Hey clad, I stand corrected on those pics earlier in the thread. They do show this effect.
I checked 20 of my 96 mint sets and found 3 showing this variety. I did not see the die bump you mention, but did see some fine die polish lines on all 3 of my examples. There are a cluster of 3 or 4 fairly parallel lines running S-SW from the right leg of A2 down to the roof. Take a look to see if you see this on your examples as this might be a good marker.
<< <i>Hey clad, I stand corrected on those pics earlier in the thread. They do show this effect.
I checked 20 of my 96 mint sets and found 3 showing this variety. I did not see the die bump you mention, but did see some fine die polish lines on all 3 of my examples. There are a cluster of 3 or 4 fairly parallel lines running S-SW from the right leg of A2 down to the roof. Take a look to see if you see this on your examples as this might be a good marker.
>>
It's probably a better marker than mine. Mine does require a lot of magnification. The parallel lines don't appear quite the same on each example. Most dies have an obvious flaw or two but both obverse and reverse dies are near perfect. I'll keep looking since it's very unlikely there was more than a single die.
<< <i>I have 2 sets. One is the far S the other is not. >>
Congratulations.
I'm a little disappointed more haven't been found and I wonder if my sample might have somehow been contaminated. There are lots of processes that can invisibly af- fect a sample.
I went through the rejects to double check them before taking them to the bank and talked to the guy who assembled the rolls. There doesn't seem any obvious way the sample would have been contaminated but it's always possible that there was a batch of five of them at one time or something. It appears from the few reports that this one is going to be on the tough side. After adding all the numbers including my sets the in- cidence works out to about 2 3/4 % or a few less than 30,000 surviving in sets. Ironically these sets have probably suffered some of their heaviest attrition just in the last few years. Since these are PL Gems the attrition should be a little lighter for them.
Has anyone struck out with a more substantial number of sets?
I just wanted to say I just joined the forum, but I have been monitoring it for awhile. I looked at about 260 1996 d cents that I have and I found 5 of the wide S amoung them. I hope that helps on number survey. John
<< <i>I just wanted to say I just joined the forum, but I have been monitoring it for awhile. I looked at about 260 1996 d cents that I have and I found 5 of the wide S amoung them. I hope that helps on number survey. >>
Welcome aboard.
Thanks for the post and the clarification.
Wow! This is only 2% and brings the average down a little. I did find a few of these together which suggests they might have been together in a shipment and then contaminated my sample a little.
If these don't show up in circulation and/ or BU rolls they are going to be very very tough. People see the huge mintages of the mint sets but they don't see that most mint sets have already been destroyed and most of the surviving mint sets aren't available for sale. These sets are in garages and basements and the owner hardly remembers he has them. Owners are often not very active collectors and some are not very sophisticated collectors. There is a steady stream of sets from es- tate sales and the like and this is it. If only 50,000 1996 mint sets come on the market this year then the only supply might be the 1250 coins in them and this presupposes that every one of these is checked. In the real world dealers and collectors often ignore modern coins.
If only some 25,000 survive it's still goiing to be a "rare" type coin even if they're all found toiday!
Those were cents I bought from mint sets still in cellophane. I still have 4-5 more rolls plus 79 mint sets to look at when I get time to locate which box I am keeping them in. I'll report results when I can. I think they will be rarer than 1970s small date.
I happened to remember that I had a tube of 1996d cents not in cellophane that I was thinking about getting a couple certified. There was 49 coins in the tube and I found 5 with the "far S". Here is one of them. Camera is not the best for this but I did what I could.
<< <i>I happened to remember that I had a tube of 1996d cents not in cellophane that I was thinking about getting a couple certified. There was 49 coins in the tube and I found 5 with the "far S". Here is one of them. Camera is not the best for this but I did what I could. >>
Cool. Congratulations.
Do you believe these coins in the roll originated in mint sets?
Are the "far S" PL?
Are they the same quality as the mint set coins?
