1979 S Proof - Type 1 vs Type 2 Mint Marks and Type II vs Type II varieties
Russellhome
Posts: 294
I've had a couple of 1979 Type II proof sets since I got them from the mint in 1979. Occationally, you can pick up a steal on ebay for a Type II set -- so I have aquired a few more in recent months. I also have an example of a complete set of Type 1 proof coins for comparison. I recently bought a second hand computer microscope that does good close-ups - and I decided to verify that some 1979 S Type II singles I am selling are in fact Type II coins. I compared mint marks from several sets of both types and was surprised to find out how much of a difference there can be in the look of the mint marks, even within the same type.
So I did a little chart of the mint marks from 3 different sets, showing 2 examples of Type II mint marks, as well as a Type I for comparison. The Type II cent, half, and dollar mint marks are pretty much identical, but the nickel, dime, and quarter Type II mint marks look very different. I read Ken Potters article on the 1979 Type I vs. Type 2, and he indicates that this is normal - caused by the strength of the mintmark punch and how they polished the dies afterward. But he only shows one example of each type. For reference, here is a link to KP's article on the subject.
Based on what I see in these photos, it seems to me that the Type IIs should be broken up into at least two categories: 1) having clear and polished fields within the loops of the S (like one of the nickel and quarter examples below) and 2) the rest -- having a type II style mint mark, but having a full or partially filled in fields on the S. Considering how minor some of the RPM varieties are, you'd think that a sharp, clear, full-field type II would be valued higher than the chunky, semi-filled version of the Type II mint mark. IMO.
Again, I was surprised how different some of these mint marks look at high magnification. I am pretty sure the center and left photos for each denomination are Type IIs - they all have the circular shape loops in the S, unlike the rounded rectangular look of the Type I (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, look at the center photo of the Dime mint marks -- was that a little oops at the mint or what? It is a pretty funky looking mint mark.
So I did a little chart of the mint marks from 3 different sets, showing 2 examples of Type II mint marks, as well as a Type I for comparison. The Type II cent, half, and dollar mint marks are pretty much identical, but the nickel, dime, and quarter Type II mint marks look very different. I read Ken Potters article on the 1979 Type I vs. Type 2, and he indicates that this is normal - caused by the strength of the mintmark punch and how they polished the dies afterward. But he only shows one example of each type. For reference, here is a link to KP's article on the subject.
Based on what I see in these photos, it seems to me that the Type IIs should be broken up into at least two categories: 1) having clear and polished fields within the loops of the S (like one of the nickel and quarter examples below) and 2) the rest -- having a type II style mint mark, but having a full or partially filled in fields on the S. Considering how minor some of the RPM varieties are, you'd think that a sharp, clear, full-field type II would be valued higher than the chunky, semi-filled version of the Type II mint mark. IMO.
Again, I was surprised how different some of these mint marks look at high magnification. I am pretty sure the center and left photos for each denomination are Type IIs - they all have the circular shape loops in the S, unlike the rounded rectangular look of the Type I (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, look at the center photo of the Dime mint marks -- was that a little oops at the mint or what? It is a pretty funky looking mint mark.
-----
KR
KR
0
Comments
Thanks for the post.
I wasnt aware there was a differences denomination wise...learn something new every day
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
<< <i>No clue if it is correct but very interesting.
Thanks for the post. >>
The one mint mark I'm not sure about is the middle photo for the nickel. It is so different from the Type II on the left, yet it still looks nothing like the Type I. I'm also curious as to how the super-wide mint mark on the Dime (center photo) occured.
KR