1c 1968 -S mint mark variation?
dagingerbeasttt
Posts: 784 ββββ
I know the mm for that period differ slightly but these almost seem to be to be completely different. They are both 1968 s 1c. From the same roll.
Opinions and knowledge is always welcome and appreciated π
0
Comments
Yep,... Looks like different dies....Cheers, RickO
Is that normal?, Is there anything I can read up on that can give me some insight on the mm topic and thank you.
My knowledge on modern US cents is limited, and there could be differences in mm style when different mm punches are used, but the appearance of the mm could also be impacted by the amount of polishing done to the die.The more polishing done, the thinner the mm could be.
The experts here could tell you whether different mm styles were used at this time at SF.
Two different mintmark punches (styles) were used. I never noticed that for 68-S Cents before.
!968 was the first year that mintmarks were returned to coins. The previous 3 years they had been removed due to a severe coin shortage. The Mint figured that removing all mintmarks would stop coin collectors from scooping up examples from the three Mints for collecting.
Very interesting.................
Pete
I could understand how polishing would think out the mm but the bottom loop of the S appears to me eyes to be slightly longer. Thank you for your infoπ
That's some cool history!
I remember the day I put those two in a tube to examine later and when I received my new scope I was finally able to examine it closely. Fingers crossed it's something but either way thanks for your input!!π
Bump for some more opinions
It's also possible that the first closeup mintmark was punched when the punch was newer and in better shape, with better defined serifs.
The second closeup may have been punched with a more worn out mintmark punch. In this scenario, the mintmark style would actually be the same... just look different due to the amount of wear on the punch.
Also, you are viewing the two closeups at different angles... which can make it more difficult to visualize the differences.
Another factor is the 'depth' of the punch.... if hit harder, and the impression is thus deeper, and the result is likely a thicker mintmark. Also, if mintmark is applied at an angle instead of straight up and down, result can be very different.
Though not totally sure, I am inclined to think the mintmark is the same.... based on the shape of the 'S' curves. But that is just an opinion based on the photos, and my first impression. I would certainly give more study to the coins.
According to Lincoln cent resource, only 1 style of S mm was used between 1952-1974
http://lincolncentresource.com/San_Fransisco_Mintmark_Styles.html
I think @tincup is correct. The difference you see is due to the depth of punch.
Thank you for the insight!!
Strange as it seems..........those two mintmarks look very different.
Am I the only one to see a difference?
Pete
After looking at the two in comparison I am leaning more towards there opinion of depth of the strike. Although it would be nice to be wrong π edit to add: my picture taking skills are getting much better lol
My thought depth of MM strike and maybe die polish.
I'm thinking the same thing.
Mintmarks had to be individually punched into each die.
The strength or depth of the punch will vary slightly from die to die.
Add to that the factors of strike and die wear and die polishing and you see the variances shown by these two coins.
Only one style S is known for this date.
Could we see the Reverse if possible ?
TKY