The lowest grade I've found is MS-66 PL and the highest might make MS-69 PL. These are even nicer than the W dime.
I should add that several people including a couple experts have suggested that these might be filled die. So far as I know though none have seen one in hand. I can't rule out the possibility they are correct but in my experience these appear to be a good re- flection of the hub. There is a slight fading in the relief toward thje tops of the letters and some are not well formed on the top of each letter so it is possible I'm wrong.
I'm still awaiting the verdict when these are seen in hand.
These in the tube are all mint set coins. I checked a couple of business strike rolls and didn't find anything. All 5 all high grade coins. I would say min. of 67, but pretty sure they are 68-69. Business strike coins seemed to be struck that "S" s are bolder. The best coin I have has it shown clear. I'm trying to upload a pic but it isn't doing it for some reason.
Intersting find. In my opinion, one die used for mint sets was "lapped" in such a way that it caused the letters at the top to appear thinner. The effect is sort of like if the sea level rose 100 feet, the outline of Florida would look smaller. If the die is lapped, metal is removed from the highest areas on the die (which is the fields). And so on the coins struck from that die, the fields are a bit higher, and the letters appear to be thinner and shallower.
This is similar to the "peg leg" "R" Eisenhower Dollars. The fields just above the head were lapped, which resulted in the loss of the serif on the "R" of LIBERTY.
Letters and other details near the edge of a die face are especially vulnerable to lapping/grinding/sanding/polishing. Dies can be lapped for a variety of reasons, but often it is to remove clash marks or other shallow disturbances in a die face.
So I would consider this to be a minor die variety, not a hub variety.
I searched through another 8 sets today at another B&M shop, found one.
Thus far, I seem to be running about 10% of sets I find had this anomaly.
I also agree with DCarr's description of how this was created, unless someone else comes up with a more likely reason. His explanation pretty much explains what I posted in my first (or second) post.
Although I'd love for these to turn into a highly desirable variety, I will just wait for the experts to sort it out.
I have looked through more 1996d cents from mint sets. My total tally to this point is: 469 coins looked at and 15 "far S" coins. That is about 3.2% of this amount. Based on these figures, there would be about 46,000 to 47000. I haven't looked at a whole lot of 1995d and 1997d cents from mint sets, but so far I found none amount those. I didn't bother with the P cents because I figure that is done at different mint.
I have read through this thread and have found it quite interesting, however, I do not believe these coins to be 'varieties' at all. I believe the "thinned" letter versions you are finding are due to a slightly incompletely hubbed die...and that's all. There is no difference in the shape or size of the lettering or other devices closer to the center of the design, and nothing but the outer area of the design appears to be anything but normal. I have seen this on other dates from other eras, and every time it has turned out to either be an overpolished die (which i do not believe is the case in this instance) or an incompletely hubbed die, which I do believe is the case here.
<< <i>I have read through this thread and have found it quite interesting, however, I do not believe these coins to be 'varieties' at all. I believe the "thinned" letter versions you are finding are due to a slightly incompletely hubbed die...and that's all. There is no difference in the shape or size of the lettering or other devices closer to the center of the design, and nothing but the outer area of the design appears to be anything but normal. I have seen this on other dates from other eras, and every time it has turned out to either be an overpolished die (which i do not believe is the case in this instance) or an incompletely hubbed die, which I do believe is the case here. >>
This was my first guess as well.
I do believe though that this one might "catch on" simply because it is so very dramatic and because it is so attractive. Now days most dies are "single squeeze" so is it possible this didn't get full pressure on one squeeze or do you believe it's more likely that it missed a step (assuming of course that you're right)?
I keep staring at this thing under various lighting and magnification and can't convince myself of anything. I can't even rule out any of the possibilities since it looks like any that have been suggested could apply. It also looks as though it could be a different type from a different hub. It's rather strange and it sticks out like a gold nugget in a can of peas.
I'm guessing you're right. This is one that probably needs to be seen in hand.
