Happy ending UPDATE 1962 D FS901 Misplaced D Proof half dollar, CAC PR68DCAM!!!
Aspie_Rocco
Posts: 3,746 ✭✭✭✭✭
Another home run top pop Variety, located by a tireless Variety hunter, me 
)
Notice the slanted D after STOW
It has the CAC green bean!
Now attributed as of 3/11/19
Deep cameo
12
Comments
very nice
Hey what's that D doing way over there?
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
JMHO, I don't see a "D" which could only be explained as a dropped letter, I see a strike through of some kind which has a curve that a vivid imagination stretches to call a letter "D" of some kind.
Since we know only Philly made proofs that year, my guess is struck through lint of some kind .
Don’t know how the D got there, but it’s a well known variety.
Are there any generally accepted (or hotly debated) explanations how it got there? @Aspie_Rocco or anyone else
Choice Numismatics www.ChoiceCoin.com
CN eBay
All of my collection is in a safe deposit box!
@Aspie_Rocco
Coin Facts image has the FS 901, there is something in that location:
Edit: Looks like the current Pop is 2/0 and a pre-Congrats if you get the attribution! https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1962-50c-fs-901/510671
Nice pick! Never examined one in person. Appears to not be incuse so if it is a strike through it would have to be a retained strike through I believe. I think a more likely explanation is some minor die damage.
Premiums for minor varieties on Franklins are sadly thin. I have a few RPMs and a nice 1948 DDR listed and they’re not getting attention at just slightly over retail for the non-varieties.
Aspie variety hunter, what do you use for a monitor? I looked when it sold on eBay and I would not have pulled the trigger with those pictures. My imagination has gotten me many coins that were not what I imagined.
This has been discussed before on this forum... long time ago... I do not recall just when. No conclusions were reached at that time.... It appears raised, so that would indicate die damage... certainly not a dropped letter. The shape (D) is a random occurrence, not formed perfectly as a letter would normally be seen. Cheers, RickO
The die was hubbed through a piece of debris that took the shape of a D, leaving an incuse mark on the die and raised mark on the coins.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I have never seen one of these. That said, that D-shaped feature appears to be a lot smaller than any D mint mark punch ever used at a U.S. Mint.
Perhaps some small fragment of something got between the die and the hub during the hubbing process, and the hub being harder than the die, the fragment got sunk into the die a bit.
Difficult to know what that is. Does it match the font of a D mintmark for 1962?
All dies were made at Philadelphia by the same group of people. A "proof" die was just like any other until it was polished. We do not know how mintmarked and plain dies were segregated prior to punching, although some sort of separation must have occurred. Same for dies intended for proof coins.
The 1957-D quarter has a variety called misplaced D, but it also is not mintmark or letter size and similar to this D.
I suspect both are re-engraved initials from someone working at the mint, leaving their initial.
I don't believe it's a D. I think it's the same hubbing issue (steel lint between the hub and die) that I believe created the Superbird quarter in 1952. The Superbird is a widely-accepted variety. Either way, the '62 phantom D a neat variety. It's listed in the CPG, and after searching for many years I can tell you it's rare.
It is definitely raised, so the die must have had an incuse D.
A strike through would leave an incuse feature on the coin it self.
The D is lightly complete at the bottom, but not raised as much as the rest there, lending the appearance of it being incomplete.
The height of the D almost looks like a punch could have been dropped on it from an angle, digging deeper on the top portion of the D and very weakly at the base.
This most recent brings my total to 6 of these I have found. Interesting to me, I noticed that some examples have an extra “flair” that goes beyond the left side straight back of the D. This example does not have any sort of flourish or extra parts to the D.
The exaggerated top that extends left on some examples makes me think some one intentionally made this Variety and even touched up the die at least one more time.
I have been a victim of my imagination quite a few times also.
I exclusively hunt with my iPhone, as a monitor. Always have. I examine photos with it of known varieties to be able to detect some varieties from bad pictures.
