Options
Refuted 1947-S/D OMMs Roosevelt Dimes
kevinj
Posts: 989 ✭✭✭
I did an intense detailed analysis of the 1947-S/D OMMs, it is not possible on either of them that there is an underlying D beneath the S.
On OMM-001, it is way to small as compared to a normal D, on OMM-002, the vertical line between the serif and middle is not straight, it goes half ways, then curves to the left at 45 degrees. The top is a continuous curve, not shaped like that of the D.
What appears like a serif, there is almost no serif on the D of the 1947-D dime.
I have BU specimens of each.
I have a pdf of the analysis, if anyone wants to read it, email me at kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com
Thanks
Kevin
On OMM-001, it is way to small as compared to a normal D, on OMM-002, the vertical line between the serif and middle is not straight, it goes half ways, then curves to the left at 45 degrees. The top is a continuous curve, not shaped like that of the D.
What appears like a serif, there is almost no serif on the D of the 1947-D dime.
I have BU specimens of each.
I have a pdf of the analysis, if anyone wants to read it, email me at kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com
Thanks
Kevin
Kevin J Flynn
0
Comments
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Please do not do anything that will cause the deletion of coins already in sets. This is not right to the people who have invested in these coins and paid fees so they can be in the sets. PLEASE!
IF these two OMM's were refuted/deleted they could follow the path of those Micro O Morgan dollars which would up be debunked, although they were determined fake, and the price for existing attributed examples may go UP!
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Please do not do anything that will cause the deletion of coins already in sets. This is not right to the people who have invested in these coins and paid fees so they can be in the sets. PLEASE!
Please send me an email, read the research and decide for yourself.
On changing what is in sets, not up to me, my goal is just to research and share information with collectors.
Kevin
I don't agree with you. Numismatics research evolves. That's why the 1869/8 1c no longer exists. The 1914/13 nickel has fallen from favor, etc. Think about all the 1922 Plain 1c coins that are no longer recognized that collectors paid "dearly for."
1.Accuracy
2.Accuracy
3.Accuracy
A numismatic researcher such as kevinj should not be burdened with considerations of how much the collector paid when attributing,or not attributing an item,as the case may be.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
BRAVO!!!
Edited to add....the 1922 plain cent is still a variety....what's up with that?
I just went and looked at these two varieties and they ARE DEFINITELY both over mint marks.
Send me an email, read my paper, see how it is impossible they are the result of an underlying D. On OMM-001, a normal D is .8 mm high, where as the S is 1 mm high. There is nothing above the middle curve of the S on OMM-001, which is about the 5.5 mm high. It cannot be a D. The metal in front of the lower right curve of the S is in the shape and curvature of the S, entirely different than that of the D, it cannot be a D. The surface of the metal in front of the lower right curve is sheered, as if it is part of the S that somehow got sheered off, there is metal flow and steps on the inside of that, where it touches the S.
Kevin
I just went and looked at these two varieties and they ARE DEFINITELY both over mint marks.
Will be glad to discuss details on these varieties, such as on the normal D used on the dimes in 1947, there is almost no lower serif......
I will not get into a argument about this...I just don't needed it.....so this is my last reply to this thread.
This variety has been claimed by some to have an underlying 1929 date. There is a very small diagonal die scratch above teh base of the 9 that is claimed to be part of the secondary 9. On the three, there is a small diagonal line connecting to the lower knob of the 3, with a line also extending from the knob of the 3 to the back of the 3, which is believed to be the remnants of a 2. There is no other remnants on the outside, below, above, or seen in any other parts of the 3.
Some have speculated that because of the Great Depression, working dies were saved and reused years later. Based upon the law of 1873, working dies are required to be destroyed at the end of each year. There was no documented shortage of working dies or die steel. The Mint also struck no Mercury dimes in 1932 or 1933 and dramatically decreased production in 1930 and 1931.
During this period, the date was part of the working hub and hubbed into each working die. If the working die was fully hubbed with the full date, then the entire obverse would have had to be lowered in order to remove the entire date. If the date was partially hubbed, then we should see remnants of the date closer to the center, such as the 1916 Buffalo nickel doubled die obverse. There is no sign of any design elements being lowered.