<< <i>I have read through this thread and have found it quite interesting, however, I do not believe these coins to be 'varieties' at all. I believe the "thinned" letter versions you are finding are due to a slightly incompletely hubbed die...and that's all. There is no difference in the shape or size of the lettering or other devices closer to the center of the design, and nothing but the outer area of the design appears to be anything but normal. I have seen this on other dates from other eras, and every time it has turned out to either be an overpolished die (which i do not believe is the case in this instance) or an incompletely hubbed die, which I do believe is the case here. >>
I clicked on your artwork link at the bottom of your message. Very impressive! Those pictures are so good they don't look like drawings at all. They look like photographs to me.
<< <i>I have looked through more 1996d cents from mint sets. My total tally to this point is: 469 coins looked at and 15 "far S" coins. That is about 3.2% of this amount. Based on these figures, there would be about 46,000 to 47000. I haven't looked at a whole lot of 1995d and 1997d cents from mint sets, but so far I found none amount those. I didn't bother with the P cents because I figure that is done at different mint. >>
Now that you mention it I think I'll check the Philly's.
Sample size is getting large enough that 2.8% to 3.4% should include the actual number.
<< <i>I have read through this thread and have found it quite interesting, however, I do not believe these coins to be 'varieties' at all. I believe the "thinned" letter versions you are finding are due to a slightly incompletely hubbed die...and that's all. There is no difference in the shape or size of the lettering or other devices closer to the center of the design, and nothing but the outer area of the design appears to be anything but normal. I have seen this on other dates from other eras, and every time it has turned out to either be an overpolished die (which i do not believe is the case in this instance) or an incompletely hubbed die, which I do believe is the case here. >>
This was my first guess as well.
I do believe though that this one might "catch on" simply because it is so very dramatic and because it is so attractive. Now days most dies are "single squeeze" so is it possible this didn't get full pressure on one squeeze or do you believe it's more likely that it missed a step (assuming of course that you're right)?
I keep staring at this thing under various lighting and magnification and can't convince myself of anything. I can't even rule out any of the possibilities since it looks like any that have been suggested could apply. It also looks as though it could be a different type from a different hub. It's rather strange and it sticks out like a gold nugget in a can of peas.
I'm guessing you're right. This is one that probably needs to be seen in hand. >>
...just to make sure this post isn't lost...
Let me add that it looks as though the bottom of the "S" might be too far away from the rim to suit the lapping, die fill, die wear, or hubbing error theories. Die wear is one possibility that I'd nearly rule out because of the PL fields.
I did look at a number of 1996 P cents from mint sets and did not see anything close to a "far S". I did however come across this coin the had a squiggly line in the coin itself and goes through the A & M of America. I don't know what you call that. I can't seem to get a pic to go to attachment box to show on thread.
<< <i>I did look at a number of 1996 P cents from mint sets and did not see anything close to a "far S". I did however come across this coin the had a squiggly line in the coin itself and goes through the A & M of America. I don't know what you call that. I can't seem to get a pic to go to attachment box to show on thread. >>
I just right clicked and then put it in the image box. There's a testing forum to experiment with and numerous threads on posting pictures. Be sure to check us coin forum box if you use advanced search.
I didn't see the one you describe but there seem two different ever so slightly different. It's not very interesting.
I think I've narrowed by opinion down to two possibilities, a distinct hub, or poor hubbing. There's no evidence for die wear and die filling doesn't appear right. Lapping seems to be out because the top of the "R" in "AMERICA" is lower than the entire top of the "R" on a typical example.
I guess I've ended up about where I started.
I'm surprised expert opinion is taking so long. Surely someone has an example by now!
I just copy and pasted the address above in a little dialog box that opens when you click on the 4th botton over on the reply screen (looks like a little picture).
