DEleTe

mr1931S

How many mintmark positions are known for the 'D' on 1914-D Lincoln cent?

mr1931S

I have two 1914-D's. The mintmarks are not in the same position for both coins.There are six mintmark positions for 1909-S. Is it reasonable to assume there are 3 different positions for 'D' on 1914-D?

1.193/(1.825+.484)=.5167 or ~1/2 (mintage ratio of '14-D to '09-S to include 1909-S V.D.B.). 1/2 x 6 (# of positions for '09-S)=3 (# of positions for '14-D)? I have two distinctly different mintmark positions on my '14-D's. Could there be one more position, making a total of 3 for 1914-D Lincoln cent?

LanceNewmanOCC

i don't recall off-hand but i know i recall seeing that information regarding obverse dies known posted on this forum. knowing obv/rev dies known is a pretty big and obviously important subject. on that note, i wonder why i don't have that and much more information readily available.

mr1931S

I haven't tried searching archive yet for the information I seek. That be next thing I try.

mr1931S

Found this:
Although there were at least a half dozen 1914-D obverse dies used, each with individually punched mintmarks, all were remarkably alike in their location relative to the date.
So it is fair to say there's only one spot for it to be even though technically there are 6 or more locations.
Lance.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12801712#Comment_12801712

mr1931S

One of my '14-D's is a PCGS VF 30 CAC. The other is a VG raw. The D's are in different locations but both are low and left. The 'D' on my PCGS coin is tilted slightly to the right.

mr1931S

From the link seen above, a mint record indicating six obverse dies used for 1914-D:

mr1931S

Average # of pieces per die, ~200,000.

lkeigwin

@mr1874 said:
How many mintmark positions are known for the 'D' on 1914-D Lincoln cent?

This isn't one of them. From an estate collection.
Lance.

jesbroken

Here are three 14 D's from CoinFacts. While #1 & #2 appear to be in the same position, they seem to me to be different in the tilt of the D's. While #4 is definitely different in the D's position relative to the 9. If I can run across more I will add to this post.
Jim

mr1931S

3 definitely tilts left and obviously farther left than #1 or #2. #1 and #2 seem the same to me.

LanceNewmanOCC

@mr1874 said:

3 definitely tilts left and obviously farther left than #1 or #2. #1 and #2 seem the same to me.

good work. the archive here are worth of a national database.

having the patience, time and experience to dig out what one is looking for is another thing altogether. i guess any good reference set/site etc should be that way from just the sheer amount of information/diversity; although, there are tons of repetitions in these archives, for better or worse.

i guess it is a positive thing that the reported mm positions are fairly close as it just instantly nukes anything outside that little area. the small percentage of altered/forged/counterfeit/die transfer, push-up mm, etc will require a bit more knowledge/investigation.

happy you got your answer and could share such a good source.

@Ikeigwin

that thing is spooky.. i bet that would fly through virtually every estate sale, most online auction sites and through a good portion of dealers at shows. some may get lucky and pass because of the value and the weakness around the date/legend. if not for that weakness, shooo weee.

BuffaloIronTail

One of the obverse dies comes with a real nice die crack from the rim to Abe's coat. It can be used as an identification mark to verify authenticity

(Courtesy Heritage)

Pete

AMRC

Great thread. Thanks.

WAYNEAS

@BuffaloIronTail said:
One of the obverse dies comes with a real nice die crack from the rim to Abe's coat. It can be used as an identification mark to verify authenticity

(Courtesy Heritage)

Pete

Thanks for the added info.
Wayne

mr1931S

My PCGS coin appears to be #1 or #2. The 'D' tilts slightly right. On my raw '14-D (which appears to me to be genuine) the 'D' is further left, in fact even further left than #3, and the 'D' does not tilt,It's straight up and down. So, it must be #4, #5, or #6. Sorry, not able to provide close-up pictures of either of my two '14-Ds. I should add that the 'D' on my raw coin is further left than the one with the die crack and I see no die crack on my coin.

mr1931S

If we had nice images of all six obverse dies used for 1914-D that would be a good thing.

mr1931S

My initial impression on first viewing of this image was "that 'D' is way too far right." The rounded part of the 'D' lines up with the left side of the "1" in the date. Every purportedly genuine '14-D I've ever seen has the 'D' well to the left using the '9' for reference. 'D' that shows up in a location where you would use the '1' in the date for reference screams FAKE! to me.

ldhair

An old friend of mine put this together. He thought there were 5 different positions.

mr1931S

Seems that it would be useful to assemble a collection of images of all six known obverses for 1914-D in one place. Then Lance Newman could volunteer to do the grid thing for '14-D that worked out so well for '09-S with V.D.B.

mr1931S

An old friend of mine put this together. He thought there were 5 different positions.

Those are fantastic! Thank you for them!

And I think my raw '14-D might be the 6th one...The outer rounded part of the 'D' on my coin lines up with the rounded part of the '9' in the date and the 'D' is straight up and down, no tilt. I think I will send it to PCGS for authentication.
Unfortunately, some edge damage is going to prevent it's getting a straight grade. How much would a photo cost me?

