What's the deal with the 1956 D/S over mint mark Lincoln Cent? Why delisted?
tincup
Posts: 5,186 ✭✭✭✭✭
Another one of my odds and ends. Have this certified 1956 D/S variety... but the only info I can find on it is that CONECA has delisted it. Kind of puzzling to me... as it seems there really is something there. They call is 'die damage'? So what's the real story behind it... some personal disagreements and professional conflicts? Anyone still try to get this into their collections? Or perhaps it is now an orphan type of coin like the 1914/13 buffalo nickel I suppose. Any comments or history on this?
----- kj
0
Comments
Not sure why CONECA delisted it. Notice it is my Avatar. For sure the MM is there, it is the correct size, etc. James Wiles notes that "if" it's legit, the MM would need to have been punched inverted. to line up with the secondary MM remnants. Having this be a D/Inverted S is not a lot less likely than D/S IMO. Many folks believe it's a legit OMM, and there were many rumors that it was supposed to be in CPG 6th edition. In fact one prominent Die Variety specialist who was on the "inside" of CPG 6th actually listed these as such on his website, but in the end they did not make it into the CPG.
http://macrocoins.com
Thanks for the input. My thoughts were that sure looks like it is there. The photos I posted is the coin I have. There are a lot of other varieties that seem to be based on less than what shows on the 56 D/S. Was just very curious on why... this is not getting recognition or ignored... and once recognized but now delisted. Makes no sense to me but it is what it is. does not seem to be very common either.
I don't see it as a Misplaced mint mark.
I believe the main line of reasoning is because the S mint mark was not even used that year (or any year thereafter until '68). That and the fact that it is so far away from where it would be normally.
That is what they call pareidolia.
I did consider the fact that 'S' mint marks were not used that year (production was suspended at San Francisco) . But that itself does not necessarily rule out the the possible use of an 'S' punch. I doubt that the 'S' mint punches were destroyed after the previous year, and were likely still around. After all, it likely was not known how long the 'S' mint mark would be retired. And... if I recall... mint marks were added to the dies in Philadelphia, and the dies were then shipped to the branch mints? If so, it is certainly feasible that an 'S' punch could have been used.
As to the distance the mark is from the regular location... other 'acceptable' varieties exist that are some distance from the regular location. One that immediately comes to mind is the 1957-D Washington Quarter with an extra 'D' punched into the wreath olive branch area. So... it happens.
Another one of the arguments is 'the mint mark would have to be upside down'. Is that so unlikely also? How many more examples of upside down 'S' mint marks are there? Quite a few... and more being discovered all the time!
Another one of the explanations is ' it is die damage '. Ok, if so, why delist it? Why not keep it listed and just label as controversial and not not fully decided? After all, aren't there many other varieties that could be considered ' die damage '? Speared Eagles, and on and on?
I have no axe to grind on this issue. Was just going through some items from long ago... ...and this one just surprised me as I just never noticed or heard of the changed status. Numismatics is a wide field, and continues to evolve. Just wondered if there was more to the story... !