1983 D CENT, RPM? UNLISTED?
Ringgy
Posts: 57 ✭✭
Hi everyone, not sure if I ever shown this coin for review, but I'm curious what the experts might think
0
Ringgy
Posts: 57 ✭✭
Comments
Very clear machine doubling. Not an RPM.
You posted the same coin over a year ago:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1090552/1983-d-cent-unlisted-rpm-and-machine-doubling-or-just-machine-doubling#latest
No point in looking for any more RPMs or doubled dies until you learn what machine doubling is and how to recognize it.
Nice close up pic but it's just MD. Worth a cent.
Machine doubling, value - one cent 👌
Maybe the third time will be the charm.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Ebay, a magnifying glass, and the Cherry Pickers Guide are your friends...
The hard work is done for us.
Use the guide to look for known varieties via pick up points
This approach is a YUGE waste of time.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
I see the zinc pulled away and I see the machine doubling on the date and mint mark. What caused the two levels on the vertical part of the Mint mark that show no shift and the thin line of raised medal under the mint mark? Please don't think I am trolling the experts, I'm just asking about what I see.
I just saw his earlier post below this one. He was asked to post it again in a year so please go easy on us inexperienced members like @Ringgy and me. I see something I cannot explain also. Nevertheless, if this were an RPM, more should have been found since then.
PS There are two RPM's listed for this date already. Is it possible there may be more?
I believe that the post you referenced was posted (in jest) after this thread was started.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You are welcome to say that every mintmark in this time period was punched more than once (*) and therefore this has to be a repunched mintmark even though there is no sign of such.
(*) I don't know if that's true but you're welcome to say it.
However without some actual evidence, nobody is going to care.
None of the features you mention are seen on actual repunched mintmarks. What caused them is irrelevant.
I'm already taking heat for posting an opinion and being told I made an accusation in another discussion, so I'm done here.
Where you get the notion that I said EVERY mint mark during this period is punched twice is pulling something out of thin air to support your opinion. I guess I'm dealing with another misunderstanding of what I posted.
I believe I have seen repunched mint marks on Lincoln cents as this one before on Variety Vista.
On a field trip to the Philadelphia Mint, it was explained to me that very often the engraver would make a light tap to register where the mark would be located and then put the tool into the first recess and give the tool a strong blow to set the mark at the correct depth. That would explain why RPM's are relatively common.
>
>
Those two statements say the same thing, yet you object to the first and you're happy with the second.
Would you prefer to describe the result as a "retapped" rather than a "repunched" mintmark? You can use whatever terms you like. You shouldn't be surprised if other people don't know what you're talking about.
The coin above might indeed be struck from a die with a repunched (or retapped) mintmark. The point is that there's no evidence on the coin that that happened.
Indeed, more than half of the repunched mintmarks were produced in Denver and feature a D mintmark as this one.
A specific example (with pictures to compare and contrast) would go a long way to moving this discussion forward.
Serious question: Why do you care? You should collect whatever you like. The opinions of other people only matter when you try to sell something to other people. At that point, they're going to pay for what they like, not for what you tell them they should like.
I disagree and find that communicating on forms is very difficult as others like to post what they think I said and not what I said.
The OP's coin is unusual to me. Rather than blow it off, I wished to get an explanation of what I see aside from "pull away" copper plating and strike doubling. That's why it matters. Learning something from the experts is why I care.
PS The opinions of other people who know more than I do about a subject matter to me. Would you like to take a guess about the cause of what I see on the vertical upright of the mint mark? Furthermore, you may be on to something. Many overdate coins only show traces of the other figures on the top surface of the stronger numeral and not into the field. I'll bet that is the case with this coin (making it an unusual RPM) IF they were still putting the mintmarks on the dies by hand in 1983. Does anyone here know when the engravers stopped punching the mint marks?
@CaptHenway
@ J.P. Martin
@Ringgy
Send your coin to Ken Potter at Coin World. I think anyone working at PCGS would have seen it already on this forum. Mr. Potter identified an error for me once. Let us know what he says. Until you do that, your coin will be considered to be nothing special by other experts here.
@4Redisin I did not know the answer so I asked James Wiles and he gave me this link, which should answer your question.
http://varietyvista.com/Watershead Dates.htm
BTW, your coin shows machine doubling.
Thanks for posting and the research. On of my teachers told us that a truly educated person may not know the answer to a question; but they sure know how to find the answer. WOW! Wonderful info.
BTW, the coin is not mine and pull-away plating and strike doubling are easily seen. I wish to know what caused the bi-level surface on the upright. That is not a normal "D".
You saw and understood these issues but didn't feel it helpful to mention that? 🙄
I wonder how many people who were willing to try to help opened the thread and immediately saw some of the obvious things that most new posters incorrectly think is an error.