:

 

So, maybe the rest of the coin did have some issues to help in interpretation. :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,205 posts

Looks like a very pretty quarter. Congrats.

 

I'd also say machine doubling. The Q in QUARTER looks shifted too. Maybe other letters.

Lance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
Looks like a very pretty quarter. Congrats.

 

I'd also say machine doubling. The Q in QUARTER looks shifted too. Maybe other letters.

Lance.

 

I never decide from pictures, but I respectfully disagree, re. the Q or other letters, and by virtue of having seen the twin in hand.

 

Otherwise, I would have shadupped and not typed anything :foryou:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,281 posts

 

Looked at every letter from all 4 directions and see nothing that hints of doubling.

 

What you see on the Q is a byproduct of lighting.

 

 

Edited by Raisethis2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,958 posts

I morphed your image and it sure looks like machine doubling....I can't explain how just a mint mark acquires ejection doubling in just one area, it's a conundrum.

 

f39e33ca-6254-4ff2-ad02-c16259b86de7_zps57b0c119.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts

The pictures are not clear enough to determine, but it has about a 60/40 chance of being Machine Doubling or an RPM, respectively.

 

This would be a new variety altogether if its an RPM. It is not D/S FS-601, or the minor Split Serif RPM known for the date.

 

http://www.dmrarecoins.com/servlet/the-1853/1953-dsh-D-fdsh-S-NGC-MS66-RPM/Detail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,311 posts

It doesn't look like machine doubling to me! The top "D" appears to be shifted left and rotated slightly.

 

Chris

Edited by cpm9ball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,119 posts
I morphed your image and it sure looks like machine doubling....I can't explain how just a mint mark acquires ejection doubling in just one area, it's a conundrum.

 

f39e33ca-6254-4ff2-ad02-c16259b86de7_zps57b0c119.jpg

 

There is a very simple explanation for that. On a Washington quarter, most of the design and lettering rises up out of the field at a slope. If the struck coin and die separate a bit and then one or the other moves sideways a bit, the design or lettering is sloped away far enough that the die does not contact the coin, or if it does the beveling deflects the blow..

 

The mint marks, on the other hand, are very steep sided. If during the separation either the die or the coin moves sideways a bit, the die is more likely to contact the raised mint mark.

 

Notice also the raised ridge along the right side of the "D" where metal was displaced upwards during the bumping. A very common effect on machine doubling.

 

Sorry if the truth hurts, but the truth is better than a wild guess.

 

TD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
I morphed your image and it sure looks like machine doubling....I can't explain how just a mint mark acquires ejection doubling in just one area, it's a conundrum.

 

f39e33ca-6254-4ff2-ad02-c16259b86de7_zps57b0c119.jpg

 

There is a very simple explanation for that. On a Washington quarter, most of the design and lettering rises up out of the field at a slope. If the struck coin and die separate a bit and then one or the other moves sideways a bit, the design or lettering is sloped away far enough that the die does not contact the coin, or if it does the beveling deflects the blow..

 

The mint marks, on the other hand, are very steep sided. If during the separation either the die or the coin moves sideways a bit, the die is more likely to contact the raised mint mark.

 

Good Morning CaptHenway,

 

The truth never hurts.

 

Getting to it does.

 

As with this coin, the simple is never simple, and when the simple explanation contains ifs and thens and more likelys, in concluding a definitive position, then it is not conclusive. It is at best an educated guess, especially without the coin in hand. I don't have a vested interest, and really don't care to much. I have had the benefit of seeing the twin in hand, and while I admit I am not an experienced numismatist with credentials that rise to the level of your own, and my opinion does not mean much, I respectfully disagree that others are making wild guesses. There is a learning opportunity here, and a teaching opportunity, and a way to accomplish that.

 

As to the "displaced metal", it may not be a cause and effect, but I am sure you know that. :foryou:

 

Notice also the raised ridge along the right side of the "D" where metal was displaced upwards during the bumping. A very common effect on machine doubling.

 

Sorry if the truth hurts, but the truth is better than a wild guess.

 

TD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,031 posts

I'd like to see a couple more sharp images so we can see a couple different angles but so far what I see does not look like MDD. It looks to me like there is clear separation, but there is also slight focus problems and glare from the lighting which could be causing some problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,198 posts
Notice also the raised ridge along the right side of the "D" where metal was displaced upwards during the bumping. A very common effect on machine doubling.

This is the only thing that really gives me pause in calling it strike doubling. In strike doubling, the first impression is always compromised, however slightly, by the second impression, where it took the second impression. These mintmarks are so tiny it's hard to tell whether the first impression is intact, or not.

 

I'd like to see a couple more sharp images so we can see a couple different angles but so far what I see does not look like MDD. It looks to me like there is clear separation, but there is also slight focus problems and glare from the lighting which could be causing some problems.

John says he has the twin. If it matches at this microscopic level, I'd be willing to accept that as conclusive of a RPD, given a RPD is a repeatable error, unlike strike doubling, which, on any given coin, can manifest in a hop, a twist, a slide, a combination, thereof, etc.; in other words, no two examples of strike doubling will match, exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,119 posts
Gosh, that closeup is so good, I don't know. From the shadows, there does appear to be some height to those marks, and they're off, as in, not perfectly aligned, not the result of a slide or smear. I think it could very well be a RPM. It is a handsome coin, regardless.

 

Thank you. :foryou:

 

Oh, and maybe the rest of the coin has some interesting issues.

 

I just sort of hate the word "sorry" thrown around, when other probabilities are equally plausible.

 

But what do I know...other than maybe having the twin.

 

So, do you have a twin to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,281 posts

 

 

I had the opportunity to view the mintmark with a 15 power lupe last night and now can clearly see D/D/D stacked with the top D being the most clear. The inside upright of the D (the left side of the letter) has 3 perfectly separated bars as well.

 

There's still nothing in the literature about a D/D/D coin so the mystery continues.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0