@IkesT said: @Coinscratch - Can it be identified to date/variety from the reverse, alone?
Not to my knowledge, is that an important detail
The idea behind the thread was to post a reverse that is unique, such that you can identify the date and coin type just from the reverse. So the question is, how does one tell the date of that dime from the reverse?
@gumby1234 You're not bad at it, these are just really tough. I would be falling flat on my face if I hadn't been trying to cherrypick most of these varieties for the past few years now.
Y’all guys are so good I thought I’d trip you up with a trick question. It is unique in my mind but true not any sort of variety.
And I had it graded before PCGS recognized PL on moderns.
@Coinscratch Well you definitely got me. That reverse looked so much like an SMS I didn’t even think twice about it. That’s a beauty of a modern though!
It could also be a 1837 reeded eye though as well. I think @jayPem might be looking for the matching Graham number but a quick glance at the 26 listed proved unfruitful at this point.
@gumby1234 said:
Maybe he's trying to trick us and it is a counterfeit. I cant find any with the berries like that.
I would tend to agree. A more in depth search did not yield any better results and I could not find any coin that had matching die cracks or the chip in the 5. I am skeptical, but not positive, that this may be a trick question.
@gumby1234 said:
Maybe he's trying to trick us and it is a counterfeit. I cant find any with the berries like that.
I would tend to agree. A more in depth search did not yield any better results and I could not find any coin that had matching die cracks or the chip in the 5. I am skeptical, but not positive, that this may be a trick question.
Here's a clue, bought this one from a guy named Keith. 🙂
@jayPem a VF counterfeit! I found your post in an early thread about this coin and it does conform my suspicions. The weakness in the eagle does also add to it, good thing I don't buy bust halves lol! The lettering on that one is rather convincing, if not for the weakness and it not matching any other coins I might have not noticed that one.
@FlyingAl said: @jayPem a VF counterfeit! I found your post in an early thread about this coin and it does conform my suspicions. The weakness in the eagle does also add to it, good thing I don't buy bust halves lol! The lettering on that one is rather convincing, if not for the weakness and it not matching any other coins I might have not noticed that one.
Oh well, thought someone would have wanted to look up the Davignon.. 🙄
Where did you find it???
Edit: I gogled rdv-008 that you mentioned and came up with a Lincoln Forum which, I joined but won't have visibility for a couple of days Yikes
The distinction between RDV-002 and RDV-008 on the 1971-S is pretty tricky, and I actually think we may have swapped them. @FlyingAl - what you do think?
The description of RDV-008 given by VarietyVista ("Strengthened Right Memorial Steps") seems misleading, as there appears to be a strengthened step in the middle (red circle) and distorted, wavy regions of steps above and also to the right (yellow circle):
If this one is RDV-008, that means VarietyVista also got it partially wrong, because they list it as a one year type for 1971. I've just now seen it on several 1972-dated cents without having to search for it.
It's also worth noting that a couple of the design varieties listed for the Memorical cent series (including the RDV-008) are about as cryptic as you can get. I still think it's worth teasing them out, but I also wouldn't lose any sleep if you're not able to ID these.
@IkesT I do think you have a point but without full coin pictures from Variety Vista I don’t think we’ll have a way of knowing. I am going to attach a picture of what I thought was the normal 002 reverse for 71S proofs, I didn’t bother to check any other years because I have not know Variety Vista to be wrong. I will have to do some more investigation, definitely worth checking out. That is a pretty deep dive into something we may not get answers to, but it’s going to be fun trying to get them!
@ IkesT, another possibility is that we have been looking in the wrong place. I took a look at what you are describing with the 72S proofs, and they all seem to have a fully defined straight line of steps. On the 71S I am going to post, you will see that the lines on the far right side are slightly misaligned and seem to have an extra step added underneath. I think this is the 008, and the full step lines on the 72S is what is throwing us off. It's a close call though so let me know what you think. [https://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/25097227_33212321_2200.jpg
Edit to add pic.
Comments
Back to the basics
@Coinscratch - Can it be identified to date/variety from the reverse, alone?
Not to my knowledge, is that an important detail
The idea behind the thread was to post a reverse that is unique, such that you can identify the date and coin type just from the reverse. So the question is, how does one tell the date of that dime from the reverse?
@Coinscratch Rather important, I can match it to a SMS (contact mark mid torch), maybe a 1967 because they are more common with contrast.
Coin Photographer.
@gumby1234 You're not bad at it, these are just really tough. I would be falling flat on my face if I hadn't been trying to cherrypick most of these varieties for the past few years now.
Coin Photographer.
Y’all guys are so good I thought I’d trip you up with a trick question. It is unique in my mind but true not any sort of variety.
And I had it graded before PCGS recognized PL on moderns.
@Coinscratch we never could have got that. Nice coin, too bad its slabbed it would go well in my Roosie Dansco album.
@FlyingAl I would have got the Cheerios 2000 P Sac but I wasn't here. So at least ONE lol.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@Coinscratch Well you definitely got me. That reverse looked so much like an SMS I didn’t even think twice about it. That’s a beauty of a modern though!