On early die states, many die scratch are seen throughout the date. The clearest evidence this cannot be the remnants of a 2 of an 1929 Mercury dime is that the angle between the lower bar and the diagonal bar on the 2 on a 1929 Mercury dime is 40 degrees. The angle between the diagonal bar and horizontal bar on this variety is 28 degrees. Plus on the small die scratch above the base of the 9 is at a high angle of about 50 degrees, whereas on the base of the 9 on a 1929 date is very low at about 12 degrees. In addition, on a 1929 Mercury dime, the second 9 is close to the rim, if this is a remnant of a 9 and 2, the second 9 would be very high. It is just the result of die scratches.
Kevin
For example, if you look at 1947-D/S OMM-002 closely, what is claimed to be the vertical bar of a D that goes from the serif to the middle of the S, goes upward 1/2 way, makes a 45 degree left turn, goes to a another turn, then turns back and goes to the middle of the S. There is no straight line between the serif and middle of the S as it should be if the D was punched into the die. It is impossible to punch in the bottom of the D and top of the D and not the middle of the D mint mark when use a mint mark punch and mallet, this must be a straight line, if it is reflective of an actual D being punched into the die.
Kevin
capable of constructive input, I am intrigued by the fact finding efforts. Cheers, RickO
This is an interesting discussion.... I hope it continues... I am learning things... While I am not
capable of constructive input, I am intrigued by the fact finding efforts. Cheers, RickO
I've got your 6 on this Ricko. Fascinating and intriguing.
I recall a few years ago you presented your view that the 1950-D/S Franklin was not an OMM. I wasn't totally convinced at that time and have seen no discussion of that variety since?
Has the collecting community embraced your research that occasionally debunks faux-varieties?
I know the 1936/29-S alleged overdated has been discussed endlessly, but just went through it, saw some other diagnostics that refuted this variety that I had not seen posted elsewhere, especially on the angles of the extra metal around the 1936, and the angle of the actual 9 and 2 of the 1929 date for the Mercury dime.
This variety has been claimed by some to have an underlying 1929 date. There is a very small diagonal die scratch above teh base of the 9 that is claimed to be part of the secondary 9. On the three, there is a small diagonal line connecting to the lower knob of the 3, with a line also extending from the knob of the 3 to the back of the 3, which is believed to be the remnants of a 2. There is no other remnants on the outside, below, above, or seen in any other parts of the 3.
Some have speculated that because of the Great Depression, working dies were saved and reused years later. Based upon the law of 1873, working dies are required to be destroyed at the end of each year. There was no documented shortage of working dies or die steel. The Mint also struck no Mercury dimes in 1932 or 1933 and dramatically decreased production in 1930 and 1931.
During this period, the date was part of the working hub and hubbed into each working die. If the working die was fully hubbed with the full date, then the entire obverse would have had to be lowered in order to remove the entire date. If the date was partially hubbed, then we should see remnants of the date closer to the center, such as the 1916 Buffalo nickel doubled die obverse. There is no sign of any design elements being lowered.
On early die states, many die scratch are seen throughout the date. The clearest evidence this cannot be the remnants of a 2 of an 1929 Mercury dime is that the angle between the lower bar and the diagonal bar on the 2 on a 1929 Mercury dime is 40 degrees. The angle between the diagonal bar and horizontal bar on this variety is 28 degrees. Plus on the small die scratch above the base of the 9 is at a high angle of about 50 degrees, whereas on the base of the 9 on a 1929 date is very low at about 12 degrees. In addition, on a 1929 Mercury dime, the second 9 is close to the rim, if this is a remnant of a 9 and 2, the second 9 would be very high. It is just the result of die scratches.
Kevin
Kevin, You didn't mention the upper loop of the two inside the upper loop of the three. It seems that part is always left out by the people who don't think it is. I have stated I think it is die scratches; however, that does not mean it is not a variety.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
tried using Chrome and also IE, but the PCGS interface does not permit me to add photos, if someone can add, please send me an email kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com
Below is the analysis I did on these two 47-D/S, without the photos of course
Notice that the styles of the S on each of these is different. The upper serif of the S on OMM-001 has a small knob, while the upper serif on OMM-002 is triangular shaped
Diagnostics:
1947-S/D OMM-001
1. There is a small piece of metal that extends back where the lower curve of the S curves upward toward the serif.
2. There are two lines that extend from the lower serif to the middle curve of the S.
2.a The first line on the outside is much thicker than the inside line. The left side of the outside line extends upward and fully connects to the middle curve of the S. The right side of the outside line terminates right before the middle of the S.