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
15-20% is not really rare
I was referring to the '62 half, not the Superbird (I've edited my post to clarify). I've found lots of Superbirds, but after looking at over a thousand proof '62 halves over the years, I've never found a phantom 'D'.
That's an awesome cherry pick. I've checked many hundred 1962 proof sets with no luck. I'm jealous!
Aspie_rocco knows what he is doing and has an excellent eye for detail from what I've seen of his postings here. Everyone should know by now that he isn't going to post a strike-through as a variety...
I would have snatched that up if I had seen it, nice catch!
Collector, occasional seller
Congrats! Had not heard of this variety before, will have to check my '62. Sounds like its most likely not!
If this is an intentional Variety My hypotheses is that it has been re engraved similar to the re engraved proof 1953 half, and 1952-1954 re engraved nickel varieties. Also the 1952 or 53 re engraved Lincoln chest line. All accepted cherry pickers varieties, as of newest edition. There are several more re engraved varieties not included in latest CPG, across a few denominations.
If accidental, I like the thought of a strike through object during hubbing, or a punch dropped on the die, however, the thinness if the letter seems too thin to be a Denver mint Mark punch.
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Interesting, I'd love to know what the final result is !!!
I'm reminded of sitting in a seminar at FUN years ago where JT Stanton was going on about the next big deal, a 59-D Lincoln with a D struck at the edge of the rim. I bought several when I came across them. The attribution community balked at the idea and it was later concluded that it most likely was a die chip in the shape of a D. The prospective new variety was debunked and never made it into the C/P's book. There are numerous examples of this scenario playing out and usually leaves someone holding the bag. Sometimes we see what we want to see.
With all due respect to the folks poo pooing this pick, you are clearly not understanding the Registry Game! Regardless of how the "error" occurred or how trivial it is, once it gets put in the Reg Variety Set the top players will trip over themselves going for it.
This coin could well put Rocco in the coveted "YOU SUCK" club.
I will just say, I have been hoping for the coveted coin “you suck” award since I learned of it.
I have heard it before but never in reference to coins.
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
I will be bringing this to Long Beach if anyone wants to see it before it is gone.
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
How does the "D" compare to a D-mintmark on the same date coin?
As a follow up,
A buyer was located for this coin, it was sold, and went in for attribution.
Apparently, it did not get the fs901 attribution
I can only assume this is a clerical error or a digital bug, while the system updates. It is not logically possible that this did not make the variety. Does anyone knowledgeable on the misplaced D, believe it is not the variety?
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
From CPG
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Sure looks like the variety to me. Good eye and pick!
Lint or other debris on the hub; but nice effect anyway.
@Aspie_Rocco . I knew I had seen that somewhere, and there it is the CPG. Nice score dude, thats a top pop as well. Whaassuup!
I hope you get it ... the bottom of the D is not complete, so I am guessing must be later die state. Being DCAM, I wonder if it acid etched later in die life. Looking at the CAMs on CoinFacts I can not see it either, but realize with proofs the light nd angle has to be just right to see many things.
Boom!
And a happy ending!
Second pass made it, trueviews coming soon.
This the the 8th top pop Variety I have picked and seen attributed.
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Cannot wait for the TV. More anticipation from grading to the pic!
+1
POST NUBILA PHOEBUS / AFTER CLOUDS, SUN
Love for Music / Collector of Dreck
Two Mint Marks from 1962 - one from a Half (top) and one from a Quarter:
I don't really know what to say about this, so I'll just say "Have at it".
Pete
Mint marks Look too blunt to have caused the “D” on the bell, the bell has the appearance of a more thin letter.
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
It is acknowledged by most everyone that it is NOT really a mintmark so discussing that point is mostly moot. It is likely a lint mark according to Bill Fivaz who thought the variety was nonetheless interesting and scarce enough to warrant inclusion in the CPG.
I am very glad the coin got the proper designation from PCGS but I am nonetheless dismayed and even angered that the coin had to be re-submitted to get it right, because this is such a no-brainer.
To me it won't truly be a happy ending unless I hear that PCGS is either going to refund all costs associated with their blunder, or, at the very least give the submitter a voucher for a free grading or two.