One AM is touching and the other is not in AMERICA on the 64-d dime. Is this a known variety?
Watchbelieve
Posts: 527 ✭✭✭
0
Watchbelieve
Posts: 527 ✭✭✭
Comments
I've heard something about this, but never have chased them. Maybe I should start checking for these. Is it just this date or others?
The second one is known as a reverse proof style RDV2 used on some 68-s and on. You will also find the 68-s with the other RDV1 reverse as well
There are other lettering differences, but the easy way to tell is the two deep lines in the flame on the RDV2
You might e-mail James Wiles and see if he has seen it on a 64-d or not. That seems odd, and not noted in his files.
All I see here is, one is EDS ( Reverse ) and the other one is VLDS ( Reverse ) ...
As the die wears, the lettering spaces out, or wears down which makes the spacing wider .
The spacing is due to the die being ground down to extend life. Take a look at the tree below the lettering... some leaves are nearly entirely ground out. During these years, they extended die life as much as possible. I have a 1966 example that is even more extreme... I will try to post a picture if I can locate.
Here is a photo of the one I mentioned... could not find a photo of the obverse, but I think it is either a 1966 or 1967. In hand it is very obvious... almost looks like a token on the reverse. On my coin, one can easily see the grind marks on how the die was worked on. Also note the extreme distance from AMERICA to the rim... rim appears to be nearly non existent. (The second photo is a 'normal' reverse of the same year).
One is RDV-001 and one is RDV-002. Look it up.
Tin cup, your first one is a worn RDV -002, not an RDV-001
varietyvista.com, by Dr. James Wiles who is very personable and would be glad to give you an opinion I'm sure.
Look at the distance between the TA of STATES on both coins at the base. It's a design change. Again, I don't know of it occurring in 1964. This is similar to the mixing of reverse die designs on quarters in the 50's.
DMWJR, I'm aware of the RDV -002 reverse, and have actually looked for and collected multiple examples of them. Awhile back, I posted on the forum inquiring about how common these were; the Cherrypickers guide listed them as somewhat rare, but I seemed to find quite a few of them. Discussion on the forum indicated they did not seem to be nearly as rare as Cherrypickers Guide indicated.
IMO, the OPs coin and my coin are not the RDV -002. The RDV -002 reverse first came into use in 1968 for some proof dimes; thus the die just did not exist in 1964 or 1966 (the date of my coin). Also, as I look at the details of the RDV -002 reverse, the lines appear much much deeper, wider, and longer than either the OPs coin or mine. Also want to point out that my coin is uncirculated with mint luster, and not a well worn example.
I do concur that the OPs coin and mine both show some lines in the torch; perhaps from touching up the die details after the grinding work near AMERICA? But that doesn't make much sense, since other details were not touched up, with some nearly missing. And I do not know if letter spacing would indicate a design change or not, or whether is also is just a result of die wear and/or rework.
Anyways, just my opinion... and as I have stated many times before.... I've been wrong before and it would not be the last! (Actually... if it is a design change... I would be very happy about that!)