Here is picture of coin I mentioned. The area curves around by AM in America and actually goes through the A & M. It's not a scratch. It almost looks like wet surface where a hair was lying in it and then pulled out before it was dry
<< <i>I have around 30-40 of these '96 mint sets... will have to check them out to see if I can figure out what y'all are talking about >>
Best of luck.
I hope you you'll have at least one.
I suspect a lot of people are striking out and this is why more haven't been reported. >>
Finally had a chance to look through my 1996 Mint Sets... could only find 21 of them. Either I sold some and forgot, or I still have some more in another box around here somewhere
Anyways, 20 of my sets had the "normal S" and only 1 set had the cent with the "far S" variety. The "far S" was definitely a PL coin, but I was surprised to see several of the regular S cents were also quite PL... one of them very PL, even more so than the one with the "far S"
I bought these sets in different places at different times, would just pick one up every now and then and whenever I saw one going at or below greysheet prices so I think I have a pretty decent sampling.
At least I have one of them... very easy to spot the difference in hand after looking through a bunch of them.
At least I have one of them... very easy to spot the difference in hand after looking through a bunch of them.
>>
Way cool.
I think everyone's going to need one of these and we can add your sample to the others. (~3% so far)
A lot of '96-D's in mint sets are at least vaguely PL. The texture of the PL surfaces on the "far-S" is distinct and deeper than any of the others but only on the obverse. The reverse is typical and only slightly more pronounced than the average PL reverse.
<< <i>Has anyone heard anything from the experts about this "far S" variety. Also, anyone have any ideas on the squiggly line on the 1996 p coin.
>>
The squiggly line is apparently a strike through. It's probably the result of a thread getting between the die and planchet as it was stuck. If you look at higher magnification you can probably convince yourself of this.
The experts are surprisingly mute so far. They possibly just wrote it off and aren't even looking for one to determine the cause.
I'm convinced it is either a new type or a hubbing issue but it's not as simple as either a weak hubbing or lapping because the top of the "R" lies outside the position on the regular coin.
This one has me so stumped I'm leaning toward it being a distinct type.
Today I found 33 of my 77 1996 mint sets and I found no "far S" in those 33 sets. The previous numbers were from cents from mint sets, not the whole set.
It's coming up 3.7% right now. Somehow this seems a little high from my sample but I've only thrown out a few of the small samples since they'll be overrepresented in hits.
They seems to be running about 10% of the highest grade coins so certified examples are probably rich in the variety.
Comments
I stand corrected on those pics earlier in the thread. They do show this effect.
I checked 20 of my 96 mint sets and found 3 showing this variety.
I did not see the die bump you mention, but did see some fine die polish lines on all 3 of my examples.
There are a cluster of 3 or 4 fairly parallel lines running S-SW from the right leg of A2 down to the roof.
Take a look to see if you see this on your examples as this might be a good marker.
edited for spelling.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>Hey clad,
I stand corrected on those pics earlier in the thread. They do show this effect.
I checked 20 of my 96 mint sets and found 3 showing this variety.
I did not see the die bump you mention, but did see some fine die polish lines on all 3 of my examples.
There are a cluster of 3 or 4 fairly parallel lines running S-SW from the right leg of A2 down to the roof.
Take a look to see if you see this on your examples as this might be a good marker.
>>
It's probably a better marker than mine. Mine does require a lot of magnification. The parallel
lines don't appear quite the same on each example. Most dies have an obvious flaw or two but
both obverse and reverse dies are near perfect. I'll keep looking since it's very unlikely there
was more than a single die.
<< <i>I have around 30-40 of these '96 mint sets... will have to check them out to see if I can figure out what y'all are talking about
Best of luck.
I hope you you'll have at least one.
I suspect a lot of people are striking out and this is why more haven't been reported.
I haven't picked up a GS in about a year so just curious....
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>What's the current greysheet on these sets?
I haven't picked up a GS in about a year so just curious.... >>
11-29-13 sheet shows bid at $16.50
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
I'll try for some better images when I get used to the blasted camera.
<< <i>I thought posting pictures here was supposed to be tough!
