Is this a D/D RPM?
Intueor
Posts: 310 ✭✭✭✭
Hi!,
This is not a “trick” question. Just upgraded my iPhone 7 to a 14. Naturally the first thing I tested was the camera. I use the standard Camera app to take most of my detail photos. While testing, I pulled out a random slabbed example to test focus, detail, glare, etc. The piece I chose was a 1951 D Franklin MS 65 FBL. While comparing shots of the reverse, I saw what appears to be a RPM “D”. CONECA does not list a RPM for a 1951 D but Wexler doubleddie.com/1228740.html lists two. The closest match would be, “1951-D 50¢ WRPM-001 - Description: D/D Tilted (Rotated)”. However, this RPM does not match the Wexler WRPM-001 and does not share any of the markers. In addition, the position of this MM is slightly “east” of WRPM-001 MM. Thus, my question:
Do you think this is a D/D RPM?
Comments
Looks like it could be. Seems to have split serif.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Yes it is
Looks to be a D/D to me. If it ain't one of the ones listed, maybe you should submit it to Wexler and get the discovery piece. Kudos.
Pete
Thanks Pete, I too think it is a new variety. However, Mr. Wexler has a bulletin on his website that indicates "...Dr. Daniel Griffin, the RPM attributer for the Wexler RPM Files has asked me to announce that he will be moving to Iowa City, Iowa in the middle of July. For now, packages of RPMs and OMMs being sent for attribution should be temporarily held until he is settled. His new address in Iowa City will follow at a future date." Guess I will need to wait.
Yep
@Intueor... Sure looks like an RPM D... Good luck with the attribution. Would be great to have a discovery coin. Cheers, RickO
Looks like a D/D/D to me.
You took that pic with an iPhone 14?
http://macrocoins.com
@messydesk could attribute it for you for a minor fee...plus you get a neato sticker!
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
I'm not so sure. The secondary mint mark looks a bit flat as if machine doubled. The upper serif might not be split, either. Playing with it in the light should provide more insight.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
@rmpsrpms
The shot was taken with an iPhone 14 mounted on the left tube of a stereomicroscope with a 20x eyepiece. Autofocus was locked and the lens’s micro adjustment was used to get the sharpest image possible.
Lighting is a diffused ring light mounted above the stage of the scope. After-image processing was done with Paint.Net. The image was cropped to show detail and the contrast was adjusted to give the best detail. No parts of the image were altered or enhanced.
Here is the original shot:
@messydesk
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I too have my suspicions about this piece. I have been fooled before by MMs which are punched deep and “stick” to cause chatter when being ejected. The resulting MDD is restricted to just the MM and the surrounding are. That is why I posted to ask for other opinions. I keep focusing on the upper split serif and the slight rotation. However, the red flag is the “shelf-like” appearance of the doubling on the bar on the “D”. No matter how objective I try to be, I obviously have biases and seek consensual peer validation. It is my intention to have the piece attributed if it passes this “sniff” test. I posted the original photo in my response to @rmpsrpms. Below are two RAW Out-Takes with different lighting.
Your last photo seems to show machine doubling.
My dumb guess would be you have one of the 2 known RPM's with machine doubling.
@ifthevamzarockin
WOW! Great answer. You covered all the bases with just one short sentence.
Are you a retired diplomat?
Seriously, now you may understand my ambivalence. To be honest, knowing the truth is more important than my guessing right. Thanks for your input.
With no other MD evident? On the MM alone seems odd.
There are several series that it's common to see doubling only on the mint mark.
If the mint mark is punched too deep or deeper than the rest of the devises it will only show on the mint mark.
