1c 1968 -S mint mark variation?

dagingerbeasttt · January 30, 2021 9:55AM

I know the mm for that period differ slightly but these almost seem to be to be completely different. They are both 1968 s 1c. From the same roll.
Opinions and knowledge is always welcome and appreciated 😊

ricko · January 30, 2021 9:58AM

Yep,... Looks like different dies....Cheers, RickO

dagingerbeasttt · January 30, 2021 10:15AM

@ricko said:
Yep,... Looks like different dies....Cheers, RickO

Is that normal?, Is there anything I can read up on that can give me some insight on the mm topic and thank you.

MedalCollector · January 30, 2021 10:44AM

My knowledge on modern US cents is limited, and there could be differences in mm style when different mm punches are used, but the appearance of the mm could also be impacted by the amount of polishing done to the die.The more polishing done, the thinner the mm could be.

The experts here could tell you whether different mm styles were used at this time at SF.

BuffaloIronTail · January 30, 2021 10:47AM

Two different mintmark punches (styles) were used. I never noticed that for 68-S Cents before.

!968 was the first year that mintmarks were returned to coins. The previous 3 years they had been removed due to a severe coin shortage. The Mint figured that removing all mintmarks would stop coin collectors from scooping up examples from the three Mints for collecting.

Very interesting.................

Pete

dagingerbeasttt · January 30, 2021 10:53AM

@GoldenEgg said:
My knowledge on modern US cents is limited, and there could be differences in mm style when different mm punches are used, but the appearance of the mm could also be impacted by the amount of polishing done to the die.The more polishing done, the thinner the mm could be.

The experts here could tell you whether different mm styles were used at this time at SF.

I could understand how polishing would think out the mm but the bottom loop of the S appears to me eyes to be slightly longer. Thank you for your info😊

dagingerbeasttt · January 30, 2021 10:55AM

@BuffaloIronTail said:
Two different mintmark punches (styles) were used. I never noticed that for 68-S Cents before.

!968 was the first year that mintmarks were returned to coins. The previous 3 years they had been removed due to a severe coin shortage. The Mint figured that removing all mintmarks would stop coin collectors from scooping up examples from the three Mints for collecting.

Very interesting.................

Pete

That's some cool history!
I remember the day I put those two in a tube to examine later and when I received my new scope I was finally able to examine it closely. Fingers crossed it's something but either way thanks for your input!!😊

dagingerbeasttt · January 30, 2021 11:39AM

Bump for some more opinions

tincup · January 30, 2021 12:30PM

It's also possible that the first closeup mintmark was punched when the punch was newer and in better shape, with better defined serifs.

The second closeup may have been punched with a more worn out mintmark punch. In this scenario, the mintmark style would actually be the same... just look different due to the amount of wear on the punch.

Also, you are viewing the two closeups at different angles... which can make it more difficult to visualize the differences.

tincup · January 30, 2021 12:36PM

Another factor is the 'depth' of the punch.... if hit harder, and the impression is thus deeper, and the result is likely a thicker mintmark. Also, if mintmark is applied at an angle instead of straight up and down, result can be very different.

Though not totally sure, I am inclined to think the mintmark is the same.... based on the shape of the 'S' curves. But that is just an opinion based on the photos, and my first impression. I would certainly give more study to the coins.

Jimnight · January 30, 2021 1:28PM

Oldhoopster · January 30, 2021 1:33PM

According to Lincoln cent resource, only 1 style of S mm was used between 1952-1974

http://lincolncentresource.com/San_Fransisco_Mintmark_Styles.html

I think @tincup is correct. The difference you see is due to the depth of punch.

dagingerbeasttt · January 30, 2021 1:50PM

@tincup said:
Another factor is the 'depth' of the punch.... if hit harder, and the impression is thus deeper, and the result is likely a thicker mintmark. Also, if mintmark is applied at an angle instead of straight up and down, result can be very different.

Though not totally sure, I am inclined to think the mintmark is the same.... based on the shape of the 'S' curves. But that is just an opinion based on the photos, and my first impression. I would certainly give more study to the coins.

Thank you for the insight!!

BuffaloIronTail · January 30, 2021 4:30PM

Strange as it seems..........those two mintmarks look very different.

Am I the only one to see a difference?

Pete

dagingerbeasttt · January 30, 2021 4:42PM

@BuffaloIronTail

After looking at the two in comparison I am leaning more towards there opinion of depth of the strike. Although it would be nice to be wrong 😊 edit to add: my picture taking skills are getting much better lol

JBK · January 30, 2021 4:58PM

My thought depth of MM strike and maybe die polish.

Jimnight · January 30, 2021 4:59PM

@BuffaloIronTail said:
Strange as it seems..........those two mintmarks look very different.

Am I the only one to see a difference?

Pete

I'm thinking the same thing.

abcde12345 · January 30, 2021 6:15PM

@Jimnight said:

I'm thinking the same thing.

mannie gray · January 30, 2021 11:03PM

Mintmarks had to be individually punched into each die.
The strength or depth of the punch will vary slightly from die to die.
Add to that the factors of strike and die wear and die polishing and you see the variances shown by these two coins.
Only one style S is known for this date.

emeraldATV · February 2, 2021 6:57PM

Could we see the Reverse if possible ?
TKY

1c 1968 -S mint mark variation?

Comments

Leave a Comment

Categories