Your Opinion on a Variety of "Strange" Mintmarks

Intueor

Periodically I come across mintmarks that are just simply strange. I shoot images of the anomalies and put the shots in my “Unknown Attribute” folder to ponder on a rainy day. They obviously cannot be reconciled with CONECA listed varieties and are quite possibly just weird Machine/Ejection Doubling or precisely placed dings that masquerade as attributes. That being said, the specimens below are a few of my enigmatic “unknown” Denver Mint Franklins that display what I refer to as chimera attributes. By this I mean at first glance, they appear to have obvious classification but there is also something else atypical going on with the mintmark that is curious. I have resisted the temptation to markup the images with circles and arrows to highlight my observations and possibly bias the images. We each see detail from our own experience and perception. This is not a “trick” post. I honestly am very ambivalent as to the cause of these “freaks”. Therefore, as not to ponder in a vacuum, I welcome your thoughts and opinions.

Thanks for your input.

Insider2

I see nothing strange. Mintmarks on these coins were applied by hand, Sometimes they appear deformed or doubled due to the way each was applied. Additionally, they often appear to be "pushed-over" due to machine doubling.

Intueor

Thanks, @Insider2 Your input is always welcome. I just find these variations to be interesting. For instance, image "A" has an odd "bar" near the back inside of the "D". Image "B" is "wiggly" with "spits" of raised metal behind the "D". Image "D" is all messed up with a "tail", a "hat", a serif "lump", and an oddly tilted inside bar. You know your "stuff", care to be more specific?

Insider2

Your images are excellent! I saw everything you posted and "A" was the most interesting. I guess I've seen too many mintmarks and their derivations to get "excited." "B" also has what appears to be a crescent of metal in the field to the right of the "D." Unfortunately, the TPGS's want to see at least two examples of an RPM and evidence that the error folks recognize it before they will certify one. Perhaps you should send tour best examples to Dr. Wiles.

PS I hope you continue the research you are doing with your file and don't let anyone (me) discourage you.
There are plenty of things still to be discovered.

RogerB

Nice post. Nice photos. Meaningful comments!

WoodenJefferson

To me the D in box D is the one most messed as up I've never seen something so complex, Something also must have happened during the sticking process to help create all the distortions and anomalies. Note: You'll probably never find one to match, so I'm inclined to think this is a one of a kind.

Intueor

Thanks for reply and encouragement @insider2. I do not really care about attribution. They are unique pieces that captivate my interest and as such are the little joys of collecting.
Thanks for the compliment @RogerB. I am using an iPhone 5 mounted on one eyepiece of a 30x Stereomicroscope.
Great observation @WoodenJefferson. That one is so “spooky” it keeps me up at night.
I was kinda hoping someone else would post an image of a “stranger”.

rln_14

@Insider2 said:
I see nothing strange. Mintmarks on these coins were applied by hand, Sometimes they appear deformed or doubled due to the way each was applied. Additionally, they often appear to be "pushed-over" due to machine doubling.

What would cause a coin to have its mintmark "applied by hand"? How would that be caught during the minting process? Each coin is individually inspected? Very time consuming imho. Any comments welcome. Thanks rln

Intueor

Hi @rin_14.
At the time when these particular coins were minted, the Mintmark was “hand” punched into the Working Die. Here is a link to Wexler’s webpage that is the best reference for mintmark techniques:
doubleddie.com/58243.html

Hope this helps.

Insider2

@rln_14 said:

@Insider2 said:
I see nothing strange. Mintmarks on these coins were applied by hand, Sometimes they appear deformed or doubled due to the way each was applied. Additionally, they often appear to be "pushed-over" due to machine doubling.

What would cause a coin to have its mintmark "applied by hand"? How would that be caught during the minting process? Each coin is individually inspected? Very time consuming imho. Any comments welcome. Thanks rln

...and, just the act of tilting the punch or driving it in deeper than necessary can alter its appearance.

ricko

Those are definitely mm's with curious attributes.... the most remarkable (to me) being picture D... almost looks tripled.... Cheers, RickO

Namvet69

Very interesting and the Wexler site is great. Thanks. Peace Roy

Timbuk3

Very nice !!!

rln_14

@Intueor said:
Hi @rin_14.
At the time when these particular coins were minted, the Mintmark was “hand” punched into the Working Die. Here is a link to Wexler’s webpage that is the best reference for mintmark techniques:
doubleddie.com/58243.html

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the info

rln_14

@Insider2 said:

@rln_14 said:

@Insider2 said:
I see nothing strange. Mintmarks on these coins were applied by hand, Sometimes they appear deformed or doubled due to the way each was applied. Additionally, they often appear to be "pushed-over" due to machine doubling.

What would cause a coin to have its mintmark "applied by hand"? How would that be caught during the minting process? Each coin is individually inspected? Very time consuming imho. Any comments welcome. Thanks rln

...and, just the act of tilting the punch or driving it in deeper than necessary can alter its appearance.

Thanks for the info