@gonzer
You are correct. There is no other evidence of MDD on any other devices. As mentioned above, I have been fooled by this isolated MDD RPM appearance in the past. How this happens is well above my pay grade, but I humbly suspect that, during the ejection process, the coin pivots slightly on the MM. As @ifthevamzarockin stated, the punch of the MM is the deepest single relief point on the reverse working die. This combined with the hundreds of variables that interact during the actual strike can cause the coin to “stick” for a fraction of a second during the ejection process. As the press mechanisms release the coin, the stuck coin pivots slightly on the raised MM as it is freeing from the working die. This pivot is just a fraction of a millimeter but, as the magnification illustrates, it is enough slide to scrape a visible “shelf” on to the MM in the direction of the pivot. The problem I always have with this scenario is, what caused the apparent split upper serif? The shelf occurs well below the split.
I am sure that my explanation will make the experts cringe and I will get my head handed to me on a platter. However, I am willing to take the hit to be enlightened. (Please be gentle…)
"what caused the apparent split upper serif?"
It is a true RPM that is why there is a split in the upper serif.
You just have machine doubling to go along with it.
@Intueor Does your coin have this die scratch?
Almost. When the mint mark is punched into the die, it "splashes" the metal a little, leaving the margin just a little higher relief on the die. This will be the first part of the die to come into contact with the coin, offering the chance to leave machine doubling on the mint mark.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
@messydesk "When the mint mark is punched into the die, it "splashes" the metal a little"
So the deeper it's punched the more it "splashes"...... correct?
Right. The raised margin may or may not get polished out. The mint mark will not be deeper than the devices, though. The devices don't splash because they're on a hub rather than a punch.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
No, as you know, that imaged marker is unique to the 1951-D/D WRPM-002. I have attributed examples of both the WRPM-001 & 002 in my collection so I can reference them. Both the 1951-D/D WRPM-001 and 002 are 1949 Master Hub Franklin Reverse Die Variety or RDV-001a. The piece we are discussing is a 1951-D RDV-001b or re-engraved 1950 reverse Master Hub. Hence my interest.
Based on the exchange between you and @messydesk, I now have a reasonable grasp of what causes the MDD of a MM. However, your suggestion that this MM may be a chimera of both a MDD and an RPM is a conundrum. It has been my experience that any attribution expert is, rightfully so, very reluctant to place their professional reputation on the line for this type of hybrid PMD/RPM variety. There is no collectability in machine doubling and little trust in a “shady” variety. Thus, regardless of true pedigree, this coin is not collectable as a MM variety. However the piece still has significant desirability because it is a rare RDV-001b 1951-D Franklin.
Oh well! IMO this coin failed the “sniff test”. Thank you all for your valuable input and I did come away from this post with some new knowledge.
Hmm, I don't see any evidence of significant MDD, but very clear evidence of a D/D/D. MDD causes a reduction in the size of the feature. In this case all I see is a larger feature, with offset / rotation / notching on the two secondaries.
http://macrocoins.com
@rmpsrpms
Your prospective is very interesting. As I said above, I do think this coin is a RPM. The main distraction is what seems to be the MDD artifact. Below is a image of a 1951-D RDV-001b from a different die with a normal “D”. Note the “splayed” bar on the MM is almost identical to my piece. In fact this distorted vertical bar in the “D” is in the punch and is characteristic of the “D” MM punch used by the Philadelphia die room in 1951 and beyond. This “normal” MM may assist you in further assessing your observation.
In addition, I to have observed the phenomenon that machine doubling causes a reduction in the size of the MM device. Coincidentally it was while I was researching this coin that I saw this phenomenon on another 1951-D RDV-001b in my collection. The image is below and has been cropped to show how the machine doubling is also on other devices. The reduction in size of the MM is clearly visible. Except for the MM on the piece that is the subject of this post, there is no other evidence of doubling on the coin and, as you pointed out, no reduction in size of the MM.
The idea that only the MM can show doubling is new to me. I still have not had enough time to process the nuances of this type of variable. Most of my observations of MDD have always been with a shift of all or some of the devices. The sticking and rotational release with the pivot point of the MM is a lot to process. However, thank you for the insightful input and resurrecting the “sniff” test.