Update: I was seeing things. The 'D' has definite tilt right looking at close up Trueview images of the raw '14-D I my brother submitted.

CaptHenway

@lkeigwin said:

@mr1874 said:
How many mintmark positions are known for the 'D' on 1914-D Lincoln cent?

This isn't one of them. From an estate collection.
Lance.

Added D.

mr1931S

I expect that my '14-D would come back as authentic. Who would add a 'D' to a 1914 cent that has a significant rim ding under Abe's shoulder and also has other damage in various places along the rim near the motto? I must say that is a nice job of "added 'D'" seen above. Glue job?

mr1931S

I see a discrepency in total mintage number between Red Book and the mint record seen in this thread. What's the real number of business strike 1914-D's made?

Red Book-1,193,000
Mint record-1,205,284

Makes one wonder where else the Red Book is wrong.

The mint does have the math right on ave. no. of pieces per die. Six dies used, 200,881 pieces per die (avg)

mr1931S

You all have a PCGS photo of mintmark position #6 for 1914-D to look forward to. My '14-D recently sent in has been deemed to be authentic by the authentication experts at PCGS so I'm getting it holdered and imaged.

Update 1/7/22: Kindly ignore this post. I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here. This is what happens sometimes when one has an active imagination like mine.

mr1931S

The Red Book mintage discrepency kind of bothers me. Shouldn't be any discrepency.

LanceNewmanOCC

@mr1874 said:
I haven't tried searching archive yet for the information I seek. That be next thing I try.

i did neglect to mention that is VERY important. this forum has undergone coding changes sufficient enough to make previously visible images gone. so a lot of information in threads talking about important subjects will be severely missing. doesn't matter if it was uploaded to the forum directly or personally hosted via image hosting site or ftp. the code changes, the images die. so i need to be more thorough on sending people into the archives.

CaptHenway

@mr1874 said:
I see a discrepency in total mintage number between Red Book and the mint record seen in this thread. What's the real number of business strike 1914-D's made?

Red Book-1,193,000
Mint record-1,205,284

Makes one wonder where else the Red Book is wrong.

The mint does have the math right on ave. no. of pieces per die. Six dies used, 200,881 pieces per die (avg)

That image from the Mint’s records (which I originally posted in another thread) is from the die log book. Each die struck so many pieces, both good coins and rejects, and those gross totals were recorded as a means of tracking die life.

Those coins were then inspected and rejects removed and destroyed . The inspected coins were counted and bagged (typically 5,000 per bag, but variances possible) and delivered to the Cashier as coins. Odd lots (less than 5,000) left over at the end of the year possibly melted, possibly mixed in with next year’s coins.

The Redbook shows numbers delivered to Cashier for distribution, not gross number struck.

mr1931S

I didn't even think about rejects before I made my remarks. Thanks Capt for the information that explains the discrepency. When is your 1922-D book going to be released?

mr1931S

I will be among your first customers for the 1922-D book.

CaptHenway

@mr1874 said:
I didn't even think about rejects before I made my remarks. Thanks Capt for the information that explains the discrepency. When is your 1922-D book going to be released?

Some time in 2022 is all I can say at this point.

jesbroken

@Idhair
This is great, now if only #6 could be found. I've added arrows to help better view the differences.
Jim

Edited to add: While 2 and 3 are still close, the tilt of the MintMark is obviously different.

mr1931S

Here's a Trueview of the 1914-D Lincoln I recently sent in for authentication...

mr1931S

We need to put Lance Newman's grid on these 14Ds to better see the differences in mintmark positions. I would have sworn that my coin did not match any of the five published. That was with coin in hand. Now, my coin seems to match up pretty well with #5 just looking at the images. Fractions of millimeters is the differences.

mr1931S

I still think my 1914-D might be an example from the sixth obverse die. Unfortunately, I will not have the coin in hand again as I have a customer for it. I paid $1 to a coin dealer for the coin seen above. He wasn't sure about authenticity and, in fact, was leaning towards the piece being counterfeit. So, because I am such a good customer, he let me have it for $1. I didn't want to soak in acetone for fear of a glued on 'D' falling off thus ruining the integrity of the piece for what it is. I was unable to post an enlarged picture of the obverse for some reason but by going to the cert site one can enlarge the image for closer viewing.

mr1931S

I like the numbering system, very straightforward. Notice that the first 3, #1,#2, and #3 are all high relative to the date. #4 and #5 are definitely lower than #s1-2-3 relative to the 1914 date. On my 14D the 'D' is low and on a straight line horizontal with #4 and #5.The 'D', when I had the coin in hand, appeared to me to be farther left than any of the five 'Ds' in the images. Logically then,if can be verified, my coin is from die #6. It seems that the red arrow point, if extended a bit, would point right at the middle of the fat part of the 'D' as it curves around top to bottom.

mr1931S

This is all eyeball work so far and as I stated before, the differences in position of the 'D' as we see them could be measured in fractions of a millimeter with a gauge. An overlay would reveal a lot.

mr1931S

Wouldn't it be great if our host could attribute key date coins, such as 1909SVDB and 1914D cents, by die variety? Would be easy to attribute by die variety by using the vast Trueview image archive as a reference?

mr1931S

Than you all for contributing here. Special thanks to Idhair for the images of 1914D's that his old friend put together.

streeter

A long time ago I was shown a roll of circ 1914-D's. This was before I paid attention to mint mark location. Probably 1980's or 1990's.