>>
It's a piece of cake clad.
Now if my darn kids would ever return my camera I could add to this thread.
My Washington Type B/C Set
<< <i>I have 2 sets. One is the far S the other is not. >>
Congratulations.
I'm a little disappointed more haven't been found and I wonder if my sample might
have somehow been contaminated. There are lots of processes that can invisibly af-
fect a sample.
I went through the rejects to double check them before taking them to the bank and
talked to the guy who assembled the rolls. There doesn't seem any obvious way the
sample would have been contaminated but it's always possible that there was a batch
of five of them at one time or something. It appears from the few reports that this one
is going to be on the tough side. After adding all the numbers including my sets the in-
cidence works out to about 2 3/4 % or a few less than 30,000 surviving in sets. Ironically
these sets have probably suffered some of their heaviest attrition just in the last few
years. Since these are PL Gems the attrition should be a little lighter for them.
Has anyone struck out with a more substantial number of sets?
ttt
John
<< <i>I just wanted to say I just joined the forum, but I have been monitoring it for awhile. I looked at about 260 1996 d cents that I have and I found 5 of the wide S amoung them. I hope that helps on number survey.
>>
Welcome aboard.
Thanks for the post and the clarification.
Wow! This is only 2% and brings the average down a little. I did find a few of these together
which suggests they might have been together in a shipment and then contaminated my sample
a little.
If these don't show up in circulation and/ or BU rolls they are going to be very very tough. People
see the huge mintages of the mint sets but they don't see that most mint sets have already been
destroyed and most of the surviving mint sets aren't available for sale. These sets are in garages
and basements and the owner hardly remembers he has them. Owners are often not very active
collectors and some are not very sophisticated collectors. There is a steady stream of sets from es-
tate sales and the like and this is it. If only 50,000 1996 mint sets come on the market this year
then the only supply might be the 1250 coins in them and this presupposes that every one of these
is checked. In the real world dealers and collectors often ignore modern coins.
If only some 25,000 survive it's still goiing to be a "rare" type coin even if they're all found toiday!
<< <i>I happened to remember that I had a tube of 1996d cents not in cellophane that I was thinking about getting a couple certified. There was 49 coins in the tube and I found 5 with the "far S". Here is one of them. Camera is not the best for this but I did what I could. >>
Cool. Congratulations.
Do you believe these coins in the roll originated in mint sets?
Are the "far S" PL?
Are they the same quality as the mint set coins?
The lowest grade I've found is MS-66 PL and the highest might make MS-69 PL. These are even nicer than the W dime.
might be filled die. So far as I know though none have seen one in hand. I can't rule
out the possibility they are correct but in my experience these appear to be a good re-
flection of the hub. There is a slight fading in the relief toward thje tops of the letters
and some are not well formed on the top of each letter so it is possible I'm wrong.
I'm still awaiting the verdict when these are seen in hand.
This could be huge for the hobby.
In my opinion, one die used for mint sets was "lapped" in such a way that it caused the letters at the top to appear thinner.
The effect is sort of like if the sea level rose 100 feet, the outline of Florida would look smaller. If the die is lapped, metal is
removed from the highest areas on the die (which is the fields). And so on the coins struck from that die, the fields are a bit
higher, and the letters appear to be thinner and shallower.
This is similar to the "peg leg" "R" Eisenhower Dollars. The fields just above the head were lapped, which resulted in the
loss of the serif on the "R" of LIBERTY.
Letters and other details near the edge of a die face are especially vulnerable to lapping/grinding/sanding/polishing.
Dies can be lapped for a variety of reasons, but often it is to remove clash marks or other shallow disturbances in
a die face.
So I would consider this to be a minor die variety, not a hub variety.
<< <i>I go away for awhile and cladking is posting pictures?
This could be huge for the hobby. >>
It might be if I could get a good close-up.
<< <i>Has anyone posted this over at Lincoln cent and had those cent hounds take a look ? >>
It's at Lincoln Cent Resource but no definitive word yet.