2.b The second line is an extension of a die scratch that starts near the top of the space between the E of ONE and D of DIME. This die scratch extends primarily north and slightly inward. It extends through the lower S, middle curve and ends in the upper curve on the left side.
3. There is no extra metal on the top of the middle curve of the S.
4. There is no extra metal below the bottom curve of the S, except for the metal shooting out from the left side of the lower S.
5. There is extra metal seen in front of the lower right curve of the S, starting near top of the lower right curve and terminating near the bottom of the lower right curve. The metal follows the curvature of the lower right curve of the S. On both the upper and lower parts of this curve. The top surface of the extra metal appears sheared. The inside of the extra metal has 2 lines that appears as steps against the side of the S.
6. The lower right curve appears to be half the width of a normal S.
7. There are many heavy die scratches between the left side of the torch and the left olive branch.
1947-S/D OMM-002
1. There is a small piece of metal that extends back where the lower curve of the S curves upward toward the serif.
2. A piece of the lower serif of the S appears to be broken off.
3. From the inside of the lower serif of the S, a piece of metal extends upward, angled slightly to the left, terminates about half way between the lower serif and center curve, the turns sharply left about 45 degrees, then joining another piece of metal that extends upward through the center curve.
4. The metal from the upper part of the center of the curve of the S, curves up and primarily outward, continuously curving inward till it ends right at the top of the outer most portion of the right lower curve of the S.
5. There is no extra metal seen to the right of the lower right curve or below the bottom of the S, except for the extra metal seen below the lower serif of the S.
Analysis of the S and D used on the 1947 Roosevelt dimes.
Size - Using a 40x measuring microscope that was broken down to 1/40 mm, measure the
height and width of the D and S. This was done for both the outside height and width and
the center height and width.
The mint marks are concave inward on the sides with the top thinner than the base of the mint
mark. The center height of the D for example is the highest point of the left vertical bar of the D
to the highest point on the right curve of the D, both taken on the outer most parts.
Height Center Height Width Center Width
1947-S 1 mm .825 mm .75 mm .5 mm
1947-D .8 mm .55 mm .7 mm .4 mm
Analysis of D mint mark used on the 1947-D
1. The lower serif of the D is only a minor extension. The upper serif if slightly more of an
extension, but still minor.
2. The left veritical bar of the D is thicker on the bottom and thinner on top.
3. The top of the D extends outward to the left, with the inside on a slight concave inward curve.
4. Where the top bar connects to the left curve, there is a dramatic curve downward.
5. The right side of the D has a nice consistent minor curve.
6. Where the right side connects to the bottom of teh D, there is a dramatic curve.
Analysis of the S mint mark used on the 1947-S
The one note being make on this particular S is the obvious shearing of the right side of the
lower right curve of the S.
Analysis of the alleged over mint marks and comparison to a D mint mark.
1. The two alleged Ds are both different sizes. OMM-001 extends to the middle of the S, while OMM-002 extends half way between the middle and top of the S.
2. The height of a normal S used on the 1947-S Roosevelt dime is 1 mm, while the height of the D used on the 1947-D Roosevelt dime is .8. The D is four-fifths the size of the S, and if the bottom of the D is at the bottom of the S, should extend upwards to right below the top of the S. Therefore OMM-001, which alleged top of the D extends only to the middle of the S, cannot be a D.
3. On both these varieties, the metal extending from the bottom, below the lower serif appears like dramatic serif of a D. But the lower serif of the D used on the 1947-D has almost no extension. The metal extending is not in the shape of the serif of a D also. Notice also on OMM-002 the distance between the extra metal below the serif of the S, and the vertical line between the serif and middle curve of the S, this would make a very dramatic serif of a D.
4. On OMM-001, there are two lines between the serif and middle curve of the S, the line on the left only connects to the center curve on the left side of the line, and the line on the right is a clear extension of the die scratch below.
5. On OMM-002, raised metal extends up from the serif, then half way to the middle curve, cuts at a 45 degree angle to the left, to a small ball, the upward. This does not match the left side vertical bar of the D.