They were all counterfeits. A coin shop bought the roll. They were decent until you examined them closely and noticed the identical obverse die on all of them which would have been impossible.

Beware of 14-d's.

joeykoins

Very Cool.
Lol. This exact topic was discussed on the recent YouTube Q&A Live stream that I posted on Monday. @ 1:46
https://youtu.be/xOojWthhF04

mr1931S

Thanks joey. Through the video I was able to figure out which is the missing die image from our set of pictures. Its this one.high rotated ccw.

mr1931S

Die designations for 1914-D Lincoln cent:
level 'D' high >> (#1)
level 'D' middle>> (#3)
level 'D' low>> (#5)
high 'D' ccw>>
low 'D' ccw>>(#4)
high 'D' cw>>(#2)

My coin is low 'D' ccw or #4 in the set of images from Idhair's old friend.

mr1931S

So, are there any quarrels with designating "high 'D' ccw,"the one seen a few posts ago, as our #6 obverse die for 1914-D? In my opinion, adding the die variety to the slab label of a key date coin such as 1914-D Lincoln cent adds interest for collectors and non-collectors alike and would be beneficial to the hobby. Is there any series more widely collected than the lowly Lincoln cent? Can one have die variety added to the label? My '14-D would be labeled "low 'D' ccw" and that gets us away from having to use #s for die positions.

mr1931S

Here's the fake again. Notice the position of the 'D' would be noted as "low cw" which does not exist for the coin to be authentic. Whoever made this piece didn't know his '14Ds...

mr1931S

Coinfacts has more Trueview images of 1914-D Lincolns than one can shake a stick at. Thank you PCGS. I intend to identify all six obverse dies used from those images and will publish results here.My PCGS VF30 CAC has a definite CW tilt on the 'D' but appears to be more "middle" than "high." My eyeballs are being exercised to the limit with this project.

ifthevamzarockin

"I would have sworn that my coin did not match any of the five published."

"Now, my coin seems to match up pretty well with #5 just looking at the images."

"I had the coin in hand, appeared to me to be farther left than any of the five 'Ds' in the images. Logically then,if can be verified, my coin is from die #6."

You all have a PCGS photo of mintmark position #6 for 1914-D to look forward to.

I intend to identify all six obverse dies used from those images and will publish results here.

I still think my 1914-D might be an example from the sixth obverse die.

So you confirm that your coin matches #5 and then turn around and say it's the 6th obverse die
I don't see where you published the results.
This seems to be an ongoing problem where you want to make a coin something it isn't.
You say one thing and then contradict yourself with the very next post.
We see this all the time with new members and Walmart parking lot finds.

mr1931S

Do you own a '14-D Lincoln cent? I bought one for a mere $1 at a coin store I frequent. Initially I thought it was a counterfeit. Nope, not a counterfeit. PCGS slabbed it as genuine. Imagine that. If you say pretty please I'll post image of it here again just for you.

Post edited from original for repair work

mr1931S

Here's the piece I paid $1 for. I'm not...

Forgot to finish my thought there for a reason I no longer care about. Anyway, the '14-D I paid $1 for can be seen in the image seen above, it's PCGS #42698577.

I'm pretty sure the dealer I bought it from out of his case knew it was a '14-D. I found it marked on a 2x2 in his case as a "1914 $1". wth, the altered 1944 to 1914 (no mintmark) that I bought from him awhile back for educational purposes was more money to me. That one was $2. Good things can happen for the collector when they get on a coin dealer's good side. I found it helps to always buy SOMETHING when I visit his shop. He gets tired of looky-loos wandering around his store, never spending money, not even a penny. lol

Got my new Harsche today! It's got a front and back cover! Yippee! I'll be taking this invaluable reference with me when I show my S VDB to dealers for opinions.

mr1931S

What's really needed is to put together a definitive, once and for all collection of all 6 different die obverses used for '14-D cents. The 'D' s for '14-D were punched so closely to each other that a grid overlay for comparison would be a big plus in detecting the differences with the 'D's on '14-D. That's not something I can do with my limited photographic skills and equipment. And the old eyes aren't what they used to be either.

BuffaloIronTail

@mr1874 said:
Here's the fake again. Notice the position of the 'D' would be noted as "low cw" which does not exist for the coin to be authentic. Whoever made this piece didn't know his '14Ds...

It's the 4 in the date. It's been manipulated. compare it to a genuine 1914-D date.

Pete