What do you think is going on with this mintmark?

Jcld

I can't find a reference for what is going on with this mint mark. The coin is labeled as a 1900-0. Any ideas?

mannie gray

It looks like strike doubling.

Jcld

I don't see the shelf appearance of strike doubling. I am still not sure what it is.

Insider2

Before giving my opinion...What is the date of the coin?

Jcld

@Insider2 said:
Before giving my opinion...What is the date of the coin?

It is a 1900 Morgan. In a cardboard flip labeled 1900-O

Insider2

The reason I asked is because there were two Mintmark sizes for this date. I would send it to John Roberts at ANACS, In the photo it does not appear to be Ejection Doubled or damage.

Best case, the engraver punched the small "O" and the die was never sent. Then the mintmark style was changed to a larger "O" and they put it in again. This is probably a fairy tale.

It may turn out to be nothing but I think it is neat no matter what it is.

Jcld

@Insider2 said:
The reason I asked is because there were two Mintmark sizes for this date but both strikes look to be the small "O." I would send it to John Roberts at ANACS, In the photo it does not appear to be Ejection Doubled or damage. It may turn out to be nothing but I think it is neat no matter what it is.

Thank you for your opinion. I have been looking at VAMworld for the date, but most are O/CC which this doesn't appear to be. They do list VAM 24 as a o/o but no picture.

bolivarshagnasty

The circumferences of the inner and outer “O” look normal. I would guess partial filled die or die erosion.

Kkathyl

slip sliding away

Jimnight

Definitely different.

Jcld

@Kkathyl said:
slip sliding away

Besides the song what does this have to do with the coin

FredWeinberg

IMO, it's ejection/mechanical doubling of the MM.

I don't believe it's damage, as there is nothing surrounding
the "O" to indicate that.

Yes, it might be a bit unusual to have the doubling on the
MM only, and not the surrounding lettering or design, but
that's what it certainly looks like to me.

Insider2

@Jcld said:

@Kkathyl said:
slip sliding away

Besides the song what does this have to do with the coin

Fred Weinberg is an error expert and he is agreeing with her! There was a shift in the die as it pulled away for the coin. It produces a shelf-like shift.

Now, I'm going to repeat my advice. I see NO damage on the mint mark. I also see a smooth, original surface on the flat part of the top right surface. I see no evidence of a shift with a pushed over surface - may be the light. Your coin needs to be examined "in-hand" under a stereo microscope.

crazyhounddog

I’ll go along with my man, Fred. He is the expert . What ever it is, it’s unusual and looks pretty cool.

sellitstore

The big diebreak indicates that this strike wasn't a "clean" strike.

A little chatter caused machine doubling.

CaptHenway

What Fred said.

Insider2

@sellitstore said:
The big diebreak indicates that this strike wasn't a "clean" strike.

A little chatter caused machine doubling.

A die break has nothing to do with Machine doubling or a "clean strike" whatever that is.

sellitstore

Sorry that you didn't understand, Insider.

A die with a big crack is going to preform quite differently than one that is new and solid. It's going to flex and give, somewhat. Make sense now?

Jcld

So does anyone have an example of a 1900-O VAM25? The description on Vamworld seems to mostly fit the coin I have, but I can't seem to find a picture anywhere.

1900-O VAM-24 Near Date, O/O Left
Discovered by Pete Bishal, December 1974.

24 III2 5 - C3n (O/O Left) I-2 R-3
Obverse III2 5 - Date set further left than normal.
Reverse C3n - Mint mark set high and doubled on left inside. Mint mark punched very deep into die with narrow center opening.

Insider2

@sellitstore said:
Sorry that you didn't understand, Insider.

A die with a big crack is going to preform quite differently than one that is new and solid. It's going to flex and give, somewhat. Make sense now?

You and I have a different definition of a big Die Break. Additionally, perhaps you would explain to me why a die that is "performing differently" only affected the "O."

AFAIK, we are considering either "ejection doubling" or an RPM. They have nothing to do with the "Die BREAK." Does that make sense now? It does to me.

Insider2

@Jcld said:
So does anyone have an example of a 1900-O VAM25? The description on Vamworld seems to mostly fit the coin I have, but I can't seem to find a picture anywhere.

1900-O VAM-24 Near Date, O/O Left
Discovered by Pete Bishal, December 1974.

24 III2 5 - C3n (O/O Left) I-2 R-3
Obverse III2 5 - Date set further left than normal.
Reverse C3n - Mint mark set high and doubled on left inside. Mint mark punched very deep into die with narrow center opening.

The doubling on the "O" is on the top of the other "O." It got there ether because it was pushed over (common strike doubled) or was punched deeper into the die (RPM) than the "O" that is lower.

The description in VAM World does not match your piece as there is no sign of anything "inside" the "O."

ricko

That is certainly a unique manifestation.... I will agree with Fred's opinion.... I certainly have no competing ideas....Very interesting though.... Cheers, RickO

garrynot

We can’t VAM the coin without establishing the date position anyway.

RogerB

--- Clearly this is the famous 1900-O/D overmintmark variety. This is especially rare since it used a mintmark punch for the Denver Mint which did not open until 1906, and the "D" mintmark punch must have come from an old Dahlonega Mint punch.....However, I do not know how much whisky was in the punch they used - must have been considerable to preserve it so many years.

Now. about that bridge between Oakland and San Francisco that is for sale or rent.

Insider2

I hope you are correct.

sellitstore

OK, Insider, since you obviously know it all, I won't try to explain.

Insider2

@sellitstore said:
OK, Insider, since you obviously know it all, I won't try to explain.

IMO, there is no need for you to get a "snarky" attitude and call me a know-it-all. :'(

Many folks more knowledgeable than you or I have posted their opinions. They are probably correct; however, I guarantee I have seen more machine doubling under VERY high magnification than either of them! I do not see the usual characteristics of machine doubling in the image so I'm keeping an open mind. The chance that this is an RPM is virtually ZERO yet it is a very interesting coin. I'll never know 100% from an image but I do know another thing...I didn't "buy" your explanation about the broken die causing what we see on the mint mark. Nevertheless, thanks for taking the time to educate me yesterday.

Jcld

Would it help to see a higher magnification of the Mint Mark?

LoveMyLiberty

Jcld it may be helpful if you show a pic of the
complete obv & rev. Also the mintmark image
is a bit blurry. Could you do a very clear image
of it please.
The 1900-O , it is thought, used the medium O
mint mark close to the ribbon for 1884-1904
and the small O for 1880, 1896, 1899, 1900 and 1902.
Per Van Allen & Mallis.
It is a very interesting mint mark that "may" have been
punched with two different punches, or a punch that
was used for the $10 gold eagle. Who knows ?

Jcld

So i added a few more pictures to see if this helps anyone figure out what is happening with the MM on this 1900-0 Morgain