1980 D/S dual mintmark variety bites the dust

errormaven

As revealed in a recently posted article on the CONECA website (www.conecaonline.org), the purported 1980 D/S dual mintmark variety (DMM #1) has been consigned to the dustbin of history. What appears to be a faint S-mintmark is simply die damage. An early die state example emphatically demonstrates this.

Rampage

Is that for the SBA dollar?

errormaven

Sorry. It's a cent.

pharmer

a) thanks for the info, Mike

b) bout darn time

Did you do the ultimate analysis that resulted in the kabosh?

coppercoins

Actually the heads that came together to make the final analysis that this was not a die variety were a pretty impressive list...James Wiles, Ken Potter, John Wexler, Billy Crawford, Bill Fivaz, Jose Cortez, and myself. For once in a decade everybody agreed and everybody was very nice about agreeing. Good and bad, we all agreed, but we cannot agree on anything else until 2010.

crispy

<< <i>As revealed in a recently posted article on the CONECA website (www.conecaonline.org), the purported 1980 D/S dual mintmark variety (DMM #1) has been consigned to the dustbin of history. What appears to be a faint S-mintmark is simply die damage. An early die state example emphatically demonstrates this. >>





Have any been slabbed as the former?

pharmer

Yes, and it's even a fs variety. Until the new edition of volume 1, anyway.

errormaven

I don't mind having been left out of the loop on this one. There was a sufficient brain trust working on the issue.

There are other dubious misplaced mintmarks that are far less convincing-looking than the 1980-D/S "variety". One that comes to mind is a 1959-D cent that allegedly shows the left side of a second D-mintmark peeking out around the tail of the last digit. Since there is die damage between the date and the edge, I would think that the purported mintmark is also die damage.

pharmer

I once bought one of those, and I agree. Just happens to have a coincidental appearance. Someday I hope to see in hand the two (?) 1956d/s' as the images don't convince me that they are omm's. What do you guys who've examined them think?

kranky

This variety (former variety, I guess) is near and dear to me since I was certain I found one a couple years ago while going through a huge pile of Lincolns that were put away in the early 1980's. Sent it to Coppercoins and he pointed out mine didn't even match the photos of what they thought (at that time) was the D & S. So that was a disappointment but now I think I'm glad it wasn't one - I'd be more disappointed now!

Coxe

Is it any less collectible or valuable as a consequence? Still represents a different die or die state which may be of a certain degree of rarity. Not in the same league, I suppose, as a 22-D no D. I guess, though, there won't be an album hole or a registry slot for it.

errormaven

There were a bunch of alleged 1980 D/S dual mintmark varieties proposed in the 1980's. The one that was just exposed is #1. I know there was a #2 and a #3. Maybe more than that. Those pretenders didn't last very long once subjected to scrutiny. They were just examples of die damage that didn't closely resemble a mintmark.

JadeRareCoin

This is a special post to me, since one of my fondest memories as a YN was researching this variety. I was 12 years old when the story broke on this "variety". As a kid with limited funds, this was a sure way to add value to my collection. As a result I spent many hours pouring through 80-D rolls. At one time I thought that I had 20+. In reality, it was just a kid's imagination at work. I still have the ones that I "cherrypicked", LOL. As a kid I remember writing a "research paper" on the 80-D/S cents, complete with hand drawn illustrations. I thought that there were 3 different varieties, since my imagination found the "S" in different locations. I have that paper laying around in my coin stuff. Maybe I will dig it up.

Anyway, thanks for the update. I think about that variety everytime I get an 80-D in change. Now I can put that whole issue to rest once and for all!

Fountainhead

Interesting. Is this a genuine D/S mintmark?

emzee

On a related subject , in searching BU Jefferson rolls years ago I came across D-mint coins of the 1980-1985 era which have cameo PL reverse. I have seen these for several of these dates, mostly 1980. I assumed this indicated used proof dies from the SF mint were being shipped to Denver for further use in striking BU coins ( similar to what was done in the late 1950's when used proof 25c dies were used to strike BU 25c). I always assumed this could not be done with the corresponding proof obverse dies because of the 's' mint mark. If s/d BU coins exist for this era, it is likely that the mint was reusing proof obverse dies in striking BU coins.

I will post some pics if I can locate the coins.

Michael

emzee

Pics below are from 2 different examples of 1980D 5c with cameo PL reverse - struck from discarded proof dies??




Both came from mint sets but I have seen numerous similar examples from BU 1980-D rolls and also as I recall from 1983-D and 1984-D BU rolls.

Michael

fc

good post. it seems progress is being made in some areas
of numismatics.

ar18

sure am glad I lost the bid on the MS-66 1980 D/S NGC on fleabay last night