6. On OMM-001, there is no metal above the center curve of the S. There is what appears to be metal to the right of the lower right curve of the S, but this is in the shape and curvature of the S, and has a sheered shelf like top, that when examined with high magnification, appears to be part of the S that became damaged. The curvature of the extra metal does not match the right side of the D mint mark.
7. On OMM-002, the metal protruding from the center curve of the S is curved concave inward out through the upper serif of the 8. It does not follow the outward extension of the top of the D. The metal from the middle of the S curves continuously around till it comes back to the top right side on the lower curve. There is no sharp transition of the curve as is seen on the D between the top and right side of the D. No parts of the extra metal is in the shape of the top or right curve of the D.
9. On both OMM-001and OMM-002, there is no extra metal seen to the right of the lower right side of the lower right curve or below the bottom of the S, besides the metal extending below the lower serif.
Conclusion - The size and shape of the metal around the S on 1947-S/D OMM-001 and OMM-002 does not match the size and shape of a D mint mark used on the 1947-D Roosevelt dimes. On OMM-001, the height of the metal is entirely to short to be a D. The metal in front of the lower curve is simply sheering on the S. On OMM-002, the line between the lower serif and middle is not straight, the upper curve does not match that of the top or right side of the D. On a normal D used for the 1947-D dime, there is almost no serif. The shape, size, and curvature of the extra metal on both of these varieties does not match a D, and therefore cannot be the remnants of a D mint mark.
The above photos show from left to right, the 1947-S/D OMM-001, 1947-S/D OMM-002, and a S from a 1947-S dime overlaid on top of a D from a 1947-D dime. Notice how high the D is under the S and the shape, size, and location of the top and upper right side of the curve of the D should be. This does not match the extra metal metal around the S on OMM-001 and OMM-002.
Thanks, did not see that die scratch before, will do quick overlay.
On an point, the metal above the 9 is slightly above the metal at the knob of the 3, on the 1929-S, the base of the 9 is well below the base of the 2.
I am sure everyone sees the secondary images above the 1936
This is simply the result of strike doubling, this is more obvious on LIBERTY.
Kevin
I like to see overlays to back up one's observations. Kevin, does your analysis have any overlays ?
I recall a few years ago you presented your view that the 1950-D/S Franklin was not an OMM. I wasn't totally convinced at that time and have seen no discussion of that variety since?
Has the collecting community embraced your research that occasionally debunks faux-varieties?
I would hope that anyone who reads my or anyone else's article/research, takes it all in, then figures it out for themselves. Its your money, you should make the final determination, not base solely your decision on what is stated in a book or by another person.
I was thrilled that when Wexler and myself determined that the 1914/3 was not an overdate, the majority of people who wrote me on this had already determined through their own evaluation that it was not an overdate. It is not like the early 90s where some collectors would blindly follow what is in books such as Breen.
Kevin
Kevin, You didn't mention the upper loop of the two inside the upper loop of the three. It seems that part is always left out by the people who don't think it is. I have stated I think it is die scratches; however, that does not mean it is not a variety.
Did some overlays between a 1936 and 1929, if you align the lower front of the 2 to the knob, it pushes the top of the 2 behind the 3, if aligning the top scratch to the middle of the top of the 2, it pushes the 2 and 9 to far forward.
Also the top (surface) of the 2 on the 1929 is pretty wide and flat, there is very little concave sides as seen on normal dates. If you were to polish down the surface of the die to remove the date, if any remnants, it will still be almost just as wide as the normal 2. Also if you remove the date by abrading the surface, the initials above and to the left which are only slightly deeper, would have also been mostly removed. They are not on this variety.
I went through the archives herein, and many overlays were already done, such as below, in viewing these, I am further convinced it could not be an overdate
https://forums.collectors.com/messageview.aspx?catid=26&threadid=847540&highlight_key=y&keyword1=1936+1929+1928
Here is one of my quotes from that thread, "This is a fun topic which will never satisfy everyone."
The naysayers will never be satisfied until it is removed, and the people who know it is real will never be satisfied with any amount of data stating it is not.
Things like the obvious two under three is very strong for those who think it is, and if you search around for die scratches on other coins of the era you don't find anything similar. It seems from Toms overlays the 1928 "could" be the under-laying date.
