D over D ?

CoinZip

tincup

Could possibly be. What date/denomination? Have you checked CONECA files to see if any match up?

LanceNewmanOCC

.
roosies, washies, kennies are known for having legitimate RPM and strike doubling on the mm at the same time. this coin exhibits strike doubling on the MM for sure but i cannot say it also doesn't have an RPM but it doesn't look like it.

believe it or not, this is actually easier to look at approx. 1/3 this size. something i've come to realize over the past couple years is that there is such a thing as too big of an image unless it is mark or ray quality. usually image stacked.

to further smear the situation; when one of these with both RPM and strike doubling are also late die state, it can be a real challenge to identify and usually is much easier with other pups than the mm.

yes, we can actually go one step further. if you have one that is strike doubled, rpm, late die state AND split serif (minor rotation) RPM, it can be nearly impossible to identify as such and usually have minimal interest. i've sold quite a few split serif rpm coins but they are usually crisp enough to see w/o much effort.

hope it helps.
.

291fifth

If you have that much magnification and still have to wonder about it ...

... it isn't worth bothering with.

SamByrd

maybe a buffalo and a RPM d over 2 d's perhaps

kennytpez

We would need to know the denomination/date, etc. It looks like it could be.

Onedollarnohollar

a closer view would help

CoinZip

Its a 1954-D Jefferson and the FS-501 for that year can be quite expensive in high grade.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
now that we know what to look for, i'd say there is a slim chance. it has a couple image artifacts that appear to be in the correct position (rpm #3 fs-501) and of the 4 types know for the year/mm , the fs-501 is in a position unto itself.

so if you get one that is an rpm and looks like #3, either it is that one, it is nothing or it is new.

while the digi-scopes are a nice, fairly inexpensive way to go, a pringles can on a dslr and/or a microscopic objective are really the way to go. i've seen some dslr bodies go under $200 and even under $100 on the bay. i don't recommend novies buying one at those prices though. dslr cameras strike me as, tempermental and it is hard to gauge how hard one has been used from images and no training. good thing is that a person can search for mark goodmans and rpms threads to see what they've done and what they recommend.

although, i've seen some digi-scope images that were outstanding i don't know the type they have. i should ask just for curiosity but really don't like to promote them because too many people try to use them as camera substitutes, which causes more headaches than it solves. ok, i'm done ranting.
.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
now that i've looked at a couple of them, the partial loop inside the D appears to be pretty strong on most examples. i don't know how it looks on LDS coins though.
.

rmpsrpms

As Lance said, smaller can be better. A mintmark this large just looks overpowering.

It looks like you are presenting at 100% pixel detail, which is almost never good thing since few if any image sensors are sharp at 100%. Plus, it doesn't look like you did any sharpening, which is a problem, especially at 100%.

Here is the same image, downsized 4x to 350x350, with some levels adjustment and a bit of sharpening to help make out the details...



PS...after seeing the image online, it's clear that the original image was severely diffraction-limited, not limited by focus or objective quality. This situation benefits strongly by downsizing. For every 2x downsize, you gain 2 stops of aperture before diffraction limitation sets in. So if your objective is at f/28 effective aperture, you can greatly improve the published quality by downsizing. 2x gets you from f/28 to f/14, and 4x (like I did with your image above) gets you to f/7.

By the way, definitely looks like an RPM, not sure which one since I don't have a Jeff ref handy.

OK, looked up the 54-D in CPG. Doesn't really look like it, but hard to say definitively. You need to take a lower mag shot to include the corner of Monticello to see the MM position, orientation, etc to be sure.

lostincoins

Much better thank you, now I can tell it is a D

lostincoins

I have a pro series dinolite but don't use it.

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>You need to take a lower mag shot to include the corner of Monticello to see the MM position, orientation, etc to be sure. >>



very good point. i neglected to consider this earlier!
.

CoinZip

<< <i>

<< <i>You need to take a lower mag shot to include the corner of Monticello to see the MM position, orientation, etc to be sure. >>



very good point. i neglected to consider this earlier!
. >>

CoinZip

I see what you mean by the position of the D compared to the corner of Monticello

rmpsrpms

So it's not a 54-D FS-501, but it does look like a nice RPM. It appears to me to be a D/D/D with one secondary MM to the West, another to the East...Ray

CoinZip

<< <i>So it's not a 54-D FS-501, but it does look like a nice RPM. It appears to me to be a D/D/D with one secondary MM to the West, another to the East...Ray >>



What is the best reference for these?

rmpsrpms

Try this:

http://varietyvista.com/images/JN BOOK.pdf