Thus far, I seem to be running about 10% of sets I find had this anomaly.
I also agree with DCarr's description of how this was created, unless someone else comes up with a more likely reason. His explanation pretty much explains what I posted in my first (or second) post.
Although I'd love for these to turn into a highly desirable variety, I will just wait for the experts to sort it out.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
<< <i>I have read through this thread and have found it quite interesting, however, I do not believe these coins to be 'varieties' at all. I believe the "thinned" letter versions you are finding are due to a slightly incompletely hubbed die...and that's all. There is no difference in the shape or size of the lettering or other devices closer to the center of the design, and nothing but the outer area of the design appears to be anything but normal. I have seen this on other dates from other eras, and every time it has turned out to either be an overpolished die (which i do not believe is the case in this instance) or an incompletely hubbed die, which I do believe is the case here. >>
This was my first guess as well.
I do believe though that this one might "catch on" simply because it is so
very dramatic and because it is so attractive. Now days most dies are "single
squeeze" so is it possible this didn't get full pressure on one squeeze or do you
believe it's more likely that it missed a step (assuming of course that you're right)?
I keep staring at this thing under various lighting and magnification and can't convince
myself of anything. I can't even rule out any of the possibilities since it looks like any that
have been suggested could apply. It also looks as though it could be a different type from a
different hub. It's rather strange and it sticks out like a gold nugget in a can of peas.
I'm guessing you're right. This is one that probably needs to be seen in hand.
<< <i>I have read through this thread and have found it quite interesting, however, I do not believe these coins to be 'varieties' at all. I believe the "thinned" letter versions you are finding are due to a slightly incompletely hubbed die...and that's all. There is no difference in the shape or size of the lettering or other devices closer to the center of the design, and nothing but the outer area of the design appears to be anything but normal. I have seen this on other dates from other eras, and every time it has turned out to either be an overpolished die (which i do not believe is the case in this instance) or an incompletely hubbed die, which I do believe is the case here. >>
I clicked on your artwork link at the bottom of your message. Very impressive!
<< <i>I have looked through more 1996d cents from mint sets. My total tally to this point is: 469 coins looked at and 15 "far S" coins. That is about 3.2% of this amount. Based on these figures, there would be about 46,000 to 47000. I haven't looked at a whole lot of 1995d and 1997d cents from mint sets, but so far I found none amount those. I didn't bother with the P cents because I figure that is done at different mint. >>
Now that you mention it I think I'll check the Philly's.
Sample size is getting large enough that 2.8% to 3.4% should include the actual number.
I can't rule out that the die was lapped and it might explain the unusual PL texture of
the obverse or that it seems slightly lower relief.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have read through this thread and have found it quite interesting, however, I do not believe these coins to be 'varieties' at all. I believe the "thinned" letter versions you are finding are due to a slightly incompletely hubbed die...and that's all. There is no difference in the shape or size of the lettering or other devices closer to the center of the design, and nothing but the outer area of the design appears to be anything but normal. I have seen this on other dates from other eras, and every time it has turned out to either be an overpolished die (which i do not believe is the case in this instance) or an incompletely hubbed die, which I do believe is the case here. >>
This was my first guess as well.
I do believe though that this one might "catch on" simply because it is so
very dramatic and because it is so attractive. Now days most dies are "single
squeeze" so is it possible this didn't get full pressure on one squeeze or do you
believe it's more likely that it missed a step (assuming of course that you're right)?
I keep staring at this thing under various lighting and magnification and can't convince
myself of anything. I can't even rule out any of the possibilities since it looks like any that
have been suggested could apply. It also looks as though it could be a different type from a
different hub. It's rather strange and it sticks out like a gold nugget in a can of peas.
I'm guessing you're right. This is one that probably needs to be seen in hand. >>
...just to make sure this post isn't lost...