My take continues to be it is a variety just as die scratches, cracks, markers, etc. make up the VAM on dollar coins. The coin has either under-laying date markers, or die scratches making it appear to have an under-date. Another examples of die scratches making a coin a variety are the speared buffalo nickel, and the Wisconsin quarters. Both (three if you count high and low) Die scratched coins; both are considered varieties.
Thanks for giving you input on the subject... It will always be an interesting conversation.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Good points, I remember when I refuted the 1869/8 Two cent back in the 1990s as the result of a series of die cracks, variety went from a $10,000 coin in Unc down to $200, people who owned were not happy with me.
First they changed it to a RPD with the high value, then over time, as people knew it was not an overdate, paid less for it, it worked itself out on its own on its value.
On this variety, I am curious to see if there is a sequence of die scratches, yours seems to have the most, and perhaps a late die state, but in other photos, such as on PCGS coin facts, the images are taken with the coin normally flat, therefore die scratches, unless significant, would not normally show.
I believe this variety is more towards seeing what you want to see, I remember studying a variety that was claimed to be a 1910 Lincoln cents with a VDB reverse, after studying under high power magnification for 2 hours, thought I saw something, then laughed at myself, knew it was time to go have a beer.
Thanks
Kevin
You can call it whatever you want, but it is a variety.
Edited to add....the 1922 plain cent is still a variety....what's up with that?
I think they are referring to the No D vs. Weak D versions. Die 1 and Die 3 both have weak reverses, and were previously called No D -- they are now both Weak D and have seen their value plummet. On the other hand, Die 2 has seen its value rise significantly.
In other words, it's not about how much you spent or even whether or not it's in a certain Registry.
It's about the numismatics and if numismatic analysis disproves what once once used as a mechanism to sell a certain coin, then it should be lessons learned for those that jumped on board without their due diligence being performed.
The CPG is NOT "The Holiest of References" to a numismatist. If anything at all, it's a simplified reference for a variety collector that certain TPG's have adopted as a "guide" for coin attribution and certain registry sets.
Enjoy your coins for what they are. Not what you "think" they are.
The name is LEE!
if you need/want images uploaded, send them to me or use one of dozenz of free image hosting sites. (better yet, get a low dollar or free hosting account and do uploads via ftp. it is nearly a crime you don't do it in 2016 given what you do.)
also, post the code you use to upload images so we can see the problem. it is too easy to fix not to try. worst case, simply quote another person's post with images and analyze/copy/paste their code and use your url(s).
no offense but it is difficult to take someone seriously in 2016 that cannot even post a few pics considering the ridiculously simplicity. i say this to encourage, not insult.
feel free to send me the pdf if there are a lot of high-quality pics. (thanks for doing it gratis)
i'd rather look at 5 quality pics vs reading dozens of paragraphs.
especially goodman/parkhurst quality close-ups; especially for refutals.
if you haven't, i highly suggest you get some small digit punches and some various scrap flans/bullion or whatever and do some punchung/repunching to understand the unusual nature of what over-punched digits can be like. i have and then factored die state variances.
i have no dog in this fight re: the omm(s) you are attempting to refute.
.
Sent you the images that are relevant to the 1947-S/D OMMs
I thought we used to be able to browse and select the images.
Now I get it, PCGS does not store locally the images, they want them hosted and referenced.
Your right, I should know better, especially given that I have been a software engineer for the past 30 years.
I thought based on the OS I was using, the option to browse and select was no longer available.
Thanks
Kevin
PS, on die punches and testing how it works, for my recent morg book, bought the small hardened punches, tested punching into softened lead numbers and letters, and punching over to study the effects.
Lead has a melting point of 600, while die steel is 2600 I believe
Lance,
Sent you the images that are relevant to the 1947-S/D OMMs
I thought we used to be able to browse and select the images.
Now I get it, PCGS does not store locally the images, they want them hosted and referenced.
Your right, I should know better, especially given that I have been a software engineer for the past 30 years.
I thought based on the OS I was using, the option to browse and select was no longer available.
Thanks
Kevin
PS, on die punches and testing how it works, for my recent morg book, bought the small hardened punches, tested punching into softened lead numbers and letters, and punching over to study the effects.
Lead has a melting point of 600, while die steel is 2600 I believe
cool and ty for the images/doc.
it took me a minute to figure out they arent hosting images like previously, not from what i saw with this new software. i host my own, so no matter.
.
pretty much sums it up.