Confused over 1946-D/D nickel: inverted vs. horizontal D

BowAxe

I posted this question in the PCGS Registry Forum but got no responses, so I'm trying again here. This is the issue: Both the Fivaz & Stanton Cherrypickers' Guide and The Jefferson Nickel RPM Book by James Wiles (CONECA) say that the well-known 1946-D/D RPM-002, FS-501, is a D over inverted D repunched mintmark. PCGS, on the other hand, lists it in the Registry as "D over horizontal D", coin number 894029. Does anyone know why PCGS calls the original punch a horizontal D? Looking at the mintmark photos in Cherrypickers' and Wiles' books, I don't see how the original punch could have been a horizontal D; the only part visible is to the left of the repunched D and it is rounded, as one would expect the loop of an inverted D to appear. If, instead, this were the top or bottom of a horizontal D, it should be far less rounded and might show the remnant of a serif. One difficulty is that no serifs from the original punch are visible. Is PCGS mistaken in their description? I would appreciate hearing from any RPM experts--better yet, from someone at PCGS.

BaronVonBaugh

This is the 1942 D.


This is the 1946 D.

leothelyon

Other experts, not me.......I don't even have one so I haven't study it but some say, it could be a die chip.


Leo

CaptHenway

Baron....is that a 1942 or a 1946 pictured? Sure looks like D/horizontal D.
TD

cmerlo1

Baron's image looks like a '42. The '46 D/D inverted actually shows the curve of the upside-down D to the left of the upright of the right-side up one.

gonzer

The lower arc of the horizontal 'D' looks quite evident.

BaronVonBaugh

Sorry, I originally just put in the first picture I found that looked good.
In my defense I did use the date in my search. Stupid search evidently mixed them in and I did not notice.
I took more time with the search when I went to correct it.

bolivarshagnasty

FWIW, I have examined both specimens at one time in the past, and if the PCGS registry has anything other than a 46-d over inverted d, they need to correct it. Big difference between the two mint marks. Another example
of the 42 d/horiz. d. Don't have a pic of the 46 inverted d.

leothelyon

Just a reminder, our host doesn't recognize the 1946-D/Inverted D as a variety for the Registry sets. Something most everyone already knows. Does the CPG show the variety? Lots of money spent on that coin before they pulled it.
Does anyone know of any extensive research done on this variety?


Leo

By the way, nice pic of the 1942-D/HorzD you have there, Mel.

keets

I don't believe the coin pictured in my CPG Vol. 1 Fifth Edition is an inverted MM as they state. the curved portion of the "D" is way to small to be from an inverted MM, and it doesn't even look like the bottom of the "D" either.

if it looks like anything it is a die chip.

bolivarshagnasty

<< <i>Just a reminder, our host doesn't recognize the 1946-D/Inverted D as a variety for the Registry sets. Something most everyone already knows. Does the CPG show the variety? Lots of money spent on that coin before they pulled it.
Does anyone know of any extensive research done on this variety?


Leo, I just checked the PCGS Jefferson registry in the complete variety category. The 46 d/d is still listed as a 46 d/over horizontal d. Taking it a step further, CONECA's master list lists rpms 2 thru 5 for this date listing
only the rpm-2 as the "d over inverted d variety. No CONECA listing of the d/ over horizontal d for 46. This would be the first time I would have heard of a d over horizontal d for the date. As keets states, one could make a case for this not being an rpm at all, but what about a d over horizontal s? Looks more likely than the other two options. Don't know if Wiles has studied this phenomenon or not.
BTW, The CherryPickers guide shows the example in both the fourth and fifth editions.

keets

hot on the heels of the 4/3 Buffalo this makes me wonder why so much "authority" is placed on a few people's opinion when things aren't clear and the TPG's base a designation on that clarity. there should be more agreement on something like this within the Numismatic community past the opinions of 3-4 persons.

leothelyon

Old thread alert!
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1946-d-5c-inverted-fs-501-031/38507

Why I brought this thread back up......the following coin I have doesn't show any other remnant of the underlying D mm. And so, I dismissed it/gave up thinking it might be a D/D of some sort. But looking at the 46D/invert or horz. D, the upright doesn't show much inside the D either so..... But I also think when they stamped the 2nd D over the 1st D, the upright to the back of the 1st D was smashed/flattened out and this is why it's not seen in either date, my 42D or the 46D. But there is more to the underlying D with the D/horz D.
The other substantial problem.....where are the others if this was part of a hub or working die? There's got to be others before we can think it's a legit MM over MM, right?
Still has a nice strike, semi PL fields. I questioned the color with the former owner and he said its been that way for the 35 years he's had it so....all in all, what say you about any of this? If my coin, someday, turns out legit.....will it be noted as a minor variety like the 46D/D? hmmm What makes it minor, the 46D/D? It's still a MM over MM (see the 1st link)

Leo