Let me add that it looks as though the bottom of the "S" might be too far away from the rim to suit the
lapping, die fill, die wear, or hubbing error theories. Die wear is one possibility that I'd nearly rule out
because of the PL fields.
<< <i>I did look at a number of 1996 P cents from mint sets and did not see anything close to a "far S". I did however come across this coin the had a squiggly line in the coin itself and goes through the A & M of America. I don't know what you call that. I can't seem to get a pic to go to attachment box to show on thread. >>
I just right clicked and then put it in the image box. There's a testing forum to experiment with
and numerous threads on posting pictures. Be sure to check us coin forum box if you use advanced search.
I didn't see the one you describe but there seem two different ever so slightly different. It's not very interesting.
I think I've narrowed by opinion down to two possibilities, a distinct hub, or poor hubbing. There's no evidence
for die wear and die filling doesn't appear right. Lapping seems to be out because the top of the "R" in "AMERICA"
is lower than the entire top of the "R" on a typical example.
I guess I've ended up about where I started.
I'm surprised expert opinion is taking so long. Surely someone has an example by now!
<< <i>http://forums.collectors.com/include/uploadbox/viewfile.cfm?files=1996(1)a.jpg >>
I just copy and pasted the address above in a little dialog box that opens when you click on the 4th botton over on the reply screen (looks like a little picture).
It looks like a strike through.
<< <i>Here is better pics of "far S" coin and normal strike.
Very good pictures.
I especially like this one.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have around 30-40 of these '96 mint sets... will have to check them out to see if I can figure out what y'all are talking about
Best of luck.
I hope you you'll have at least one.
I suspect a lot of people are striking out and this is why more haven't been reported. >>
Finally had a chance to look through my 1996 Mint Sets... could only find 21 of them. Either I sold some and forgot, or I still have some more in another box around here somewhere
Anyways, 20 of my sets had the "normal S" and only 1 set had the cent with the "far S" variety. The "far S" was definitely a PL coin, but I was surprised to see several of the regular S cents were also quite PL... one of them very PL, even more so than the one with the "far S"
I bought these sets in different places at different times, would just pick one up every now and then and whenever I saw one going at or below greysheet prices so I think I have a pretty decent sampling.
At least I have one of them... very easy to spot the difference in hand after looking through a bunch of them.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>
At least I have one of them... very easy to spot the difference in hand after looking through a bunch of them.
Way cool.
I think everyone's going to need one of these and we can add your sample to the others. (~3% so far)
A lot of '96-D's in mint sets are at least vaguely PL. The texture of the PL surfaces on the "far-S" is distinct
and deeper than any of the others but only on the obverse. The reverse is typical and only slightly more
pronounced than the average PL reverse.
John
<< <i>Has anyone heard anything from the experts about this "far S" variety. Also, anyone have any ideas on the squiggly line on the 1996 p coin.
>>
The squiggly line is apparently a strike through. It's probably the result of
a thread getting between the die and planchet as it was stuck. If you look
at higher magnification you can probably convince yourself of this.
The experts are surprisingly mute so far. They possibly just wrote it off and
aren't even looking for one to determine the cause.
I'm convinced it is either a new type or a hubbing issue but it's not as simple
as either a weak hubbing or lapping because the top of the "R" lies outside
the position on the regular coin.
This one has me so stumped I'm leaning toward it being a distinct type.
<< <i>Has anyone heard anything from the experts about this "far S" variety. Also, anyone have any ideas on the squiggly line on the 1996 p coin.
John >>
Hey John,
The coin looks like a strike thru. It shows as a good example.
Here is another to see as a comp to the characteristics of yours.
but I've only thrown out a few of the small samples since they'll be overrepresented
in hits.
They seems to be running about 10% of the highest grade coins so certified examples
are probably rich in the variety.
<< <i>Final tally on my 1996 mint sets is...I found 1 out of 83 sets. >>
Wow! That brings it down to 3.4%
Is there anything you know of these have in common? Were many acquired at the same time and place?