Looking for a second opinion , 1953 dime possible s/d , but no known examples and d is undersized ,
doctor011
Posts: 1 ✭✭
1
doctor011
Posts: 1 ✭✭
Comments
The D is for Damage.
As in, is it a die chip type of damage?
No, the whole coin appears to be a cornucopia of PMD.
Yes, upon further review, it's awfully 'flakey'.
Acid? From a novice of PMD...
Correct, in addition to PMD, the coin is a level 3 biohazard.
Contact marks on the S like those visible in the photo can push the metal down like that.
You are right that the perceived rectangle is too small for a D mint mark punch.
The apparent surface texture of the coin looks to be due to a lower resolution camera being used.
It's a pretty good photo in terms of showing the coin features.
I see what looks like a D underneath the S with shadows over parts. There were not any dime D's that small. I do not know of any D mintmarks used that small, so do not where it could have came from.
Coulda got nuked in Iran ya know?
Charles III Album
Charles III Portrait Set
Charles IV Album
Charles IV Portrait Set
Spanish Colonial Pillar Set
I also believe it is a whack or two on the coin that helped deform the S-mint mark into something that might trick the eyes into seeing a D partially underneath.
The apparent D, which again I believe is just damage, is also far too small and at the wrong angle for a mint mark.
I don’t think the coin is overly damaged. Instead, I think it is a typically circulated piece and the photograph has poor resolution and is grainy.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
For that to be a D under the S, it would have to be on the striking die in which case there
would have probably been hundreds of thousands minted. If this was the case, it would surely
have been discovered by now. It is just some form of damage, doesn’t really matter what.
First post signed up Sep 18, 2011
Join Date
11:07 am
Welcome
I keep telling you coin photography takes a while to get right!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson