82 No Mintmark Dime CoinFacts Statement
ChrisH821
Posts: 6,736 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was reading the interesting write up at the bottom of the CoinFacts page here
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1982-10c-no-mintmark-strong/5162/
The last line has me confused...
"Finally, the 1982 No P Dime is a special coin in numismatics, since it was the first and still remains as the only business strike coin which left the U.S. Mint, without containing its intended mint mark on the obverse side of the coin. "
Am I reading this wrong? It certainly sounds like they aren't counting the 1922 no D cent for some reason.
Collector, occasional seller
0
Comments
The no D cent had its D polished off. That's a little different than never having put it on in the first place.
^^This^^
POST NUBILA PHOEBUS / AFTER CLOUDS, SUN
Love for Music / Collector of Dreck
True, but it still "left the U.S. Mint, without containing its intended mint mark on the obverse side of the coin" which makes the statement false.
Collector, occasional seller
Under sufficient magnification, 50,000x or higher, all 1922's have a remanent D
The same could be said of many grease filled die errors...
"the only business strike coin which left the U.S. Mint, without containing its intended mint mark on the obverse side"
The gold bullion coins struck with the dies intended for proof treatment and production also qualify under the above statement. They are business strikes (I think?) and they left the mint without the intended mint mark...
Blanket statements without meticulous detail can be dangerous. That claim should have read something like "the only business strike of a circulating coin which left the U.S. Mint after being struck with dies that did not contain the intended mint mark on the obverse side".
There were also some proof coins issued that left off the mintmark.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The 1982 no mintmark dimes had no mintmark on the die
The 1922 No D Strong reverse(after die polishing) had no mintmark on the die
My point is, if someone asked you "What circulating coins didn't have a mintmark but were supposed to?" You would almost certainly not answer with "Only the 1982 no mintmark dime." You would much more likely answer "The 1922 no D cent and the 1982 no mintmark dime".
Yes but we are talking circulation strike coins.
Collector, occasional seller
They are cutting a fine line, but they are technically correct. That is the only coin struck with an omitted mintmark.
As someone else mentioned, there are probably coins of every single year and every single denomination that are missing a mint mark due to die filling. Maybe they could have phrased it differently, but the 1982 no P dime is the only circulation coin issued where they accidentally omitted the mintmark on the die.
Or... they could specify(if that was the intent) that it is "the only circulation strike coin to be struck from dies that did not get the intended mintmark applied". That statement would exclude the 1922 no D.
Collector, occasional seller
Yes, that!
Collector, occasional seller
We should fire people who make statements that are not 100% precise after scrutiny on a large public forum. Oh, wait, its how we run the country.
.
The statement is too broad. There's a regular issue commemorative half without a mint mark. There are pattern commem coins without mint marks. There are the W-mint gold bullion coins without their intended mint mark, i.e. none.
Remember: "All general statements are false, including this one."
"Finally, the 1982 No P Dime is a special coin in numismatics, since it was the first and still remains as the only business strike coin which left the U.S. Mint, without containing its intended mint mark on the obverse side of the coin."
Suppose, for a moment, there was another one, but it was never noticed. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how you could ever be sure this didn't happen.
Highly unlikely other unknown ones exist since many thousands would have been struck and released into circulation.
Ok- so thousands were released. How could you be sure that you'd have known it?
? The mintmark was missing from the die. All coins struck from that die would look the same. The chance of only one or two slipping out would be pretty slim. More likely that 1000s or tens of 1000s would be released, so discovery is expected.
How would you know if it was before the "P" mintmark was used?
@JBK....When you said (above) "The gold bullion coins struck with the dies intended for proof treatment and production also qualify under the above statement. They are business strikes (I think?) and they left the mint without the intended mint mark.."...were you referencing the gold coins struck with unpolished proof dies? They do have the W mint mark.... Perhaps I misunderstood what you mean...Cheers, RickO
Copper cents in 1943 and steel cents in 1944 made it out of the mint without being discovered, and not in large quantities. Why not something far less obvious as a coin missing a mintmark?
edited to add...
And the difference here is that the wrong metal coins could be identified once they were in circulation, while a missing mintmark coin couldn't if it was a date issued before Philadelphia started using a "P". Bringing me back to my original question: How could you ever be sure this didn't happen?
Never generalize.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I think you are missing the point.
Wrong metal coins are errors, one-off occurrances. The wrong planchet got hung up in a bin and got mixed in with the next year's production, for example.
Missing mint marks (missing from die) are die varieties and thousands of similar coins would have been minted.
Is it theoretically possible that the mint caught a die variety with a missing mintmark and recovered all but one or two coins, and those one or two coins have yet to be discovered? Yes, it is possible. Is it likely? No way, in my opinion.
As for pre-Pmint marks? Of course it could have happened. Now go and prove it, and try to get it authenticated. BTW, I see that you added that scenario after @MWallace presented it first.
But no need to argue the point with me. The while purpose of my first post was to show that the premise in the original statement was faulty, and it still is, even more so.
Ahhhhhh. Once again proving the danger of generalized statements.
Yes, all of the 1964 Philly nickels (no mintmark) I see in roll searching might actually be Denver coins with a missing mintmark.
Of course, in that scenario, the variety could never be "discovered" (proven).
(Yes, I know, what if there was a known Denver die marker on the obverse die.
).
1870 gold dollars struck in SF w/o a Mint Mark. Probably all remelted, but who knows. Of course, the Mint Mark was missing from the reverse die, and the statement says obverse die.
1840 New Orleans Mint half dollar mule with Capped Bust half reverse that was not supposed to have a Mint mark.
The original statement was doomed to be proven wrong. They never should have been so definitive in the premise.
Even if they limited the universe of coins to 1982, what about the as-yet-undiscovered 1982 no D dime, where the Denver mint ran with a missing mintmark die?
OK I think we are getting a little out there. My point was simply that the 1922 no D cent, being the most popular accidental no mintmark circulation strike coin, should not have been ignored. I don't feel like I am picking nits here either, they definitely belong in the same category in my opinion.
Collector, occasional seller
Maybe the 1982 No P Dimes are actually No D Dimes.
You can't take the original statement too literally. Any statement can be deconstructed to be false.
If the mint hadn't added the "P" mintmark only two years earlier they'd have gotten away with this "error". Who knows how many times it had happened before (or since).
Based on the multiple no-S proof coins that might well be true.
They released the 55DD intentionally. Seems to be no reason a non-mintmarked coin wouldn't be treated similarly, considering that once in circulation, it would be indistinguishable from a Philadelphia issue.
Possible. They are only assumed to be P-mint because they were released in northern Ohio and the Cleveland Fed normally got P-mint coin be back then.
They were found in bags of P mint coins in Northern Ohio and Baltimore. Most of those from the east coast were of the weak strikes variety.
What is the ratio of strong strikes versus weak strikes? Anyone know?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I don't know the ratio, but the so called "weak strikes" were struck on Type 1 blanks. The so called "strong strikes" were struck on Type 2 planchets.
I don’t think I ever heard the suggestion that the weak strikes were all struck on Type One blanks. Is that a known fact, or a plausible surmise?
No, I don't know but Numismatic News implied it might be about 5: 2 strong to weak back in the day. This was fairly early on, though.
It was so long ago, but I vaguely remember reading this and just accepting it as true. I have no idea of where I read it.
ALL 1922 Cents had mintmarks applied.....some didn't appear.......but they WERE applied.
The 1982 Dime was issued WITHOUT a mintmark applied by omission.
Simple.
Pete
POST NUBILA PHOEBUS / AFTER CLOUDS, SUN
Love for Music / Collector of Dreck