Coin Photographer.
Lol I count two in my mind. You technically got the 46-S done, just gave it a variety that it wasn’t.
Coin Photographer.
@FlyingAl too many varieties on too many coins. Luckily I can grade better than I can pick out these varieties.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Speaking of the Dansco album. I cant seem to find the last page for sale anywhere. Its the one including proofs from 2013 to whenever
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
This one is going to be a bit tricky. A hint- looks can be deceiving.
Coin Photographer.
1967 SMS
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@gumby1234 That’s it!
Coin Photographer.
Alright here we go hopefully a little tougher
Coin Photographer.
69 S DDR-001
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@gumby1234 Not quite
Coin Photographer.
1837 Half!
@FlyingAl 1964 DDR-022 ?
@FlyingAl That is a tough one, how about 1962 DDR-017 or DDR-050
@Coinscratch It is neither of those two. It seems I might have found one to stump the forum
Coin Photographer.
Possibly...🧐
So are you saying 1962 and 1964 are out as well or just the variety
@Coinscratch All of the above lol
Coin Photographer.
1836 Half?
This one will require some research, if anyone is going to try for the designation that is 😉
1836 reeded edge
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
It could also be a 1837 reeded eye though as well. I think @jayPem might be looking for the matching Graham number but a quick glance at the 26 listed proved unfruitful at this point.
Coin Photographer.
Maybe he's trying to trick us and it is a counterfeit. I cant find any with the berries like that.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
I would tend to agree. A more in depth search did not yield any better results and I could not find any coin that had matching die cracks or the chip in the 5. I am skeptical, but not positive, that this may be a trick question.
Coin Photographer.
Here's a clue, bought this one from a guy named Keith. 🙂
@jayPem a VF counterfeit! I found your post in an early thread about this coin and it does conform my suspicions. The weakness in the eagle does also add to it, good thing I don't buy bust halves lol! The lettering on that one is rather convincing, if not for the weakness and it not matching any other coins I might have not noticed that one.
Coin Photographer.
This one is still up for grabs!
Coin Photographer.
Oh well, thought someone would have wanted to look up the Davignon.. 🙄
1971-S 1c proof. It has RDV-008 (Strengthened Right Memorial Steps).
A good one to know...
The initials match but not the dots on E Pluribus Unum.
Edit: Never mind I was looking at FS-103
@Coinscratch
@IkesT Yes it is a 1971S Proof RDV008. Great work!
Coin Photographer.
Where did you find it???
Edit: I gogled rdv-008 that you mentioned and came up with a Lincoln Forum which, I joined but won't have visibility for a couple of days Yikes
@Coinscratch Variety Vista to LMC 1959-98 to design varieties to reverse varieties to the bottom listing
Coin Photographer.
Also the coin is the CoinFacts plate coin for RD which just happened to have the RDV008 variety, so I posted it for guesses
Coin Photographer.
Somehow I missed it in both places.
Okay I see it now, just not as a variety - Wack
The distinction between RDV-002 and RDV-008 on the 1971-S is pretty tricky, and I actually think we may have swapped them. @FlyingAl - what you do think?
The coin you posted - I think this may be RDV-002:
http://varietyvista.com/01b LC Doubled Dies Vol 2/Memorial Reverse Design Varieties.htm
.
.
A different 1971-s proof that I think may be RDV-008:
https://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/41788631_213071901_2200.jpg
.
.
The description of RDV-008 given by VarietyVista ("Strengthened Right Memorial Steps") seems misleading, as there appears to be a strengthened step in the middle (red circle) and distorted, wavy regions of steps above and also to the right (yellow circle):
If this one is RDV-008, that means VarietyVista also got it partially wrong, because they list it as a one year type for 1971. I've just now seen it on several 1972-dated cents without having to search for it.
It's also worth noting that a couple of the design varieties listed for the Memorical cent series (including the RDV-008) are about as cryptic as you can get. I still think it's worth teasing them out, but I also wouldn't lose any sleep if you're not able to ID these.
@IkesT I do think you have a point but without full coin pictures from Variety Vista I don’t think we’ll have a way of knowing. I am going to attach a picture of what I thought was the normal 002 reverse for 71S proofs, I didn’t bother to check any other years because I have not know Variety Vista to be wrong. I will have to do some more investigation, definitely worth checking out. That is a pretty deep dive into something we may not get answers to, but it’s going to be fun trying to get them!
Coin Photographer.
@ IkesT, another possibility is that we have been looking in the wrong place. I took a look at what you are describing with the 72S proofs, and they all seem to have a fully defined straight line of steps. On the 71S I am going to post, you will see that the lines on the far right side are slightly misaligned and seem to have an extra step added underneath. I think this is the 008, and the full step lines on the 72S is what is throwing us off. It's a close call though so let me know what you think. [https://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/25097227_33212321_2200.jpg
Edit to add pic.
Coin Photographer.
This is a huge problem, along with the odd cursory descriptions (or more often, non-descriptions) that they give for the RDVs.
Thanks for the photo above. I'll spend some more time comparing the various photos.